Print 47 comment(s) - last by thomp237.. on Dec 6 at 10:40 PM

Fisker Karma  (Source: Motor Authority)
Fisker reveals more details on its Karma hybrid sedan

Fisker Automotive is progressing nicely with its Karma hybrid sedan. DailyTech first brought you information on this sleek vehicle in October 2007 and have kept up-to-date with all of the latest information leaks from the company.

Today, Fisker Automotive is ready to provide a few more interesting tidbits on the Karma. First off, the company released a single image today of the production sedan from a rear 3/4 view. The vehicle is just as sexy as it appeared in concept form. According to Motor Authority, only slight changes were made to make the production Karma compliant with federal regulations.

We also now know more details on the powertrain for the Karma hybrid sedan. The Karma will use a turbocharged General Motors Ecotec four-cylinder engine which develops 260 HP. This will be paired with a "Q-Drive" hybrid system which features two electric motors and a lithium-ion battery pack. The Karma will also have enough battery storage onboard to power the vehicle 50 miles on battery power alone. Total power of the Ecotec engine combined with the two electric motors will be an impressive 408 HP.

Pricing for the Fisker Karma is set at $87,900 for the base model. According to Fisker, the first deliveries of the sedan will take place in November of next year.

The sleek styling and the powertrain of the Fisker Karma makes the Chevrolet Volt look rather plain in comparison. However, the Karma's price tag is more than twice the expected price of GM's shining beacon of light.

Updated 11/4/2008
Fisker Motors released a second image of the production Karma, this time from the front 3/4 view (see image on the bottom right).

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Engine Info
By Spuke on 12/2/2008 12:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
The engine being used is the Ecotec LNF from the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline, HHR SS, and Cobalt SS. It's a direct injected, turbocharged 2.0L 4 cylinder.

RE: Engine Info
By Spuke on 12/2/2008 12:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
260hp/260 lb-ft of torque.

RE: Engine Info
By HVAC on 12/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Engine Info
By Spuke on 12/2/2008 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 4
Huh? LS7's with twin turbo's fit in that same engine bay with no heat issues. I happen to own this car and it's more than up to the task of road course racing (except for the stock brake pads). No heat issues here and that engine bay has plenty of room.

RE: Engine Info
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 1:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's a great little engine. Will easily take more boost too. There was even talk of it going into the base Camaro for fuel efficiency reasons. Honestly it might have worked. Only reason it wouldn't have is due to the weight of the new Camaro.

RE: Engine Info
By Spuke on 12/2/2008 1:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. And GM just released a warranty covered (covered under the 5 yr/100k powertrain) upgrade package that takes it up to 290hp/340 lb-ft of torque.

RE: Engine Info
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 1:44:01 PM , Rating: 3
Damn. 80 lb ft. They need to put that engine in more of their cars. It spanks almost anything out there. And for gods sake give it a damn 6-speed.

Hell a Mustang GT doesn't have 340 lb ft of torque. Can you say torque steer?

RE: Engine Info
By BZDTemp on 12/2/2008 2:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
340 lb ft it may be but at what revs. I bet it's only the top around perhaps 6000 rpm or so. Not a bad thing per say however it will mean it's only really available when giving the thing the boot - just like with a VTEC engine :-)

RE: Engine Info
By Spuke on 12/2/2008 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 3
340 lb ft it may be but at what revs. I bet it's only the top around perhaps 6000 rpm or so.
Nope. Redline on that engine is 6300 rpm and the power/torque trails off dramatically at 5800 rpm (out of the turbo's effciency range). The stock motor hits max torque at 1750 rpm and trails off after 5300 rpm. Same with the power upgrade as it uses the stock turbo too. The stock head flow is only mediocre that's why it makes so much torque.

RE: Engine Info
By Siki on 12/2/2008 4:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Turbocharged production cars generally have a lower rpm power band than naturally aspirated cars. They tend to use smaller turbos so as to not introduce large amounts of turbo spool lag. The trade off is that at higher engine rpms the small turbo must spool very fast to maintain pressure, and becomes inefficient at these speeds usually heating the air more than compressing it. So rarely do you get a production turbocharged car with a power band that doesn't drop off prior to redline.

RE: Engine Info
By Jimbo1234 on 12/2/2008 11:08:50 PM , Rating: 3
Two words: B5 S4.

RE: Engine Info
By PlasmaBomb on 12/3/2008 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 5
Neither of those are words...

RE: Engine Info
By Chernobyl68 on 12/4/2008 7:52:06 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Engine Info
By Jimbo1234 on 12/6/2008 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
To gearheads they are. To geeks, apparently not.

RE: Engine Info
By otispunkmeyer on 12/5/2008 5:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
nah, turbo cars can be mapped to give almost max torque over quite a healthy slice of the rev range. look at cars like the VW GTI, think this makes max torque from like 1500rpm all the way past 4000rpm or something.

cant remember if they use variable vane (variable IGV) tech to do that or its just the ECU mapping

RE: Engine Info
By Samus on 12/3/2008 1:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
Bring the Mustang 4-cylinder back. With a Turbo of course. I always thought those high reving four bangers are a lot of fun in a muscle car... they help the weight ratio too!

RE: Engine Info
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 1:48:46 PM , Rating: 3
And honestly at that power level, it would probably do fine in the Camaro. 340 lb ft is more torque than the DI Cadillac V6 has. Don't get me wrong the V6 is a great engine (V6 Camaros are gonna be keeping up with V8 Mustangs). But with fuel economy standards going up, the I4 would be a great way to keep the mpg up on the base model. And with how easy it is to get more power out of them, it wouldn't be a slouch either with a little modding.

I know the idea of an I4 Camaro is blasphemy to even myself but with that kind of power coming out of one, you gotta give it props.

RE: Engine Info
By theapparition on 12/2/2008 3:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
I know the idea of an I4 Camaro is blasphemy to even myself but with that kind of power coming out of one, you gotta give it props.

Welcome to the wonderful world of 1982-1985 3rd Gen Camaros.

RE: Engine Info
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 3:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
I owned 3 of them buddy(85, 87, 89). When I made this account I was driving an 87 IROC-Z. I'm firmly aware of the Iron Duke. It was blasphemy then as its blasphemy now. Just this time around the blasphemy wouldn't be quite so harsh.

They also made turbo I4 Mustangs in the 80s that were actually pretty quick for the times.

RE: Engine Info
By 67STANG on 12/2/2008 4:36:24 PM , Rating: 3
Ahh yes, the old SVO's. Great Mustangs. Hard to find an unmolested copy.

Really, the bottom line is that anything with a turbo can be made to go VERY fast.

I always liked this video of a dodge caravan (with one of the old dodge turbo engines) blowing the doors off of an SS Camaro... ( )

And here's an old K car with the same engine blowing away a Toyota Supra (

Let's be honest, both of these examples with their 2.2 or 2.5 I4 engines would be nothing without a turbo....

When ford releases their EcoBoost I4, which will be even smaller at only 2.0, it will have 275hp and 280 lb.-ft. of torque. Not too shabby. Rumor has it that the 2010 Mustang will be getting an EcoBoost V6, with a minimum of 340hp.

RE: Engine Info
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 5:05:53 PM , Rating: 3
Hahaha! That's ridiculous. Maybe not as crazy as Ferrari vs. Smart Car. But close.

Still, let's get back down to about 1.6L. I had an '85 Accord with an 86HP 1.8L I4 engine. It pushed that 1 ton car around just fine. Imagine what a modern 1.6L engine could put out. Although I think cars end up weighing more these days....

RE: Engine Info
By Spuke on 12/2/2008 5:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the Ecoboosts and GM's upcoming motors will be small displacement. GM's 2.2L replacement will be a 1.4L, direct injected turbo making the same hp but with much better gas mileage. Quite frankly, I'm more excited about these motors than with hybrid or all electric tech. I guess I have a thing with making something that's not supposed to do something, do it. Example: making a small displacement motor put out a ton of power or, in this case, making a gas engine unexpectedly efficient.

RE: Engine Info
By JediJeb on 12/3/2008 10:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
I had a video a few years ago with a Dodge Omni GLH blowing the doors off a Corvette just can seem to find it again. Was great to show it to our resident Bowtie fanatic here at work lol.

RE: Engine Info
By Indianapolis on 12/3/2008 10:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I need to dig up some of my old home videos and put them on YouTube. My brother and I were turbo-Dodge enthusiasts, and I drove an 85 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo that would run low 12's at around 110 mph .

The engine was mostly stock...we just added an intercooler, cranked up the boost, and cut the exhaust open upstream of the catalytic converter. Chrysler built that 2.2L engine tough! I had the old stock turbo maxing out at around 18 psi on a high mileage engine, and it took LOTS of abuse.

I've got some great videos of that boxy little Dodge making some fast cars look ridiculous.

I had a pair of slicks mounted on factory rims, and some weekends I would throw those on and prowl the street for unsuspecting Corvettes, Mustangs, and Camaros.

My brother also had one of those rare 2.5L turbocharged Dodge Caravans (as seen in the above video), and with a little extra boost it was in the 14s. That was a lot of fun on the street too! Needless to say, I'm happy to see turbos making a comeback.

RE: Engine Info
By technohermit on 12/4/2008 10:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
I owned a 1984 Mustang GT Turbo. It was a 2.3 I4 with more horsepower than the V8 at the time. That is before the SVO was out, which they produced until 1986. Also, there was the TurboCoupe Thunderbirds on the same drivetrain. The x7 Cougar as well. I think the SVO's after '84 were intercooled, as were the Thunderbird/Cougar. They made them back then for the same reasons they are going to start producing them again: efficiency, power, and emissions standards. I think Ford is going to put the new I4 turbos in the F-150's, too. That will be fun.
My father took a turbocoupe drivetrain and put it in a 2WD 1988 Ranger. That was a really fun, really fast little pickup.
I wonder why Ford never did that to the Rangers as a stock option?

RE: Engine Info
By Goty on 12/2/2008 10:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, we need to make the distinction that only the turbo 4's were anywhere near quick. =P

My first car was a 1980 Mustang 2.3L I4. Rated at 96 HP, felt like 26. It was pretty ugly, too.

RE: Engine Info
By phxfreddy on 12/2/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 1
Why are camaros like hemmorhoids ?

......because sooner or later every old bunghole gets one.

RE: Engine Info
By theapparition on 12/2/2008 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 1
Then you must have a garage full of them.........

RE: Engine Info
By Clauzii on 12/4/2008 8:14:27 PM , Rating: 1
... steps out of Need For Speed - and realises it's all becoming reality..!

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki