When Fisker first started talking about the 2012 Fisker Karma and what it could do, the stuff they were saying was pretty incredible.
They said it'd be good for 50 miles of electric range, and once the battery wound down it would return 23 mpg city and 30 mpg highway (about 25 mpg combined) on the way to 250 miles of total range on a tank of gas. Conversely, in Sport mode, where the charged battery and gasoline engine/generator set work together for maximum effect, it could scoot to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and top out at 125 mph.
No EV or plug-in hybrid (the Karma is the latter) discussed previously had ever put together such mutually exclusive performance numbers. Not too shabby for a series hybrid with no connection between the gas engine and the drive wheels except for power cables.
Meanwhile, every plug-in hybrid and EV range claim made to date has gone down in flames after the EPA conducted their own certification tests and printed up the window stickers. Chevrolet's initial claimed range of 50 miles for the Volt sagged to 35 miles when all was said and done. The Nissan Leaf's range came in at 73 miles instead of the claimed 100 miles.
Alas the same thing recently happened to the Fisker Karma. After the EPA got done its 50-mile electric range plummeted to 32 miles and it's gasoline fuel economy dropped to just 20 mpg combined.
Yeesh.
This we had to try for ourselves. After all, we've tried to keep our finger on the pulse of actual EV and plug-in hybrid fuel economy and performance. To that end we've hosted a Mini E and a Nissan Leaf in our long-term fleet. We've tested the Smart EV and the plug-in Prius. To serve their needs and quantify every kilowatt they consume we use a sophisticated Coulomb 240V charger we installed in our garage some time ago.
And that's why we have very detailed records of the electricity and gasoline consumption habits of the Chevrolet Volt we've owned for some 11 months. In addition to the usual gasoline recordkeeping, we've got data on every charge and we've captured every instant the battery handed the baton to the gasoline engine.
The Fisker Karma likewise runs its battery down before it fires its engine for extended range (except in Sport mode, when it goes all-in with both at once), so the same test and accounting procedures were used here to see if the EPA's deflated performance predictions are legit.
To date, our Volt's average observed range from full charges is 38.4 miles, about 10% better than the EPA's prediction. We've pushed that to as high as 54.6 miles in perfect conditions, but only one of our drivers has been able to coax more than 50 miles out of it.
Our Volt has burned gasoline to the tune of 34.3 mpg, about 10% worse than the EPA's prediction of 37 mpg combined. This amount of gasoline MPG undershoot is a bit larger than usual; most of our long-term test cars are less than 5% shy of their respective EPA combined ratings.
Of course our Volt data is based on well over 11,000 miles of data collected by a couple dozen drivers. It's pretty well randomized at this point.
Our time with the Fisker lasted just 2 days and 3 nights. In that time we were able to charge it but 6 times, and only 4 of those were full (or very nearly full) charges. Clearly our Karma conclusions will be far less certain because of the sample size.
In our hands the Karma's best range was 45.4 miles. That was done on our "one lap of Orange County" city loop, which includes numerous signals and absolutely zero freeway.
The second best range was 43.3 miles, this time on the freeway at 65 mph during the mid-day traffic lull. Leadfoot John O'Dell (ironically our green car editor) got 34.5 and 39.8 out of it at somewhat more impatient freeway speeds. His house also sits atop a significant hill with no small amount of elevation gain along the way.
Bottom line, our average range of 40.8 miles is 27% better than EPA's rating. Our best run was 42% better. And I have reason to believe that the Karma was not 100% charged before I made my two mid-40 runs. Fisker, it seems, has a legitimate beef with the EPA and its range rating of just 32 miles.
Why do I think the Karma was less than fully charged? Compared to other plug-in vehicles on the market, the Karma's charge indicator light system is, quite frankly, inadequate and ambiguous. The Volt and Leaf have big bright lights positioned at the base of the windshield where you can see them from outside the car. At my house I can check on their progress by peeking out my kitchen window. And when those lights indicate full, my meter stops advancing in its tracks. Full is full.
In the Karma there's a small idiot light on the dash, but you can't see it unless you climb behind the wheel. Not good. Perhaps they have an iPhone app that I as a non-owner do not have. Be that as it may, I ended each charge in accordance with the procedure when the light went out on the Fisker's dash. Using the 120V power I have at my disposal at home, this amounted to 19 kWh and 14 hours.
Thing is, my kill-a-watt meter was still stepping up after the Fisker's charge lamp went out. Was the battery really full? Current was still flowing according to my meter, but the car was telling me we were done.
I started the car to begin the test but the Karma's range bar graph stopped short of the max endpoint, looking like 90-95% full and indicating 46 miles instead of 50. I would drive 45.4 miles on that charge compared to the initial 46-mile prediction.
Fifty miles indeed looks too optimistic for a day-in day-out rating, but the EPA's 32 miles seems far too pessimistic.
A look at the numbers suggests the Karma SHOULD have more range at its disposal than the Volt. We typically dispensed about 19 kWh when filling the Karma's battery compared to the 12 kWh we normally inject into our Volt. A bit less makes it to each car's batteries due to charging losses, but on the face of it there's 58% more juice in a fully-charged Karma.
But that doesn't mean a Karma can go 58% farther. For one, it weighs in at around 5,200 pounds, about 39% more than a Volt. It also rides on wide Eagle F1 Supercar summer performance tires that are clearly not low rolling resistance fuel economy specials.
Taking everything into account it seems that the Karma's range rating should settle in the neighborhood of 38 to 40 miles, not 32 miles.
As for MPG, we had the Fisker in gasoline mode 58% of the time. During those miles we averaged 23.1 mpg, some 3 mpg and 16% better than the EPA's number. We almost never beat an EPA gasoline rating by that much, so it seems the EPA's gasoline rating for the Karma is questionable, too
Admittedly, this was a short test in which fuel economy and range were being examined. People do tend to drive more naturally in our long-term test cars that are in our hands for months on end. In such a scenario the Karma might perform differently than it did here, but we can't see its average performance falling near as low as the EPA ratings it carries.
From where we sit, the EPA's rather pessimistic range and gasoline fuel economy ratings for the 2012 Fisker Karma doesn't seem to be an accurate picture of what this series plug-in hybrid can do at the pump or at the plug. We're much more impressed with the 2012 Fisker Karma than we thought we'd be after hearing of EPA's downgrade.
In fact the amount of electric range on offer is frankly remarkable for a car of this size and sporting pretense. For now, however, track tests of the sporty side of the Karma's dual personality will have to wait until the next time we get our hands on one.
lostboyz says:
04:53 AM, 12/ 7/11
This was better written than the one accidentally posted yesterday, but my god that was not easy.
First, 5200lbs? Are you serious?
EPA test aside, what exactly is the purpose of this vehicle? At least the tesla roadster was light, this a big pig of a car. Sure it looks great, but why does it exist? What a waste of engineering.
greenpony says:
06:57 AM, 12/ 7/11
It makes you wonder. Did the EPA test this vehicle, or rely on a third party? Was the test vehicle somehow a dud? Or are you right to question whether there is some bias in your limited test results?
There is only one way to find out. You need to add a Fisker Karma to your long term fleet.
nimisys says:
07:12 AM, 12/ 7/11
@lostboyz:
because there is a whole bunch of BMW 7 series, A8's, S-classes, Rapides and Panamera's that have been sold that justifies a largish sedan with a sporty/performance side. Toss in some green-ness and you can lure affluent customers that own a prius but want and can afford something bigger and nicer. it is the exact same segment the Tesla S is going after, and people are crosshopping them. It maybe a niche market, but it is one uncatered to at the moment
lostboyz says:
08:04 AM, 12/ 7/11
Sorry but making a 4 door sports coupe with the intent of being sporty or green, weighing 5200lbs destroys both of those. The rapide weighs 1000lbs (yes half a ton) less than this.
cr_driver says:
08:23 AM, 12/ 7/11
2nd picture
Shape looks like a clown shoe.
This car in person must be stunning.
stoppre75 says:
08:31 AM, 12/ 7/11
With these results, they'll probably offer you up a Karma without much arm twisting. They're not GREAT, but they do help Fisker because those EPA numbers were like putting one foot in the grave for this small company.
5,200lbs is unbelievable....they didn't think of making this car out of aluminum?
louiswei says:
08:51 AM, 12/ 7/11
So the Karma will be priced at around $100k...
I am thinking that the Karma to the Tesla Model S will be A LOT like the Volt to the Leaf... Except the Model S is capable of 150+ miles range which can ease many people's range axiety even in a big metro area like LA.
transpower says:
09:18 AM, 12/ 7/11
Ridiculous waste of government loan guarantees. The Mitsubishi 2013 PX-MiEV II concept is vastly superior!
csubowtie says:
11:45 AM, 12/ 7/11
I don't care what people think, as far as $100k rolling billboards go, this one makes everything else look like something owners awkwardly pick up with a plastic bag in the dog park. This car is gorgeous, and for that reason alone should exist. All those celebrities and yuppies can trade in there visually polluting Prii for something that actually improves the environment.
autoboy1 says:
11:58 AM, 12/ 7/11
They have a Fisker dealer in my hometown Palo Alto CA. It's only a couple miles from Tesla headquarters and conveniently located next door to the McLauren dealer. I checked out both a couple weeks ago.
Those of you who compare this car to the S class, 7 series, or even the Panamera and the Rapide are sorely mistaken. Yes, the car is HUGE on the outside and yes it is gorgeous, but it is NOT a large car inside. It has 4 doors but the rear seats are pretty much useless. There is no headroom and no legroom at all. There is more space inside of a Genesis Coupe than this thing. The trunk is also comically small considering how large this car is. It's also smaller than the trunk of said Genesis and if it isn't, then it's certainly less usable space considering the shallow depth of the trunk. It's a 5200 lb car the size of a super sedan with the space of a 2 seat sports car. It was an absolute joke. The battery pack that spans the center tunnel and trunk of the car steals any interior space you think this car might have by looking at it.
I'm sure they will sell some of these cars. There are a lot of rich morons in Palo Alto who think something like this will be helping the environment. But those people will not be replacing their S class with this thing. It will replace their Mercedes SL instead because that's about as practical as thing thing is.
I haven't had a chance to sit in a Model S, but my understanding is that it's a very large car inside because the motor sits low in the chassis replacing the diff, and the batteries span the whole floor. The Model S has a chance at being a real car. This Fisker does not.
lostboyz says:
11:58 AM, 12/ 7/11
@csubowtie, I think their design teams are going on to do great things, their powetrain, fuel economy, and weight management people might need to find new careers.
rod_stewart says:
12:41 PM, 12/ 7/11
@ Dan Edmunds
Can you say a few words about the 959 pound feet of torque this thing is packing? Sounds like you guys didnt really get into the throttle but 959 lb ft must be quite an experience.
-Rod
garrym says:
05:22 PM, 12/ 7/11
This feature was like being back in math class. A lot of calculating and checking indicators and...it all seems like a hassle. I'll stick with straight gasoline powered transportation. Extra weight, extra cost, extra big. Probably won't well in my climate anyway.
garrym says:
05:25 PM, 12/ 7/11
I meant to say was...probably won't work well in MY climate anyway.
tempesting says:
06:15 PM, 12/ 7/11
I've seen one in person on PCH. very handsome looking car.
but not so great I guess... but people will buy it regardless. that's what Californians do anyways LOL
smallfield says:
08:11 PM, 12/ 7/11
Man - could buy and drive two Volts for the cost and just about drive both EPA rating of a Karma. Doesn't sound really green. And, when Volts catch fire you can have two Vettes to drive around getting similar combined milage when you need petrol for the Karma
Either way - I guess this is supposed to be a 7 series or A8 competitor, so not fair to compare to Nissan or Chevy.
I agree with Autoboy - I want to see a Model S (if it ever gets made) to have better promised performance and utility - rare to get both.
carchatter1 says:
08:27 PM, 12/ 7/11
@ cr_driver:
I saw one at the local caffeine and octane show here in suburban Atlanta....and it was STUNNING in person. Absolutely blows the doors off anything in it's class based on looks alone. Everyone was snapping pictures of it left and right. Add in the beautiful detailing inside and out and it's easy to see how they could sell a bunch of these things. Everything about it had a rich, quality look to it.
mk40 says:
10:09 AM, 12/ 8/11
43 miles EV range is quite good. that should make it easy to get over 50mpg gasoline usage on avg. Some owners will see over 100mpg avg.
blackdynamite1 says:
01:25 PM, 12/ 8/11
From what little I've seen and read, this is my take:
BEAUTIFUL from the front and sides. Looks about 30 feet long in pictures. Looks expensive (Is expensive)!
Interior is smaller than it should be
Rear end styling is god-awful. Potential deal-killer bad
Risky to try new tech on new car from new manufacturer? Yes, yes, yes!
I think the Tesla Model S will be a better car/value in every way. Toyota's influence won't hurt it either.
I'd wait until there is a Karma 2.0 (If I were to spend $100k on such a thing)
BD
blindzendriver says:
03:35 AM, 12/10/11
@autoboy1:
Are you saying there is lots of room inside a Panamera or a Rapide? If so that is something you got wrong because that is not the case. As for the Merc S-class and the 7-series they are more roomy but they are also more limousine style that coupes.
Also when you mention the Rapide do remember the base price for that one is $200K and it goes much more expensive and the while base price of the Panamera is less than that of the Karma once you start clicking the things you must have on the option list that one also goes through the roof price wise.
I'm wondering about you praise of the Tesla Model S because that seems a little early when you're basing it on what you have heard. But then again guess what - I have heard long journeys in the Model S will take days because you have to stay over night to charge the batteries. Or putting it differently the Karma is a hybrid so of course it needs room for the combustion engine and it's transmission.
@rod_stewart:
Torque figures on conventional cars and electric/hybrid cars compare badly if not taken at the wheels. On the plus side of electric is that electric engines have the power from like 0 revs all the way through but on the down side that also means the transmission is much different or there simply may not be one meaning no conversion of essentially revs to torque like on a conventional car. With the Karma you have two electric engines each powering a rear wheel so there is no revs to torque conversion at all meaning the 959 pound feet is a nice figure but not as insane as you'd think when comparing to a conventional car. (EDMUNDS: Perhaps this would be worth an article.)
@transpower: The government loan guarantees have not gone into the Karma. They are used for the next Fisker model which is to be a family car and for getting the car plant in Delaware up and running. Also do remember it's a loan as in the money will be repaid just like the loans give the the old US car companies.
assblaster456 says:
06:15 PM, 12/11/11
I find the the EPA's measurements to be more accurate. One thing people do not consider when looking at the manufacturer estimates is the REAL WORLD range that you will get you you start driving the car like a normal vehicle.
For example, what is the electric range of this vehicle when you are driving at night with the stereo booming and the headlights running? What about during the winter time with the heat running? Did anyone ask how the batteries are affected by the cold?
When you buy a car like this, you want to drive it like a $100K car should be driven -- fast, while taking full advatage of all the luxuries and amenities provided. Especially considering that this is a GT vehicle.
I just can't help but think that I could possibly get 25 miles (or less) of range when using the AC, stereo, and driving with a little spirit. Are you still going to consider this car a sports sedan when the battery runs out and you are getting so-so acceleration and shitty mileage on the 4 cylinder noise maker? This car is absolutely pointless for any sort of road trip considering the performance loss and range once on gasoline power. I would rather spend my money on a Leaf for daily driving and a corvette for the weekend warrior.
nimisys says:
06:53 AM, 12/12/11
@assblaster456:
I don't think you know how the powertrain functions.
In Stealth (battery only) Mode you only get 220KW to the traction motor, fed entirely from the battery. This is why it's top speed is lower (90mph) and acceleration slower (0-60 in about 9.0)
In Sport (combined battery and ICE output) you get upto 300KW to the traction motors. The ICE is hooked to a 175KW generator, so the battery must also supply current for full output. HOWEVER this is where the best per formance is (125mph limited top speed, 0-60 in 5.9)
The battery energy level strategy differs between the modes (Stealth, Sport, Hill) but in general the minimum State of Charge (SOC) they want is 15%. in Sport Mode, when the torque demand is not above 80%, some of the generated current is fed back into the battery to keep its SOC between 15-60%.
So when the battery runs out (or rather down, becuase it should never run out 100%), you performance remains. the acceleration doesn't suffer, and your range is limited to only the fuel in the tank to feed the generator. once that runs out, you add fuel and keep going.
Also, the traction motors are mounted Fore and Aft in the rear of the vehicle, each acting as a pinion gear to single ring gear that houses the limited slip differential and drives the axles. The wheels are not being driven by and independent and individual motor for each.