Find Reviews by Make:
18 Comments on “Fisker Karma Boasts 100 mpg “Annual Average.” Huh?...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
The usual bogus tactic:
Making up their own cycle, based on the assumption that the average driver only does 60 miles on an average day and therefore needs to refuel only a few times a year, then counting electricity as free energy.
What I want to know for all those plug-ins would be
a) the fuel economy when not plugged in
b) the economy on electricity in Wh/mile or Wh/km
not some fantasy number.
If they don’t disclose either it’s probably because the numbers suck, which wouldn’t surprise me, for this heavier-than-a-Cayenne lead sled.
Same nonsense all plug in makers try to pull.
They add Plug in range assuming you plug in every day and make short trips to make up any arbitrary MPG they want. It is a highly misleading and unregulated practice. It is the same thing GM wants to do with the Volt and is trying to get the EPA to aggree to eMPG or some similar nonsense.
The sane/fair way to rate PHEVs is:
A: EV range before the motor comes on.
B: MPG rating after the battery is depleted.
Or if the PHEV allows switching modes. “B:” could also be obtained in charge sustaining mode. Where you run the ICE as a generator to power the car and preserve the batteries at the same level.
Any of the blended modes are just a pack of lies that hide both the EV range and the ICE efficiency in MPG.
Edit: Essentially what first poster said, but I didn’t see his post when I put mine up…
@Bytor
The sane/fair way to rate PHEVs is:
A: EV range before the motor comes on.
B: MPG rating after the battery is depleted.
Without
C: Efficiency on electricity
it would still be worthless
Not worthless at all.
EVs tend to be rated in range and they also report battery pack capacity. If you know those things you can calculate the wh/km if that is what you want. But most people want to know range on EVs.
But sure you can report wh/km ( under an EPA like cycle average to have any meaning). I have no issue with that, but it isn’t necessary if you have have range and pack capacity in KWh.
So either or both together are all fine and we agree with the pack of lies that is blended MPG that counts some arbitrary amounts of electric and ICE usage mixed together to hide everything. This must be fought tooth and nail.
I would like to get real numbers and I am certain that a Prius will probably deliver better actual MPG. But if I had this much to spend on a car, the Karma would be high on my list, it looks gorgeous, is likely a hoot to drive with nice performance and will likely be decently efficient.
@Bytor :
EVs tend to be rated in range and they also report battery pack capacity. If you know those things you can calculate the wh/km if that is what you want. But most people want to know range on EVs.
They don’t use the full capacity of the battery – they all operate in a bracket between e.g. 20% and 90% – everybody does it a bit differently.
@Bytor :
and we agree with the pack of lies that is blended MPG that counts some arbitrary amounts of electric and ICE usage mixed together to hide everything.
Yes, agree 100%. Every news report of a 150 mpg plug-in Vue or a 100 mpg Fisker makes me cringe a little. And nobody in the media seems to care.
I agree with all the comments so far.
I do not understand why all the media seems to be accepting the fuel economy figures being given by the OEMs (particularly GM) without asking any questions.
In a recent article concerning the Opel Ampera (aka. Chevrolet Volt) shown at Geneva, a fuel economy figure of 1.6 liters/100km was given. This figure is equivalent to 147mpg (US)!
I suspect that GM/Opel calculate this figure by assuming a 60km (approx 40 miles) electric autonomy and then 40km using the gas engine. If this is the case their claim of 1.6liters/100km would actually mean 4.0liters/100km (58,8mpg US) for the 40km in the total 100km.
I number of European diesel models already obtain these levels of fuel economy, particularly when they are equipped with Stop/Start.
I want to see some real numbers as to what it actually costs to charge the battery pack. Here in Maine, I pay ~$.17 KW/H, which is quite expensive. My electric bill already averages $250 month…
Not to mention I want to know what the electric range will be on a 10F winter evening in Maine.
Obviously the EPA will need to develop a test cycle for PHEV’s, and damn quick. It should be a trip LONGER than any contemplated battery-only range (About 100 miles now, probably longer as batteries get better) and should include a good number of hills, starts/stops, and a specified time running with all electric devices, heat, A/C etc, on (since electricity and heat aren’t “free” byproducts of the engine anymore).
However, there is no reason to take into account the cost of electricity, just as current mileage figures do not account for the cost of gas.
The test cycle should include how much gas was used and how many kwh were depleted from the battery. Then the consumer could choose a vehicle based on what resource is cheapest to them. Live in Alaska with 50c/KWH electricity but free oil? You’d favor the gas-guzzling, electric efficient models. Live in Southern Cal with $5 gas an solar panels on your house? You might be inclined to buy the opposite.
Information, and freedom of choice, is a good thing.
Not to mention I want to know what the electric range will be on a 10F winter evening in Maine.
I sense it will be lower, especially if a resistance heater is involved.
This is where money is to be made in a tack add-on karosene heater.
“Not to mention I want to know what the electric range will be on a 10F winter evening in Maine.”
Well, this is important if you do the vast majority of your short-trip commuting on winter nights in Maine. If so, I would venture to say the near-term PHEV’s aren’t for you.
This is not meant to be sarcastic at all. For as long as any of us will be alive, there will be a huge variety of vehicles to choose from – so just choose one that works for you.
I’m following the Karma saga very closely, with great interest. Fisker himself has a good reputation, and seems of a good body design. Unlike Tesla Motors, Fisker has had experienced car industry people running things from the start.
But Quantum does the drive train for Fisker, and I’m not so sure about them. They seem capable. Whether Quantum can really deliver the muscles to power Fisker’s bones, though, I don’t know. That bears watching.
What I would like to see as a metric for this kind of electricity-powered car is miles per kilowatt hour. That would tell us a lot. Tesla claims almost 5 miles per kWh for its Roadster. I’d like to see what Fisker claims for its Karma and GM claims for its Volt.
““Not to mention I want to know what the electric range will be on a 10F winter evening in Maine.”
Well, this is important if you do the vast majority of your short-trip commuting on winter nights in Maine. If so, I would venture to say the near-term PHEV’s aren’t for you.
This is not meant to be sarcastic at all. For as long as any of us will be alive, there will be a huge variety of vehicles to choose from – so just choose one that works for you.”
I agree. Here in ND when there are week-long stretches when the high temperature doesn’t get warmer than -15 F, I would be surprised if the batteries held enough charge to get the car out of the driveway.
RetardedSparks :
Worst case scenarios are something that need to be addressed in the marketing of these alternative vehicles. Because you know any range claims are going to be under ideal conditions. Here in Portland Maine, in the winter time it is not at all unusual to be commuting when still dark enough to need headlights, and driving home from work well after sunset. We get less than 8hrs of daylight here around the winter solstice. And it is cold too. Though thank-God not as cold as North Dakota. I spent three weeks in Langdon, ND for work. In January. I still shiver at the thought.
Gas vehicles take a hit under these conditions too – I want to know what the equivelant will be. I can tell you that Prii take a BIG hit in gas mileage in the winter here. Unless the battery can power the heater, I don’t see how a Volt or a Fisker can have any electric-only running for a good chunk of the year. In a LARGE swath of the country.
“I do not understand why all the media seems to be accepting the fuel economy figures being given by the OEMs (particularly GM) without asking any questions.”
Well, most journalists are people who could not pass a real major like engineering, biology, or law, so they take English or psychology. Then, they venture into the real world, armed with whatever they remembered between being drunk.
Anything over 30 mpg offers diminishing returns, anyway.
My comparison question is “how much do I save if it uses no fuel at all?” Whether it is 100 mpg or 150 mpg or 1000 mpg, you’re not talking about much difference in annual fuel savings. One errant blip of the throttle takes you down from 150 to 100 in an instant.
Fuel cost per year, 15k miles, $2/gallon:
30 mpg: $1000
50 mpg: $600
100 mpg: $300
150 mpg: $200
1000 mpg: $30
So if I’m gonna jump into a 100+ mpg car that costs me $40k or more, forget it. The higher mpg might give you bragging rights, but no real savings.
I think it is obvious that anyone buying EREVs/PHEVs/BEVs with any range at all, at this stage of the game are not doing it for financial savings.
I am certainly not in the target market and won’t be looking at one of these.
But thank the FSM for early adopters who will buy these and move technology forward and prices down.
If I had money, I would love to own a beautiful and unique car like the Karma.
Hi – Russell Datz here, from Fisker Automotive. Good to see TTAC readers want to keep manufacturers honest. As some of you note, our 100mpg annual estimate assumes a mix of battery and gas-engine power. But this is in no way deceptive. Running only on batteries, the car uses no gas and has no tailpipe emissions for 50 miles. Running on engine only, we estimate the Karma will get more than 30mpg – an excellent rating for a car its size. Figuring owners will on a daily basis drive slightly more than the full battery range, and then recharge, the 100mpg annual average is viable. Is this best case? Yes. Will there be variances? Of course. Is the Karma a perfect solution? No. But we are doing our part to move things forward and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Thanks.
I have no problem if you actually include the other measures. It is just when a largely meaningless blended number is quoted alone that I get annoyed. When that blended number is used alone, I do feel it is deceptive.
This isn’t unique to Fisker, just about every PHEV/EREV maker does this and AFAIK, GM is trying to force this nonsense on the EPA. This seems to be the nature of marketing. Hide the facts, hype the fungible.
EV Range plus charges sustaining MPG are the numbers I would want.
Love the Karma BTW. It has replaced a Tesla as my “lotto winnings car”.
But here in the real world where my company went Chapter 11 and the restructure plan (massive layoffs, no severance) is imminent, my 1999 Ford ZX2 (Escort) will have to serve a while longer… and after that I will have to consider what parking is like at the new Cardboard Box I am living in. ;)
But wealthy early adopters go nuts. This is a beautiful, economical and unique vehicle.