The “world’s first extended-range EV” was launched recently by its American-based company to the applause of techies and green-oriented people of many stripes.
Old news you say? Not so fast. This was not the Chevrolet Volt, but a Fisker Karma delivered July 26 – not to Leonardo DiCaprio as had been reported – but to another VIP.
We will get to the delivery shortly, but first will explain that according to the Irvine, Calif.-based company, a subtle but significant distinction defines the petrol-electric-powered Karma as “extended range” – a description that Chevrolet has contended that it pioneered.
2012 Fisker Karma.
This assertion notwithstanding, these were opening lines to Fisker’s recent press release:
“The Fisker Karma is the world’s first extended range EV – offering responsible luxury, incomparable performance and seating for four. Powered by twin 201 HP electric motors that may be augmented by an on-board engine generator, the Karma is capable of delivering over 300 miles of responsible driving – and a top speed of 125 mph.”
The press release does not say whether “responsible driving” includes a top speed of 125 mph on American roads. The likely answer is probably not, but if you have not noticed, it is very easy to misunderstand or react to things read in cyberspace.
Case in point: Since this looked like an example of one-upmanship being played by a company that sourced its engine from GM, and is working to re-purpose one of its old assembly plants, we put in an inquiry to GM’s two media reps assigned to the Volt. Unfortunately, we were told, “Sorry Jeff. We don’t have a comment to respond to this.”
Next we tried Fisker’s Spokesman, Roger Ormisher, and he answered his cell phone – minutes before he said he was ready to call it a day at his hotel room in Milan, Italy. We had been told to direct inquiries to him, but not that he was in Italy instead of California, thus inadvertently managed to get him at 11:45 p.m. Oops.
Although he said he had worked a long day answering questions at a European media driving event, Ormisher instantly forgave apologies for the inopportune timing, and cheerfully invited a several-minute interview.
It’s not an EREV, it’s an EVer.
We told him GM had refused to comment, so he dove right into that topic to diffuse some of the feelings his company’s press release might have stirred up.
“We don’t see it as competitive, we see it as us, GM, others,” Ormisher said. “We don’t see us as direct competitors, we see us as people involved in the future.”
GM has one solution, Fisker has another, Tesla has another, and so on, he said. Development of electric cars of various sorts is collaborative; the effort is toward a common goal – but Ormisher was otherwise clear that there is a difference between Fisker’s solution and GM’s.
Ormisher said the Karma is truer to the “extended range” concept in that petrol power never mechanically contributes to the wheels turning in the way that the Volt can at times.
“Our understanding is that’s different from the way the Chevrolet Volt is configured,” he said, and there is “no direct connection with the driving wheels.”
Undisputed
Given that Chevrolet is not touching this one, we don’t know if there is a debate, but we can report that without controversy Fisker is now fully open for business and working on delivering cars as fast as it can.
This effort began two days ago when Ray Lane became the first person to get one. In addition to being the company’s chairman of the board, and despite being not as famous as Leonardo DiCaprio, Lane is quite accomplished in his own right.
Plush, snappy and functional interior.
Fisker says Lane is a managing partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers in Menlo Park, Calif., also serves as chairman of Carnegie Mellon University and Hewlett-Packard Corporation and as vice chairman of Special Olympics International.
“To be one of the first to have a Fisker Karma in the world is a uniquely satisfying honor for me. Our country, and our business environment – especially here in the Silicon Valley – has been inspired by those who dream and then commit themselves to making their passion real. Henrik Fisker and his devoted team have done just that – combining my passion for driving and the environment,” Lane said. “This is so much more than just another car. The Fisker Karma represents a new era for the automotive industry and I am proud to be driving the dream of all those who have worked so hard to bring this uniquely green and elegant vehicle to market,” Lane concluded.
Good Karma
The Fisker Karma’s 260-horsepower, 2.0-liter, turbocharged, GM-sourced engine feeds power to the two electric traction motors when the approximately 50 miles of all-electric range runs out.
Given a 9.5-gallon fuel tank, Fisker says the Karma should be able to cover about 300 miles in all. Ormisher believes the engine was intended for a Pontiac that was never built, and otherwise spec’d for the Karma.
When in Sport mode which the driver must select, Fisker says the Karma’s engine provides maximum electric power to hit a limited speed of 125 mph, and 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds. In the default all-electric Stealth mode, performance is tuned for range and efficiency, these being 0-60 mph in 6.9 seconds and top speed limited to 95 mph.
Ormisher said the company has 45 dealers in the U.S. so far, and did not speak of restrictions in any American regional markets, as Nissan and Chevrolet made by limiting initial roll out of their LEAF and Volt to several states.
Solar roof.
More limiting may be that the California designed and engineered, Finnish-made Karma is still rare, although Ormisher said it will be produced at about 300 units per week.
If interested in test driving one, you may have a better chance in the near term – better than the media, in fact.
Ormisher said Fisker is reversing the usual order of preference and giving dealers first dibs at test drives, then customers, then media.
We at GM-Volt may be able to sample one by October in Pennsylvania, he said, but you might be able to sooner.
Ormisher said Fisker will be doing a “retail road show” with two cars offering demo drives in 45 cities over a period of 104 days.
So far 2,800 test rides are booked for the two cars. Do you think the Karmas will be hammered after a few thousand people hop in and punch-it?
Such is the cost of doing business – one which Ormisher said he feels very good about being a part of. Fisker was founded in 2007, and Ormisher said it is very much an American company and over the past 18 months it has created 550 American jobs.
Fisker also intends to start production of its “project NINA” which for you to read more about, we will break policy and link to Wikipedia because Fisker itself links to it. In short, plans in The First State are to begin production by 2012 of a sub-$40,000 family friendly plug-in hybrid, and by 2014 Fisker expects to be producing 75,000-100,000 vehicles per year.
Well-proportioned from just about every angle.
Ormisher said also the company wants to succeed globally, which explains what he was doing in Italy besides being commendably polite in answering questions so late.
“We believe in the brand,” Ormisher said with enthusiasm. “I think what we are trying to do is redefine luxury so people can define luxury without guilt.”
The Karma starts at just under $100,000. A very thorough media site has all specs, photos, videos and more.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 28th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+4
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:30 am)Has anyone seen a window sticker for a Karma? I know Fisker claims a 50 mile all-electric range, but I wonder how will Fisker did in the EPA test. Would love to compare it to the Volt…..
Also, I like the idea of a real Sport mode that uses engine and battery power for performance. I hope GM has plans for a Volt SS edition!
+8
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:50 am)If Fisker wants to create a unique label, they should call the Karma a “LEV” (Luxury Electric Vehicle) before BMW, Porsche, Daimler, Jaguar, and Rolls-Royce bring out their luxury EVs. I find the Karma an excellent example of the “top of the line” version of an American vehicle, and the more America produces superb EVs , the better for all of us. Most of us will never own one, maybe see one in an auto show, but I am very happy that the Karma is on the roads, and at the same time worried that GM has not produced their Cadillac version to become another LEV flagship. Maybe Ford will consider revamping the Lincoln MKZ and make it another LEV instead.
Raymond
P.S. How about a “LEVER” (Luxury Electric Vehicle with Extended Range)?
+3
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:58 am)It’s not an EREV, it’s an EVer.
With a 0 to 60 time of 5.9 seconds, maybe EVep (extended performance) would be more accurate. I would love to see what that 260 HP engine would do for the Volt, with it’s extra clutch allowing the engine to contribute to driving the wheels.
+2
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:59 am)0 to 60 Summary – Tesla Model S wins without using fuel.
Volt 8.53 seconds
Leaf 7.0 unofficial
Karma (EV ONLY) 6.9
Karma (ICE ON) 5.9
Tesla Model S 5.6
For an extended range EV, Fisker has done a spectacular job. If it performs as good as it looks, they have a winner. It would be excellent for extended range public awareness if this vehicle were to win most of the “Car of the Year” awards as the Chevrolet Volt did last year.
(Tesla Roadster at 3.7 seconds not included in summary because of two seat design.)
+8
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:26 am)Mark Z,
Not sure where you’re getting your 7.0 second 0-60 mph LEAF number, but the real number is between 9.5 and 10 seconds by almost all tests. Motor Trend has the LEAF at 9.7 seconds, and the Volt at 9.0 seconds.
+5
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:25 am)For that much $, I would buy a Converj before a Fisker Karma.
But the more the merrier. I still have my doubts though, and will believe it when I see it.
It would be interesting to read about all of the trials & tribulations of the Fisker Karma, and see how close they paralleled those of the Volt Gen 1.
+12
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:44 am)I’m not sure I’d be bragging at not having my motor ever directly connected to the wheels. GM engineers determined that they got 10% more efficiency for the times the motor connects to the wheels. You can keep the purity of the EREV title if I can get my efficiency up 10%. When the range extender is on I don’t care what it connects to as long as it is burning less terrorist oil.
On the other hand, I want all my EV range without a range extender ever turning on (I’m looking in your direction plug in pirus) at any speed and at any acceleration.
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:52 am)I like the sexy look of the Karma, sure beats the Volt for appearance. I spent a bit of time on their web site and found this: http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/#!/karma/drivetrain/battery which shows a nice picture of the engine, battery, motors. Takes up more space than the Volt, doesn’t look like much trunk space left. I am sure this will be successful in the luxury car market, but I don’t believe it is technically up to the Volt (or Tesla Model S) standards.
+6
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:57 am)Love the look of that car. At that price it is likely all I will ever do. Look.
Congrats to Fisker on getting these things out the door. Starting an auto company from scratch is no easy thing. Best of luck to them. Let me know when they have something I can buy.
+7
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:58 am)I also think it is a little silly to make a big issue of EREV vs EVer. The Volt has rare occasion where the ICE assists in driving the wheels, and this is only done when it is more efficient to do so. This extra expense by GM makes it superior to the Karma’s “pure” EREV design. The difference is slight and hardly worth mentioning.
+4
Jul 28th, 2011 (9:29 am)The ICE in the Volt can, if necessary, connect to assist the electric motors under a high-torque situation such as uphill passing of another vehicle. I would say that if the Volt could pack a pair of 201HP electric motors like the Karma, then the need for that kind of ICE engagement would be eliminated.
So, the Chevy Volt is an EREV that can deliver 370-plus ‘responsible driving miles’ with a top speed of 100 MPH for much less than half the price of a Fisker Karma.
A good thing, since most of us don’t have a bankroll like Leo DiCaprio.
[I wish I did though...]
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (9:35 am)“The Fisker Karma’s 260-horsepower, 2.0-liter, turbocharged, GM-sourced engine feed power to the two electric traction motors when the approximately 50 miles of all-electric range runs out.” Quote from Fiskar via GM-Volt
“The Volt is powered by a Voltec propulsion system, which combines pure electric drive (25 – 50 miles) with an efficient, range-extending engine, giving the Volt up to 350 total miles of range.” Quote from Auto Evolution
How can they claim to be the first. The above quotes are the generic definition of an exteneded range auto.
Pat
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (9:42 am)Fisker looks good. Maybe their new model will be more generally sale-able. Good luck to them.
For AGW eco-freaks, see link:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
EVER was used on this site when folks were dreaming up their own Volt commercials and probably at other times. Personally, maybe it is a good commercial way to eliminate the 40 mile limit misconception?
+2
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:07 am)Note that is for GM’s setup. That may not be the case for the Fisker. If only they were as transparant as GM during the design process.
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:07 am)really nice information there in your post. Thanks for posting. I will be back again to read your updates. Thanks again.
+10
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:38 am)Mark, the Leaf 0-60 is 9.5 to 10.0 seconds, not 7.0, as Jim correctly states. Neither the Volt or the Leaf are speed demons, but the Volt appears to be 1.0 to 1.5 seconds faster in the 0-60 tests by independent testers.
It will be very interesting if Tesla and Fisker really can deliver on the reduced price models they are talking about, at the prices that they are advertizing. That would be phenomenal to see American companies building world class BEV’s and EREV’s at prices that allow for an even more rapid growth in sales!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_nissan_leaf_sl-short_take_road_test
-4
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:41 am)Hey, nice to have another EV. I’ll give’m 5 years before they’re either out of biz or purch’d by a Chindian company or someone with an even bigger ego.
+3
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:43 am)Talk about using sex to sell cars:
http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/files/fisker_brochure.pdf
+5
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:46 am)Nice! And only costs about 2 1/2 volts.
Rating electric motors in HP makes me laugh… that much torque off the line is gonna be interesting. Must come with a whiplash warning — you are going to find out if baby’s car seat is strapped in properly.
The fake sparklies on the interior shot are a little overboard.
I wish GM built a sports car version of the Volt.
Go Karma! my new “if money was no problem…” purchase.
+4
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:54 am)Hear that GM?
=D-Volt
+6
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:13 am)Help out a novice here. After 50 mi +/-, the 260 hp turbo charged generator starts recharging the batts. Why does it use such a high performance engine to do that mundane task?
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:18 am)Interesting, but it’s still tageted at people that can afford to drive almost anything they want. It’s help with the mainstream public, political, and environmental issues is minimal. No rational person really needs that level of performance either.
+3
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:22 am)A Volt SS could come close to the Karma in the performance dept. All GM needs to do is drop in the Cruze turbocharged motor, uprate the main traction motor and change the software.
+6
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:31 am)FYI, if you think this car looks high performance, Fisker wants to mate a multi-speed gearbox to its high torque powertrain for “Veyron” levels of performance of sub-3 second 0-60 mph times.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/07/fisker-karma-could-offer-veyron-pace.html
Brammo has already mated a type of six-speed to its pending electric motorcycles.
No time frame was offered when Fisker will do this.
+7
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:34 am)One test, I think MT, had the Leaf being faster than the Volt by .1 seconds up to 30 MPH. After that it’s not a contest, the Volt is faster. Having both cars I don’t see the Leaf even being faster to 30 MPH, even by so small an amount you probably couldn’t experience it. The Volt feels significantly faster at all speeds.
Mass has a lot to do with fast accelerations, and the Volt is pretty porky. The extra mass comes with some advantages but really fast starts aren’t one of them.
Having said that, the Volt is very fast right off the line for normal driving purposes. Last week I was coming up to a stop light with two turn lanes. I was going to turn left and then right at the next intersection so I stayed in the right lane. Just when coming up behind an SUV stopped in the right lane a car in the thru lane decided it needed to also make the turn and cut right in front of me, forcing me to the left turn lane. So there I am, in the far left lane not the right, and needing to get to the right lane before the next turn. I was first in line which was good. I put it in Sport Mode and, when the light turned, moved out quickly in order to be able to go to the right lane for my right turn. I was thinking I might be able to get ahead of the SUV by a car length or so. Not even close. I made the turn and was 30 yards down the straight before the first SUV in the right lane even finished the turn. It was painless. Very impressive.
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:41 am)#17
Yup. +1
+4
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:42 am)George, I don’t think it’s the engine, I think it’s the battery. The motor can run at several times its rated HP for short periods. I don’t know for a fact but I suspect the Volt motor could provide 450 HP for half a minute and certainly for five seconds. However, the battery isn’t capable of delivering the necessary power, at least not if it will last the 8 years 100,000 miles it’s warrantied for. LOL
The easier way to get there would be to drop mass. Easier said than done of course, but given that F=ma, if you halve the mass you double acceleration with the same force. Lots of room for improvements in performance going forward.
+6
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:44 am)I wouldn’t trade my Volt for a Fisker straight up.
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:45 am)I suspect GM will have something special for the Gen II Volt in this regard. Lots of possibilities. I’d be interested in hearing if GM thinks magnetic gearing would be suitable.
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:59 am)That’s an interesting comment. There are a lot of guys making expensive great looking EVs — Tesla and Fisker come to mind. I just wonder if this is overemphasizing the appeal of design. Yes in ICE cars design is huge, but if the primary appeal of EVs is a quiet and smooth operation and never needing to stop at a gas station, then exterior design may not be so critical. Important yes but not so critical.
Just a thought.
Jul 28th, 2011 (12:10 pm)DonC,
yes DonC 450 HP would require a 32C rate of discharge. Probably not doable on the current batts but not out of the question for a high C battery.
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (12:30 pm)Don’t forget the motor controller. I don’t know if the batteries could support the power draw, but even if they can, it doesn’t mean the motor controller could. High voltage electronics are not cheap. I’m sure GM over-engineered the motor controller, but I doubt they could get that big of a boost without upgrading the hardware too…
+5
Jul 28th, 2011 (12:32 pm)#30
Well my thinking is a little more basic. I don’t trust the long term viability of Tesla or Fisker, and I’m sure not interested in getting stuck with such a complex orphan. Never mind the issue of replacing a Tesla battery pack if Tesla has disappeared. I would 1000 times rather have a company with the staying power (I hope) of GM standing behind such a high risk science project.
Jul 28th, 2011 (12:34 pm)Hey, but they don’t have this!
+2
Jul 28th, 2011 (12:47 pm)What’s the warranty? The brochure just says this:
“Battery Lifecycle
Battery maintenance is
minimal with a 10 year
or 100,000 mile lifecycle.”
I think the dash isn’t “techie” enough for me. I want more information/touchscreen/etc.
+3
Jul 28th, 2011 (1:08 pm)As a Volt owner I would like to wish Fisker success on this venture.
+4
Jul 28th, 2011 (1:20 pm)Diamonds?
High end EV’s and EVER’s driven by celebrities will have a trickle down effect in terms of public awareness and acceptance. This should boost the Volt.
Will Edmunds be panning this car due to its lengthy “payback” time? Will Consumer Reports buy one for $10,000 over MSRP and then bash the car on that basis?
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (1:21 pm)Volt EVer
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (1:22 pm)OT Another battery breakthrough, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/07/ji-20110728.html
This is pure research, and for anode only, but another step towards superior batteries in the future.
Jul 28th, 2011 (1:36 pm)OT: interesting issue of Design News this month. One article is “Boom Time for Lithium Batteries”. As li-ion batteries get used in more applications the cost will continue to decrease. They also have a piece on “Was the electric car poll biased? 57% of Americans said they wouldn’t consider buying and EV, no matter the price of gas.”
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ubm/designnews_201107/#/48
and
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ubm/designnews_201107/#/18
(oh, and there’s and article something about the Prius V too)
-7
Jul 28th, 2011 (2:33 pm)Seeing that EVER emblem on the Fisker Karma further confirms that EREV is becoming a brand identifier for GM’s plug-in hybrid technology… because it certainly doesn’t fit the “no direct-drive ever” definition anymore. Ironically, the new EVER doesn’t ever.
Jul 28th, 2011 (2:49 pm)This is the part I think most people miss when they look at what GM did. GM created an efficient design. People on this forum have complained about the 82 HP ICE GM uses. The Karma uses an ICE with 3+ times the HP. I can’t imagine the Karma getting 37 mpg in charge sustaining mode. I guess this proves you just can’t throw a Honda generator in the trunk of an EV.
+2
Jul 28th, 2011 (3:32 pm)Looks like Fisker is trying to capitalize on people’s misunderstanding of the whole Volt ICE connection to the wheels thing, by making it sound somehow inferior to the Karma.
Translation:
“The Karma works differently from the Volt in that our design is less efficient, we didn’t bother with that efficiency stuff that GM did in with the Volt. Sure, ours only gets 24MPG in CS mode, but we’re “true” extended range! Always!”
Perhaps they should have announced the Karma as “The Fisker Karma is the world’s first INEFFICIENT extended range EV”, because that’s what they’re saying basically.
+2
Jul 28th, 2011 (4:42 pm)I think “Voltec” is the term GM mainly uses to identify their specific technology, as there will most likely be several competing EREV’s following GM’s footsteps.
-8
Jul 28th, 2011 (4:56 pm)The point was, we don’t know what the definition of EREV is anymore.
Please provide the criteria that would qualify an automakers design as EREV.
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (5:19 pm)What else can you say except “Very beautiful car”. The Karma is what most of us hoped the Volt would look more like. I just can not afford that type of luxury.
Good luck to them. I hope they sell all they can make. I look forward to the family sedan coming in a year or so. Should make things quite interesting.
Jul 28th, 2011 (5:26 pm)I did a 0 to 60 Google search and those are the numbers that appeared. Thank you for the correct numbers and for the timely response so the false Google results were corrected.
Jul 28th, 2011 (5:51 pm)After reading all the comments here, then the Fisker Karma site at http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/#!/karma , I clicked “FIND A RETAILER” (at the upper right of any page at the Fisker site). Within 2 minutes a very knowledgeable salesman at Orlando’s dealership scheduled me for a test drive this August 30 and took my email address to confirm the time. I’d suggest anyone here consider a test drive as well —you can’t get THIS RIDE at any Orlando attraction— and it’s absolutely FREE!
/I’ll post any comments from my Karma test drive here at gm-volt.com on 8/30 or /31
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:12 pm)Anyone else find it interesting that Fisker uses a gas tank nearly identical in size to the Volt’s 9.5 gal tank? Perhaps the tank pressurization/depressurization & related features were requirements they just didn’t want to have to “redesign the wheel” for.
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:13 pm)eh …. Good see more electric cars made in the US.. but this one will remain out of reach and insignificant to me but someone with tons of money may invest in one.. the electric drive is the main attraction here….
GM should come out with a electric version of the Vette… now that would be interesting… to see a V8 generator and a couple 250hp motors driving the rear wheels… like to see how fast that car would go around the 5 mile oval at Milford.
Jul 28th, 2011 (6:55 pm)The one you might be thinking of is the Tesla S that goes 5.6 seconds to 60 MPH but if you want a Tesla that matches up to the competition like the Lamborghini, Farari, that would be the Tesla Roadster at 60 MPH in just 3.7 seconds though like the Fisker Karma it’s top speed is only 125 MPH not 200 MPH if your wondering but if you like sports cars than this might be your dream come true but in my own opinion it’s way to expensive at a staggering price tag of $109,000 but yeah the Model S is cheaper in the mid $50,000 but still way too expensive in my own opinion just to say and here is my proof that the Roadster can reach in 60 much faster than the Model S but still the Model S get’s 55 miles more range than the roadster does. So it depends who you are if you like speed over range or range over speed it’s your choice? http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster http://www.teslamotors.com/models So you see the Roadster does go faster than the Model S but if I had to choose one I would go over the Model S for 300 miles but like I said earlier for the Roadster it’s way to expensive for me to afford just not for the average costumer who agrees with me? Also I am not trying to advertise I am only comparing these cars to the Fisker Karma like I just said earlier that is all done.
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:13 pm)Again, that only in CS mode and it’s not necessary, just more efficient. The motor can handle the high torque situations by itself just fine.
I’m sure the Karma would have benefited from a mechanical ICE connection as well, especially since its ICE is even larger and more inefficient than the Volt’s. But I guess that if you can afford a Karma, the price of gas is a non-issue.
I used to like the Karma – that is until I found out about its crappy fuel economy in CS mode. At 24MPG for $100K why not just buy a Porsche? Im sure those are getting better and better economy nowadays, and it’s not like the Karma was meant to be a commuter car that is used mostly in CD mode like the Volt.
Heck for $100K, it should have had even higher MPG than the Volt. They could have used a much more efficient (and more expensive) generator that the Volt couldn’t afford. But instead, they chose style (and massive profits) over substance.
+2
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:17 pm)I swear the Fisker Karma looks like a fancy BMW who agrees?
+3
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:29 pm)Sorry, but that has got to be the longest run-on sentence I have ever seen! No offense!
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:41 pm)What’s your reference/source for 24mpg??? It’s nowhere in Jeff’s article or in the Fisker website!!!
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:55 pm)Amen brother!!
Jul 28th, 2011 (7:57 pm)Yeah! Baby! And its name shall be Stingray !!!!
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:00 pm)We all need “come backs” when we get attacked about “Government Motors”.
I just tell them when I was a kid I had a 55 Chevy, 67 Vette, Big blocks , small blocks and that is the foundation of our country……so please get away from me.
Sorry Lobok. I left out the 426 hemi…
What a nice motor that was!!!!
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:37 pm)The Stingray body style was the best of the oldies.
Jul 28th, 2011 (8:41 pm)and, as an after thought,
I would say that being anti Chevrolet is being un American
+1
Jul 28th, 2011 (9:35 pm)DonC,
That would be great if they did. I’ll ask your question when I have a chance to interview the Volt’s global chief engineer.
-6
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:40 pm)No one wants to respond to that, just negative vote.
Looks like this stands true then… The Fisker Karma is the world’s first extended range EV
Jul 28th, 2011 (10:50 pm)EREV (for the 100th time) = can run at any speed/acceleration for X miles purely on electricity. After that, extended range power is provided by an ICE. X miles can be a lot of different things, but I think the Volt’s range that covers 78% of drivers is a good one.
-6
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:17 pm)Remember the 10000000 times I was told the definition was that the engine *NEVER* directly provides any power to the wheels? Fisker does.
That new definition doesn’t make any sense anyway, since all a full hybrid needs to deliver that is a more powerful motor & battery. The “X miles” part is arbitrary as well.
Jul 28th, 2011 (11:32 pm)Fisker does what? And i dont know what this has to do w/a range extended EV. It’s and EV first and foremost. When you AER is gone, I dont care if you hook a horse up to it, or a Hemi, that is your “extended range”.. you know, the thing that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling knowing you wont be stranded.
Jul 29th, 2011 (1:20 am)i’m not sure whether you are explaining the volt operation correctly here. there are 3 motors in the volt: the traction motor, generator motor and ICE. in charge depletion mode the wheels are driven by the traction motor only until you get to around 70 mph when the generator motor also couples into the drive train; then the wheels are driven by both the traction motor and generator motor. this is done to increase efficiency.
when you get into charge sustaining mode, a different dynamic comes into play. in charge sustaining mode, the ICE cannot drive the generator to generate enough electricity to maintain electric-only drive performance (the traction motor is a 111 kwh motor but the generator can only generate about 55kwh). so in charge sustaining mode, the ICE engages in the drive train to help maintain performance (in fact, the 0-60 performance in charge sustaining mode is slightly better than it is in charge depletion mode).
it should be noted the ICE never engages in the drive train when the volt is operated at speeds under 20 mph. this is one trick (and a known one at that in hybrid circles) that gm used to improve fuel economy.
as i understand the fisker karma, they made a different set of design choices than did gm. with the karma, fisker used a supercharged ICE that can generate enough power so that the electric motors can maintain performance in charge depletion mode (or whatever fisker calls it) without any assistance from the ICE. so, the kind of stuff that you would trade off would be (in fisker’s case) a bigger, heavier and louder-running motor. i would imagine that fuel economy would also suffer in the karma relative to the volt (because you are driving the supercharged ICE harder to generate more electricity). of course, all of this is just speculation on my part.
so fisker made a design choice that they wanted to design a vehicle with a supercharged ICE that would generate enough electricity so that the karma could be driving by electric motors 100% of the time. whether the tradeoffs that fisker made are better than those made by gm is probably and eye-of-the-beholder kind of thing but for my own part, i am very impressed with the engineering in the volt.
Jul 29th, 2011 (1:27 am)Hammer meet nail. You forgot to mention “responsible” extended range.. lol.
New definition of EREV: that set up that John1701a will never admit will use less petroleum than Hybrid Synergy Drive. Until it’s irrefutable, and then he will just disappear.
Jul 29th, 2011 (2:10 am)from the information provided in the above article, the karma can run about 250 miles in extended range with a 9.5 gallon tank. in my figures that comes out to a little over 26 mpg – about 10 mpg less than the about 36 mpg that the chevrolet volt gets in charge sustaining mode. given that the karma is about 1000 pounds heavier than is the volt (in other words, the karma is over 25% heavier than the volt) i wouldn’t attribute the lower fuel economy to the causes that you seem to attribute. well, at least i wouldn’t describe it the same way that you have. fisker made design choices with the karma; chevrolet made design choices with the volt; as a result of the respective choices, fisker ended up with a heavier car; so for that reason alone, it’s no surprise that the volt gets better mpg.
-6
Jul 29th, 2011 (6:59 am)The goals are still the same, regardless of terminology. The technology must be affordable to the masses, delivering both reduced emissions & consumption.
The CAFE announcements coming today emphasize that point.
Bragging rights won’t bring down fleet averages. Only high-volume sales can achieve that.
+1
Jul 29th, 2011 (9:06 am)I like it that their car is an EVER and not an EREV (see first picture). This shows that their focus is on EV first, not the gas-burning ER. Take note GM!
Jul 29th, 2011 (10:04 am)Engaged or not, the car can’t maintain performance with the ICE except by drawing down the battery. It’s still only 80hp (60 kW). Any performance gains occur because MG2 is still supplying power to the wheels from the battery. It’s slightly more efficient about it (putting as much as 60 kW into the system rather than 55 kW) but it’s still a losing battle under extreme use.
Regarding fuel efficiency of the Fisker (from http://www.automobilemag.com/green/reviews/1102_2012_fisker_karma/interior.html):
“Fisker says the Karma’s 9.5-gallon fuel tank is good for another 250 miles of cruising. That estimate calculates to about 26 mpg”
Ugh. Puts the 37mpg Volt into perspective, doesn’t it?
Jul 29th, 2011 (2:23 pm)It’s the Japanese automakers who should pay particular attention to this; they seem persistently driven to work their EVs over with the ugly stick just because they are electric: Fiskar (and to some extent GM) show just how mistaken this philosophy is.
I say, reward the behavior you want. Make the EVs dreams on wheels, and the ICE-only cars plain.
It is the aspiriation for EVs which will guide future sales, much more than pure costing.
Jul 29th, 2011 (4:37 pm)I dont think Fisker had the engineering ability either, to develop what the Volt is.
Jul 29th, 2011 (4:45 pm)Both acronyms could with “Electricity”.. just depends where you want to put them.
Electric-range-extended-vehicle
Electric-vehicle-with-extended-range
Toh-may-toh
Toh-mah-toh
(Here’s the Dictionary.com definition of EREV)
er·ev
[er-ev; Eng. er-uhv] Show IPA
–noun Hebrew .
the day before a Jewish holiday or the Jewish Sabbath: Erev Yom Kippur.
Jul 29th, 2011 (6:04 pm)There was an article recently which mentioned it, unfortunately I can’t no longer find it. Even so, one can deduce the CS mpg from the other data provided (300 mile range, 50 AER, 9.5 gallon gas tank), implies that it has a 250 mile range for 9.5 gallons or 26 mpg, which is pretty close to the 24mpg figure from that article (though I don’t know where they got their number from).
Jul 29th, 2011 (6:57 pm)Well, that’s too bad, you should. You seem to attribute the lower mpg to the extra weight – common misconception that increased weight contributes to fuel consumption by an equal factor. I’ve been hearing this same argument made repeatedly about the Volt which is also a lot heavier than other cars in its class. Not sure where this misconception comes from. Perhaps its confused with another metric, the 0-60 time (acceleration). There it’s true that an increase in mass affects the 0-60 time by the same factor (i.e. a car just as powerful but twice as heavy as another that does 0-60 in 5s, will do it in 10s) – direct application of F = ma. Probably also because in cars without regen braking capability the extra weight does make a sizeable difference in stop-and-go traffic (but not really while cruising).
But how mass affects fuel economy is directly related to the rolling resistance coefficient, which for most cars it’s about 1% so weight has much, much less of an effect on mileage than a lot of people seem to think. So a car 25% heavier than the Volt is expected to have just 0.25% lower fuel economy all else being equal. That what, around 0.1 mpg less? Hardly noticeable in real word scenarios. The type of tires they use will probably make a bigger difference than the weight. On the other hand, what does have a significant effect on mileage is the drag coefficient, mostly at high speeds (which by the looks of it, the Karma’s is probably much worse than the Volt’s) and the efficiency of the engine itself, which at 260HP it’s a far cry from the Volt’s 80HP engine, and to top that off they don’t make an effort to extract as much energy out of that engine as possible. So yes, these reasons are precisely the cause of the much smaller mpg, even though it coincidently looks like the weight alone is responsible for the difference.
Jul 29th, 2011 (10:38 pm)there is a number of problems with your remarks: 1)there are factual errors in your comments; and 2)you make implications about the limitations of fisker design choices where i doubt that you have factual basis to know whether the statements are indeed true.
as to your factual errors, rolling resistance is a function of: a)the coefficient of rolling resistance; and b)the weight placed on the wheels. so if weight increases 25%, rolling resistance also increases 25%. thus, all things being equal, a car that weights 25% more will consume 25% more fuel. of course, all things are not equal and actual mpg is driven by a number of factors, but weight is one of them. you are correct in noting that they type of tires is on such factor as tire selection has an indirect effect on the rolling resistance coefficient (which in turn affects rolling resistance), but weight has a more direct effect on rolling resistance.
for your information, the engineers at chevrolet made a number of design choices on the basis of weight considerations: for example, they did not include a sunroof and did not include a motor drive system for front seat adjustment. by contrast, fisker apparently put more emphasis on luxury (and ensuring that they could maintain performance without ever engaging the ICE in the drive train) even at the cost of added weight.
as to your insinuations about fisker engineering, the mentality of some here (and maybe you as well) is that chevrolet did great engineering on the volt and fisker did none on the karma. i don’t get that sense. you suggest that the karma has a drag coefficient that is “much worse than the volt”. from what i have seen, this is not true, the fisker karma is a very aerodynamically designed vehicle (i believe the karma coefficient is around 0.31 as compared to the volt which i believe is around 0.28). furthermore, you can’t just look at an 80hp engine in the volt in comparison to a 260hp engine in the karma and definitely declare that the efficiency of the latter is “a far cry” from the volt engine without detailed knowledge of the respective engines. maybe you have that knowledge, and didn’t mention that because this would not be an appropriate for such detailed discussion. similarly, you have given no basis to support your assertion that fisker “they don’t make an effort to extract as much energy out of that engine as possible”. again, you would need more detailed knowledge than you have evidenced.
Jul 30th, 2011 (1:01 pm)So far, agreed…
…unfortunately your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises. I though you said it’s a function of the rolling resistance coefficient. Where is the coefficient in this function? It should be 25% more weight TIMES the coefficient. That is, unless you’re implying the coefficient is 1 which would make for a very bad rolling resistance. Even a car with flat tires could have better rolling resistance than that!
Or your statement could also be made true by qualifying it with “while accelerating” and ignoring regen braking (which I’m sure the Karma does as well). But obviously mpg isn’t calculated on acceleration only, but on entire trips which are mostly constant speed. Another way of interpreting your conclusion is that cars use as much fuel to accelerate as to maintain a constant speed, which sounds kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Do you see your error now?
You are absolutely correct that my statements aren’t based on hard facts, but it also has nothing to do with a Volt fan mentality as you seem to suggest. It’s just speculation on my part as to what might have caused the low mpg the Karma has. I’m not necessarily saying that the Karma’s engine is significantly less efficient than the Volt’s (but it’s suspect because of the much higher power) nor am I saying that the Karma’s drag coefficient is necessarily the problem. If it’s 0.31 as you say it is, that’s great, it’s just a little hard to believe with that shape. The Volt also used to have a more sporty look in the prototype which got changed drastically in the name of increasing CD, but I haven’t seen any change in the Karma at all since its prototype, suggesting they’re not really that concerned with it.
All I’m saying is that it must be one of these things (or a combination of them) contributing to the low mpg because, as I’ve demonstrated above the weight alone cannot be the main cause. As I’ve been arguing all along about the Volt which a lot of folks kept insisting that its 37mpg in CS mode is due to “lugging that heavy battery around” which is also mostly not true. There’s a lot of reasons the Volt can’t do 50mpg like the Prius, but the extra weight is hardly the factor.
As for my negative slant against the Karma, like I said before I used to like it, though it was and still is way out of my price range. But when I found out about its low efficiency, it occurred to me that this was mainly a car targeted at rich Hollywood stars (Leo DiCaprio anyone?) which would drive it to show how “green” they are without actually being all that green. That’s what irks me.
Jul 30th, 2011 (2:33 pm)i’ll try this one more time, and then i give up…
rolling resistance (RR) is a PRODUCT of the coefficient of rolling resistance (CRR) and the weight placed on the wheels (W):
RR=CRR*W
strictly speaking, CRR is also a function of the weight placed on the wheels but for this discussion i will ignore that dependence.
so, let’s put some numbers into the equation to give you a better insight into how it all works. let’s take a car (C1) weighing 1,000 lbs (W) and a coefficient of rolling resistance (CRR) of 0.001. in that case the rolling resistance of car C1 (C1_RR) is 1 lb:
C1_RR=0.001*1000=1
now let’s take a car (C2) weighing 50% more (1,500 lbs) with the same CRR. let’s see what the rolling resistance is for car C2 (C2_RR):
C2_RR=0.001*1500=1.5
so car C2 weights 50% more than car C1 and correspondingly car C2 has a rolling resistance (C2_RR=1.5) which is 50% greater than car C1 (C1_RR=1).
so, all other things being equal, the engine in car C2 will have to work 50% harder than the engine in car C1. so, as a consequence, given all other things being equal, car C2 will consume 50% more fuel than car C1.
+2
Jul 31st, 2011 (2:08 pm)We know what you’re doing. As far as I’m concerned, it’s only boring and so last year. Get over it.
Jul 31st, 2011 (2:58 pm)It’s not as simple as you make it seem, not all the energy coming out of the engine goes to power the wheels, a lot of it is simply wasted through idling, internal resistances, air drag or spent elsewhere to power other parts of the car, and none of these things are dependent on the mass of the car. Admittedly I also made an error when I said this in a previous post:
I equated the proportion of fuel used to power the wheels to the rolling resistance coefficient which it has nothing to do with it (that number did seem low even as I calculated it). That only applies when comparing acceleration with constant speed. In reality there’s lots of other variables which determine what proportion of fuel will be used to balance the rolling resistance. It’s not quite 1% as I made it out to be but it’s nowhere near the 100% you’re implying. To put it another way, if your example was true (only in an ideal universe in vacuum without air drag and without other internal resistances, in a car that uses 100% of the power available to power the wheels) then the CS MPG of the Volt would be perhaps around 200 and the Karma’s 160, and with those numbers we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
The point is that a 24-26 CS mpg average is low for an EREV in absolute terms, the relative 25% doesn’t really matter much at very high mpgs. The extra weight alone would have maybe taken it to the low 30s at least but with that much lower mpg it’s apparent a lot of the energy is spent/wasted elsewhere. But I suppose I shouldn’t be so surprised of this result, after all the Karma is designed to be primarily a sports car – it’s not for the fuel conscious. They never intended for it to be significantly more efficient than other cars in its class. It’s just my expectations that were unrealistic for this car, and then I experienced what MadTV would call “Lowered Expectations”
+1
Jul 31st, 2011 (3:23 pm)Oh for crying out out, they’re both EREV! What’s so complicated about the definition of EREV? FIRST drive 100% electric, THEN use gas to keep driving. What Fisker should have said is that the Karma is the world’s first pure SERIES EREV, something that the Volt is not as it’s series/parallel. Despite that it doesn’t make one any more an EREV than the other.
But either Fisker doesn’t understand what an EREV is themselves (unlikely) or they’re banking on most people not understanding it, in an effort to undermine the Volt, to put doubt in people’s minds that the Volt isn’t quite what it’s claimed to be, which given all the hatred towards GM it’s possible that tactic could get quite some traction unfortunately.
Jul 31st, 2011 (8:07 pm)Just to prove my point, and for future reference to any discussion involving how mass affects mpg, I decided to go ahead and calculate just how much more inefficient the Karma is in CS mode compared to the Volt, despite the Volt’s much lower weight, and well … the results speak for themselves. So here it is:
To start, let’s convert the given mileages for each car from mpg to wh/mi to make them easier to work with, using an 36600 wh/gal of gas figure from Wikipedia. A disclaimer here, the mileages are assumed to be for constant speed (highway, not city traffic)
Karma: (36600 wh/gal) / (26mi/gal) = 1408wh/mi
Volt: (36600 wh/gal) / (37mi/gal) = 989wh/mi
Now, assuming a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.01 and a curb weight for the Karma of 4650lb and 3700lb for the Volt, calculating how much energy it takes to balance the rolling resistance for each car per mile, using the additional info that 1wh=3600J and 1ft-lb (foot-pound) = 1.356J:
Karma: 0.01 * 1 mi * 4650lb * 5280ft/mi * (1.356/3600)wh/ft-lb = 93 wh/mi
Volt: 0.01 * 1 mi * 3700lb * 5280ft/mi * (1.356/3600)wh/ft-lb = 74 wh/mi
So out of 1408 wh/mi the Karma uses only 93 wh/mi toward rolling resistance, while the Volt uses 74 wh/mi out of a total 989 wh/mi. Looking at the rolling resistance numbers alone, it is true that the 25% extra weight for the Karma translated in 25% extra energy needed to maintain constant speed. Now, of course that to end up with those numbers more energy has to be spent due to ICE inefficiencies, which unfortunately we don’t have numbers for. So to be fair, we’ll assume a generous 30% efficiency to both the Karma and Volt ICEs. So now the numbers rolling resistance energy use including losses look like:
Karma: 93 wh/mi / 30% = 310 wh/mi
Volt: 74 wh/mi / 30% = 247 wh/mi
Just a quick note here that this shows that only 310 – 247 = 63 wh/mi extra is used for the additional almost 1000lb of weight the Karma has! Now lets see how much energy is used/wasted for other non-weight related reasons:
Karma: 1408 wh/mi – 310 wh/mi = 1098 wh/mi
Volt: 989wh/mi – 247 wh/mi = 742 wh/mi
These numbers are pretty telling. The Karma uses a whopping 48% more energy than the Volt for reasons OTHER THAN its extra weight! What those are you may ask, only Fisker knows. And remember that this is assuming they both have the same 30% efficient ICEs! If the ICE efficiency in the Karma is lower then the difference would be even worse. But if this isn’t convincing enough, here’s a fun comparison which helps put things into perspective:
If the Volt weighed as much as the Karma then its mileage would still have been as much as:
742 wh/mi + 310 wh/mi = 1052 wh/mi = 34.8 mpg!
If the Karma weighed as much as the Volt then its mileage could still only muster:
1098 wh/mi + 247 wh/mi = 1345 wh/mi = 27.2 mpg!
So there you have it, clear as daylight! I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t get any clearer than that! It makes things pretty obvious that the Karma wasn’t designed with efficiency in mind, but how clever of Fisker to hide behind the excuse of the extra weight, since it’s apparent most folks believe it’s the main reason for the lower mpg.
Aug 5th, 2011 (3:16 pm)Jeff: that last link to Fisker’s media site is broken.
Aug 7th, 2011 (3:55 am)i took a look at your analysis, and while you raise some interesting points, i still think that there is a number of errors in your analysis such that the results are not “clear as daylight!”
but unlike earlier comments, i think this is starting to look like an interesting discussion – even though this thread is now buried in the archive.
first, i address a matter of relative formality; you state that it was fisker that attempted to assert that the mpg difference between the karma and the volt was due to the weight difference. i have not seen any such comment by fisker; that was my statement, and i have no connection to fisker.
next, to the substance of your comments. a lot of your analysis seems to rely upon your assumptions of the efficiency of the ICEs in the karma and volt. i suspect that neither of us has any factual basis for asserting what the efficiency is for either motor, but my guess is that the karma setup would be a bit less efficient since the ICE in the karma is supplying power to two separate traction motors. but i don’t have any idea of how much efficiency hit there might be, if any, as a result of this configuration.
you don’t state what accounts for energy use “other than weight”, but in general, i suspect that most energy loss is due to dissipation of heat energy (including dissipation due to frictional losses). where i think you are in error is that i suspect that heat dissipation increases with weight. i suspect that, in comparison to the volt, the karma ICE has to generate more energy to move the extra mass of the karma, and generates correspondingly more dissipated heat. now, there may be other factors (aside from the one i referred to above) like, the volt may use more energy efficient electronics, and/or the volt thermal management system may enable more efficient operation, but i don’t have any information to state how significant these factors are. but in any event, i tend to agree (as merely a matter of speculation) that there are a number of design factors for efficiency that are more favorable to the volt.
you then attempt to do a hypothetical analysis to suggest what the volt mpg would be if it’s weight were equal to that of the karma. i believe your analysis here is also in error; mainly because the volt and the karma operate differently. with the karma, the ICE is NEVER engaged in the drive train; but that isn’t true with the volt. so, if the volt were heavier, it would more likely mean that the ICE would be engaged in the drive train a greater proportion of the time. so in this case, mpg would decrease not only because the ICE would have to generate more electricity, but it would also have to spend more time assisting in directly turning the wheels. so if the volt weighed as much of the karma, i very much doubt that the actual mpg would be anywhere near the 34.8 mpg that you calculated.