digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at inhabitat.com

Tesla Roadster Eat Your Heart Out, Karma Luxury Ride is Here

inhabitat.com — The Karma ’s performance specs rev out at 0-60 mph in 6 seconds, and a top speed of 125 mph. At $80,000 USD, the car is a plug-in hybrid based on technology of Quantum Technologies. The Q DRIVE consists of a small gasoline engine which in turn charges the lithium battery packs in the car.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Slimer, on 05/13/2008, -24/+12weird, the start off acceleration and the top speed appear to contradict each other:
    '0-60 mph in 6 seconds, and a top speed of 125 mph'
    but it looks so pretty..
    • agisten, on 05/13/2008, -3/+10What gets you confused? Nothing contradictory here, the car first accelerates of electric motor and then using gas engine reaches "slowly" 125 mp/h
    • gcnaddict, on 05/13/2008, -8/+1There's a gas engine in the karma?

      The tesla can do 0-60 in 6 (with the "temporary" single-gear transmission) and cap at 120...
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/13/2008, -5/+12Tesla said there car will do it in 4 seconds.....
      • gcnaddict, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2the people digging you up fail.

        The TEMPORARY single gear transmission can't do that kind of acceleration. The final two-gear transmission has a larger first gear which allows it to pull that kind of acceleration off.
        • ArmandoM, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1However it does it... the Tesla does it in under 4.

          Talk about fail...
    • betterth, on 05/13/2008, -3/+110-60 in 6 seconds? That's not a roadster. The V6 Camry will do 60 faster than that.

      I love the move towards electric, but let's be honest, that's not impressive. The Tesla does it faster anyway.

    • joeydoo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1It all sounds great, fill the tank once a year etc.... now then. Some one like Ford buy this small company, ramp up production NOW and lets all buy the ***** things. Give me some paper to sign and I'll do it now.
      If this company hasn't the sense of mind to find a way to get a large quantity of these made then just ***** off.. I'm sick of all the ideas and lame "we can do this" talk in this area... until we can buy the ***** things on mass they are worthless.
    • Slimer, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1ohh i forgot they put governors in cars to limit its top speed
  • ecomod, on 05/13/2008, -17/+10nice renderings - i'm impressed with the photoshop skills on display here
    • adamuffa, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3why do people feel the need to point that out? Do you think you are special because you figured that out?
    • yournamehere, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1renderings? did you not look at the pictures of it on the track?
  • Pottypotsworth, on 05/13/2008, -5/+23oooh, such a pretty car, shame i will never be able to afford one.
    • subterfuge, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6i bet people were saying "too bad i'll never be able to afford one" about personal computers when they came out. i bet the technology in this car will be common or obsolete in 20 years.
      • Markpdotcom, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2You are retarded. This isn't a ford we're talking about. This is a luxury electric car! Its like owning a Ferrari, could you afford one? I think not.
        • RomulusX86, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Lowest new Ferrari price is about $200,000 not $80,000. You could buy two and a half of those for a F430 (about 200 grand).
  • AussieCynic, on 05/13/2008, -13/+6hmmm.
    I do like this...
    yum
    • HannibalLecter, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Well, you're just about the worst cynic I've ever seen.
  • MikeChino, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9When can I rent one up at Zipcar?
  • nrrrd, on 05/13/2008, -2/+13love the dramatic storm clouds in the renderings
  • tech10171968, on 05/13/2008, -2/+48The Tesla and this Fisker Karma are indeed admirable, but I won't be totally impressed until someone makes a car with the same technology but in a price range that Joe Sixpack can afford. You know, a car for the rest of us. It doesn't even have to be a sports car or anything fancy.

    Widespread use of automotive technology like this would make oil companies really nervous, and they deserve it.
    • bocaJWho, on 05/13/2008, -2/+17That's actually what Tesla is looking at building after it gets things working with the roadster - a more family-like model. No doubt it will still be somewhat expensive, but moving in the right direction.
      • cha5e, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6True. They said last July that the luxury sedan, codenamed WhiteStart will come out next (I think they said like 2009 or 2010, I don't remember), and then after that the family sedan, codenamed BlueStar will come out in 2012. They also said that BlueStar would cost about $30,000. Of course any forward-looking statements like that are very speculative by definition.
    • hartley, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6Don't worry, its coming.
      Development like this is only going to bring down the price.
      Tell every wealthy person you know to buy one, you'll get yours soon enough.
    • wrenchone, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Give it time, as typically this is how the auto industry works. Expensive, high-performance cars are frequently used as development platforms to introduce new technology. Sports cars are assumed to have a high price to begin with, so using expensive development technology in it isn't as noticeable, price wise. Add to that that you can also get away with lacking some creature comforts and practicality in the name of "performance," along with a sports car natural ability to be a high-stress test platform as you have a perfect development vehicle.

      Tesla is developing a less expensive sedan next, the White Star, and then after that an even less expensive car. It's like 1st gen Apple products. Pretty, expensive, and missing features. Wait for version 2 which will give you more for less.
    • dhayes501, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3there business plan was to build the high end "flashy" car first to get all the attention, then they're going to build the high end sedan to rival the bmw/mercedes and then they're going to aim at making an affordable sedan along the lines of the maxima and shoot for a $30K price tag. if you check the blog on their site, you can probably find where they describe their business plan. i read it, but i'm too lazy to go looking for it now. great business plan though, its working amazingly well so far. let's just hope they actually come out with that affordable sedan in the next 2-3 years. i've paid cash for every car i've ever owned, but i'd break down and get a car loan for that.
    • BESTenemy, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2One tank of gas a year? Well, if the person's able to afford an $80K car, I bet he can afford gas, even if the car only drives as far as the next gas station.
    • davidrools, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4http://www.aptera.com I'm #1363 on the list and should be getting mine next year. California residents only, for now. Sorry.
    • EricAnderton, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1@wrenchone pretty much said it. The development path follows the money and looks something like this:

      1) concept car
      2) sports car / sexy toy car
      3) luxury car
      4) family car

      I suppose if you want to go the extra step, you get to this:
      5) fleet/rental/disposable car

      Which I wouldn't mind seeing *tomrrow*, but it takes times to get the industry to reinvent itself.
  • LewP, on 05/13/2008, -6/+1Good post. Submitted to the DDD!
  • greenwald, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4And it's a four door!
  • BoonTobias, on 05/13/2008, -7/+0until my pocket fattens
    evo or sti will have to do
  • PATSCRU, on 05/13/2008, -6/+2this submission has been declared a spam comment quarantine. get out while you still can.
  • cocokr1sp, on 05/13/2008, -6/+3Jason Calacanis got to test drive one of these not too long ago. Check out his qik video: http://qik.com/video/71134
  • Telvin, on 05/13/2008, -25/+2who the ***** gives a ***** ***** about cars like this? virgin losers, that's who.
    • dblatti, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5You sir are classic.

      http://digg.com/users/Telvin/history/comments
      • Telvin, on 05/13/2008, -10/+2It's about time someone appreciates what I'm doin here on this here digg.
        • Wesside, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4Telvin, the "you's" is not proper in any form of English. Also, if you hate this site, the people on it and the articles that get posted, why do you waste your time here?
          • Markpdotcom, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!!
          • Telvin, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0who says i have to speak any form of proper anything? to be honest, i take pleasure in the frustration. you know what i mean?
        • imbob, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5i love what your doing on DIGG :D now digg me up you LITTLE FAG!!
  • wizeguyztees, on 05/13/2008, -11/+0just dugg it, please do the same for me, thanks
  • xxvtcxx, on 05/13/2008, -3/+30How is this better than the tesla? The tesla has the same top speed but can get to 60 in under 4 seconds.
    • CertifyedGoon, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5The tesla is also a 2 seater. That looks like it can seat 4.
      • kiwininja, on 05/13/2008, -1/+84 seats make it different, not better
    • SpiceWare, on 05/13/2008, -4/+19range.

      With the Tesla I'd be lucky to make it to my sisters place a couple hundred miles away before running out of juice and having to stop somewhere for 3 1/2 hours to charge it up again.

      With this and the Volt you get to be electric for your normal daily commute, but don't need to worry about having to take long breaks every 3 hours while taking a trip.
      • diggB, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6Really. Why is this comment being buried? Most people commute less than 30 miles a day, so both the Tesla and the Karma, one would use only battery power; HOWEVER, for those times where people like to travel longer distances without recharging along the way, the Karma makes more sense. So, if I had a 100k to blow, I'd probably pick the Karma.
      • prisoner24601, on 05/13/2008, -3/+7Plug-In Hybrids are so obviously superior I really can't imagine why Tesla (or anyone) pushes EV-1 style "battery-only" vehicles.

        "An EV-1/Tesla/Zap has all the range I need"
        Good for you if you NEVER need to go further than X miles a day. A Plug-In has that "all-electric" range as well, but ALSO unlimited range when you DO need it.

        "A plug-in has the extra weight of an engine"
        These engine/generators are TINY when considered to the total size of the vehicle. Closer to one of the portable Honda 110-power hand-carried jobsite generators than to a regular car's engine.

        "Well I don't want to use ANY gas at all"
        OK, then buy a Chevy Volt and exclusively use it in electric-mode. Plan to recharge it every X miles without fail. Your Tesla will require you to do that too.

        Basically every single positive comment about the Tesla I would 100% wholeheartedly agree with, and then make the final observation that it would be worth the extra 50 pounds of weight on a 2,000 pound vehicle to add a tiny generator and gas tank to give that same car UNLIMITED range and ensure you will NEVER be stuck on the side of the road.

        It's bizarre. I've seen any number of comments where someone gushes on and on about the Tesla with the intent of arguing AGAINST the Plug-In Hybrid concept without them grasping that EVERY positive aspect of a battery-only electric would still apply in exactly the same way if the manufacturer made the vehicle precisely as describe originally... and then added 50 pounds/$500 of generator/gas tank to *optionally* keep the customer from EVER having to be concerned they will be stuck on the side of a road.

        It baffles me that anyone still argues for battery-only vehicles. I can only wonder if they just haven't really got their mind wrapped around the fact that a Plug-In actually *IS EXACTLY* what they say they want PLUS a small generator that they can choose to use or ignore as they wish.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2As someone who is waiting for the Volt to come out to buy a new car I would get the Tesla in a heart beat. Plenty of Restaurants have unguarded outlets while you eat lunch on a long trip. ;)
        • EricAnderton, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Well the Tesla Roadster is obviously a toy, being light, fast and a two-seater. So they can take a few risks and generate some buzz by saying *NO GASOLINE* on all their PR, since nobody is going to help their buddies move, or pick up lumber from the hardware store with it.

          Battery-only is sexy for one very important reason: fewer parts to maintain! It's nice to have the range that hybridization gives you, but you essentially have two powertrains in one car. After a point, that'll strangle you financially; say when you're leaking oil *and* your battery is dead.
          • prisoner24601, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Actually it's not correct that this requires two powertrains (at least not in a traditional mechanical sense.) Let me explain:

            Imagine you just bought a Tesla. (Lucky you!) Now I come along and show you a nifty kit that has a Honda 110 worksite generator and a small tank. Weighs maybe 100 pounds total and I have a mount system to put it right on top of the back trunk area. (Ignore the ugliness of the example. We are ONLY talking about how this works, not a real-world implementation.) Now I run a power cable from the generator to the plug where you normally charge the Tesla.

            The point is there's NO "additional powertrain" but simply a way of supplying the same power to the batteries in a mobile method. If the generator broke, it's totally "modular" in that it is literally connected to the system with nothing more than a beefy extension cord.

            Current hybrids (Prius, etc.) are PARALLEL and have mechanical connections from the electric motor AND gas engine to "push" the wheels. Plug-In Hybrids (like the Volt) are SERIES designs where all the drive is done by electric motors. Only one drivetrain.
  • INDOAZZ, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1Stock about to rise again for this CO.
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/13/2008, -7/+10Tesla said 0 to 60 in 4 seconds for there car.
    • Wesside, on 05/13/2008, -3/+60-60 in 3.9 (ooo .1 of a second) seconds in their car. *
      • Charun, on 05/13/2008, -0/+62.1 seconds difference from the Karma, which is relevant.
        • whatever01, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1No more relevant than 2 seat vs 4 seats, less relevant for most people, most of the time.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/13/2008, -13/+9Another vehicle to get me from point A to point B so I can accomplish the things that really matter.

    never understood peoples obsession with cars. Who cares.
    • phenolholic, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3says the poor man in the taurus
    • tschau, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2thought: We spend a decent bit of time getting from Point A to Point B. Mightn't we enjoy this time as well?

      Driving can be straight up fun. I ride my bike to work now, and sometimes I really miss the drive.
    • wrenchone, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Some of us enjoy the journey more than the destination.
    • Scaster513, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Different people like different things. For every interest you have there will be people who couldn't care less about it. Don't think you're better than people just because you dont understand them.
    • se1zure, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1kind of like why anyone would want first class on a 12 hour flight when you could just sit in front of the screaming kicking baby in economy
  • Drgn547, on 05/13/2008, -0/+15Tesla ftw, what's with the 'mustache grill' on that thing?
  • gl77, on 05/13/2008, -4/+19isnt the tesla 100% electric?
    • Wesside, on 05/13/2008, -2/+10yes yes it is.
      • gl77, on 05/13/2008, -2/+12how is this car better than tesla then, since its a ***** hybrid that still uses gasoline?
        • ProjectGSX, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Its not. The title is misleading and the article is even worse, claiming that a track mule trumps Tesla and their 3 units delivered to customers.
        • wizawuza, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2furthermore, the 0-60 on this is much slower (3.9 seconds vs 6 seconds.... a huge, HUGE difference)
        • prisoner24601, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Plug-In's completely resolve the range issues of EV-1 type "battery only" electrics, and they do it with an incredibly small weight increase.

          Fiskar worked for Tesla and left. The Karma really is a "second generation" design and eliminates the one major drawback of the Tesla design. Tesla really should have made the Roadster exactly as they did, but added a hundred pounds of generator/gas tank to give you unlimited range if you want to take a long trip this weekend.
        • prisoner24601, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Are you guys just honestly not familiar with how a plug-in hybrid works? It is NOT a "hybrid that STILL uses gasoline" as you describe it. It is an electric car (which you seem to want) that ALSO (when the owner CHOOSES to at their discretion) CAN use gasoline.

          There's a world of difference in the concepts. Any side-by-side comparison of otherwise equivalent designs favors a plug-in over a battery-only-electric hands down.
    • prisoner24601, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Plug-In Hybrids just make more sense because they are *exactly* the same fundamental car design PLUS a very small gas generator that you can *optionally* use (or completely ignore if you want to live a "100% pure no-gas" life) to recharge the batteries if they get low when you are away from an outlet or just don't want to stop.

      Imagine if Tesla was exactly as you se it now, but they made the car fractionally larger and added about 50 pounds of weight for a generator and gas tank. If you think "gee, I don't want to use any gas" then fine, you wouldn't have to. You can continue to plan your trips, charge the car each night, and use this hypothetical Tesla 2.0 exactly the way the current real Tesla is used with it's 100-mile range. But if on Friday you decide to take a really long road trip, you wouldn't be restricted from doing that because the tiny gas generator kicks in to charge the batteries so you don't have to stop at 100 miles.

      Plug-in hybrids have ALL the advantages of "battery only" electric cars, and NONE of the disadvantages. The ONLY "cost" is a very small amount of weight (maybe a couple hundred pounds on a 2,000 pound car) and the advantage is instant *unlimited* range. That's why buyer are really excited about PHEV, but more skeptical about EV-1 types. No one wants to be stuck on the side of the road. Not even once.
      • prisoner24601, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Are people just not getting the difference between series plug-in hybrids like the Volt and parallel hybrids like the Prius? It's baffling that people are defending the EV-1 design as a better idea than plug-in hybrids.
      • p0tent1al, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Fun fact. Do you know what they tell recovering alcoholics? To stay as far away from alcohol, and the people who drink it, as possible.


        The Tesla is 100% Electric. With every car sold, you can absolutely know that your not going to be buying gas, and feeding into oil companies or environmental destruction (or what have you). With the "Karma Luxury Ride", the temptation to fill er up in a gas dominated market is there. There's absolutely no point, and defeats the purpose in making a car 100% electric. Just by this alone, the Karma Luxury Ride does not compare, and should not be compared to the Tesla Roadster.
  • thanatosys, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1180k isnt really that expensive for a sports car, actually quite a steal. That being said the specs of 0-60 in 6s and only a measly top speed of 125mph are not going to sway the car fans... and the pricetag and gaudy design factor will probably turn off anybody else looking to score here... Also think of how long it would actually take to recoup the cost lost in the pricetag....
    • phenolholic, on 05/13/2008, -1/+280k for a better end sports car, i.e. dodge viper, porsche. 80k for a noname newcommer is ludacris. 30k and its a steal
    • ProjectGSX, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2These first run vehicles are so expensive due to small runs and high R&D costs. The prices will come down over the years.. in the meantime celebrities will eat these things up and make the business viable.
    • se1zure, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2the tesla is a much better vehicle.
  • SystemsGuy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8Well, before we all get excited, Telsa has filed suit against Fisher.

    This week we heard about a couple of lawsuits mythical electric sports car almost-manufacturer Tesla has managed to get tied up in. The first one saw Magna suing Tesla for breach of contract over its transmission design, the other was Tesla going medieval on Fisker for allegedly stealing designs associated with the Tesla Whitestar Hybrid for its Fisker Karma Hybrid. Well Popular Mechanics has gone out and consulted a lawyer-type about the guts of these lawsuits and what the likely outcomes of the twin tussles might be. We just want the slap fights to be over.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_car ...
  • rryanhayes, on 05/13/2008, -7/+3awesome, I guess not polluting the earth on the roadways is reserved for the rich.
    • Arkz, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Or anyone with £80 to buy a dual suspension mountain bike...
  • HubbertWins, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2These kinds of vehicles are starting to seem like the solar panel stuff. There is a "Whiz bang, spectacular, CHANGE the world!!!" product every week and yet none of them are ever available for us to buy and are perpetually "5-10" years away. We want them! But we kinda need someone to stop with all the concept crap and start selling real products.
  • bombula, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Nice to have a hybrid sportscar entering the fray of green autos, but this is not even direct competition for the Tesla Roadster let alone 'eat your heart out' material. The Roadster is all-electric, and its performance specs are way higher (0-60 in under 4 seconds).
  • JSolo, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1The best part about the Fisker? Elon Musk(rat) is not on the board of this company, so he can't ***** it up.
  • Noisewater84, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2The Karma is an awesome car. Too bad the article leaves out the fact that Tesla is suing Fisker over the Karma, so it may never actually come to market.
    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= ...
  • kahakauai, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1Meeror?
  • Ch0mpr, on 05/13/2008, -5/+7Enough with the hybrid hype...Guess where most of the electricity is generated from? fossil fuels :X

    make a god damn Hydrogen Fuel cell car that's fast, and then it's something worth talking about
    • evodevo1, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7hydrogen is not the solution, you still need to make hydrogen (most likely from electrolysis of water) using a fossil fuel source. Plus storage and transportation of it is a major hurdle that's not going to be solved any time soon.
    • IsoscelesCircle, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9Enough with the anti-electricity because it comes from fossil fuel rhetoric.

      Even if most of the electricity comes from fossil fuel it doesn't mean it HAS to. I don't know about you, but people do have the option of choosing how they their electricity is produced. Even if fossil fuel were used to make electricity, it is ALWAYS more efficient and CLEANER to burn the fuel at a enormous power plant where there is tighter control on emissions, carbon dioxide can be contained (which you can't in your dinojuice burner), and once the electricity is made it does not have to be transported all over the place in trucks to get to gas stations. Has no one ever taught you of economies of scale? Power stations are an order of magnitude more efficient at making electricity and extracting the most energy from the oil consumed then it will ever be to burn gas in a car to propel it down the road.
    • Number23, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Ok... So where is the hydrogen going to come from?
    • whatever01, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Enough with the Hydrogen Fuel Cell car hype. There isn't going to be a hydrogen fueling station on your block anytime soon. Much less a hydrogen fuel cell car that's fast and affordable and convenient and reliable? Dream on.
    • se1zure, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Your ignorance is astounding. First of all, it will be 40 years before hydrogen is even remotely a viable replacement. We have seen that electric cars can be used very effectively with low cost ($.02 a mile or less). We can harness this electricity with coal or water wheels, wind, solar, whatever. Hydrogen fuel woudl cost nearly $6+ per gallon.
  • jetblackz4, on 05/13/2008, -13/+5***** this whole green ***** movement.
    The car looks like donkey balls and the hood is ridiculously over sized.
    • phrenzy, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4Wow. What kind of regressive idiot would digg this, let alone say this?
    • kroni, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2amen
    • IsoscelesCircle, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1-1 digg for f'ing the green movement...

      +1 digg for speaking the truth on this automotive design abomination that could only be made worse if Chris Bangle worked on it.

      net digg 0
  • Ghoztt, on 05/13/2008, -6/+10Man, how gullible are you people? I don't want a Hybrid. I WANT THAT ELECTRIC CAR THAT WAS PERFECTED 8 YEARS AGO.

    www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com
    'nuff said.
    • surfacewound, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3More like 14 years ago (though clearly not "perfected").
    • prisoner24601, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3A plug in hybrid *IS* an electric car. It is EXACTLY the same fundamental design as an EV-1 with the *addition* of a small gas generator that *can* (not must, CAN) be used to recharge the batteries as well as wall power. This way you will never get stranded and can take long trips if you need to.

      Take an EV-1. Go to the hardware store and buy a Honda portable electric generator and strap it to the roof. Run an extension cord from the generator to the charging plug for the EV-1. Congratulations, you've just turned your electric car into a plug-in hybrid.

      Obviously engineering the car so that the generator is an original component and only turns on when the batteries are nearly empty makes more sense, but you get the idea.

      There is not a SINGLE positive comment you can make about an EV-1 type battery-only electric that does not apply to a Plug-In Hybrid. Since you are yelling, I'll just clarify: THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING! THE PLUG-IN JUST *ALSO* HAS A SMALL GENERATOR YOU CAN USE OR IGNORE.
      • surfacewound, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Can Hybrid cars go 300 miles on just electric (i.e. never running the gas engine) like the EV-1 could do with the newer batteries? AT 70mph on the Interstate, a hybrid is just another gas-burning car pushing air whereas the EV-1/Tesla is electric 100% of the time.
        • prisoner24601, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1A current *parallel* hybrid (like the Prius) *cannot* go faster than 50 mph or so in all-electric mode. The upcoming *series* hybrids (like the GM Volt) absolutely CAN travel at highway speeds only on electric power. They *have to* because drive power to the wheels is EXCLUSIVELY delivered by the electric motor. Again (and I'm honestly surprised that anyone who is an enthusiast for the EV-1 doesn't already know this) a plug-in hybrid is an ENTIRELY ELECTRIC DRIVETRAIN vehicle just like the EV-1. The engine in the Volt or Karma will ONLY power a generator to recharge the batteries, and will only do that IF AND WHEN the batteries are depleted.

          As far as the range goes, the average American drives less than 40 miles per day. I'm not making that up. Honest. Do the research and you will find that this is right. The average car buyer will understand when informed about this that either the Volt or the Karma will have all-electric range that is completely sufficient for their *NORMAL* needs, and (because the generator will kick in when that range is exceeded) still act as a completely normal car on the occasions when they need to take a longer trip.

          You are mistaken as to the facts about hybrid designs in regard to your "at highway speeds" comment because you are misunderstanding that a series plug-in (Volt/Karma) is designed like current parallel hybrids (Prius.)
          You are correct as to your range comment (that the EV1 was longer) but missing the point that all-electric range only has to be *enough* for daily average needs.

          I'm wondering how many different ways I need to phrase it, and how many times I have to repeat it, before the EV1 enthusiast crowd here will get that a *parallel* hybrid ***IS*** an EV1 that happens to have a generator too and that generator does NOT have to be used. You guys should be beating the drum for the Volt and Karma and thanking GM for leading the way to get this done, not trying to bring back the first-generation battery-only concept that NEVER had a chance in the broader market because almost NO ONE is ever going to buy a car that *cannot* be driven cross-country on a whim whenever someone wants to. The EV1 was only workable as a second car. The Volt offers all the advantages of the EV1 without the drawbacks.
  • azntzouie, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1To help skip to a more reliable server with the good stuff:
    http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/vehicles/features/
  • evodevo1, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6It looks like a nice car, BUT, it only goes 50 miles on a charge unlike the Tesla which can go >200 miles. Although the Fisker does have a 4 cynlinder engine for charging the battery only, I wonder if it's any more efficient than a regular 4 cylinder in a regular car. If not, IMO, it is not worth while to spend $80K on this thing considering if you have that much money, you'll probably be driving this baby more than 50 miles a day.
    Right now the bottleneck is still the battery source. I don't know what kind of Li-ion batt is in the Fisker, but the Tesla is using regular 18650 LiON cells that you find in any old laptop battery or some LED flashlights. They are still heavy, large, and expensive. Unless a new kind of batt tech is invented to replace LiON, I don't see electric cars taking a big chunk of the market.
    • whatever01, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Since you can mate the generator and IC engine almost perfectly in terms of a narrow design speed and output, you should be able to get impressive efficiency from it. And the motor efficiency should be quite good across a broad range of speeds. It seems counter intuitive, but it isn't necessarily less efficient to do it this way. I'm curious if a diesel engine would have been a better choice, as they are very happy running in a narrow operating range.
    • zspeed78, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1This thing goes more than 50 miles obviously.. at which point its probably similar gas mileage to a Prius. But on the first 50, you would burn 0 gas. My parents both work close enough that neither of them would burn a single gallon of gas going to work and back, and to lunches. Their weekend trips, theyd use the gas feature of this car and have good mileage too. Obviously electricity isnt free, and somebody somewhere is probably burning diesel to give it to you, but overall still more efficient than getting 25mpg in your Nissan Maxima.
  • kroni, on 05/13/2008, -7/+10pice of junk, you can get a brand new corvette for less money
    • removesstains, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4Agreed and still come out a head. Cause your not saving any money on gas w a 80k car.
    • cha5e, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4Less money when?
      If you're only considering "at purchase time" then yes, absolutely.
      But if you're considering total cost of ownership over the life of the car, the Corvette is likely more expensive since it eats more gas.
      Of course, that's assuming equal maintenance costs, which can't really be known yet for the Karma.
      • kroni, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3common, want to be seen riding the nerd mobile, or a brand new corvette... the karma it is still a piece of overpriced junk, and I'm sure almost any shop can repair a corvette, wonder who can repair the karma...
      • korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1If I buy a 40,000 car, and I spend 40,000 on gas at 4 dollars per gallon getting 20 mpg I will have traveled 200,000 miles.
        Which is more than my last vehicle lasted. If I get one of those vehicles that get 40 - 80 mpg, then this option becomes even more silly.
    • whatever01, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1And you can buy a used toaster for less than that. Your point is? This isn't intended to compete head to head with a corvette.
    • zspeed78, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1This car, with its 0-60 time compares to most sporty cars for $20k-30k. So that leaves you with 55k (not to mention the money saved upfront, over the long haul, is worth more than 55k to you). 55k buys buys enough gas to 400,000 miles at 30mpg. So this car is pretty pointless from a financial point of view. And that was considering your electricity to charge the car at home was free.
    • se1zure, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Then buy the miles xs500 if you want to save money on gas.
      http://www.milesev.com/#aboutus.swf

  • azntzouie, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4The solar panel on the roof of the car that helps charge the battery is brilliant.
  • DarkSideWRX, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1its smiling at me...
  • ensta2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6Fiskers are beautiful cars but this is not a competitor to the Tesla. You discredit each car by comparing the two
  • cldnails, on 05/13/2008, -4/+80-60 in 6 seconds... That's not a sports car that's a Honda Civic.

    pfft, what a joke, bring on internal combustion.
    • santiago1, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2 Now you're talking! Gimme a 1968 Chevy Camaro with a overbored turbocharged 454 and 5 speed manual tranny over a stupid electric car ANYDAY!
  • waitasec, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1LiON batteries are heavy? And really guys, a tank of gas per year? Lets put a diesel in there so we don't have to use fuel stabilizers.
  • HappyScrappy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1still vapor. "is Here" is inaccurate.
  • removesstains, on 05/13/2008, -1/+8The truth of the matter is, its still cheaper to drive a gas hog that costs 25k for the next 5years then to buy a 80k car.
    • yournamehere, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I agree with you.. but then we're still dependent on oil. It always cost more to have the bleeding edge but then prices come down and the masses get their shot too. If we just keep doing the same thing it's not going to get any better. Has oil ever gone down in price permanently? So what's it going to look like in 10 years for us if we do nothing to fund alternative resources for transportation?
      • korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Well, if getting off oil is all you're after, then use ethanol. Sure it'll be 10 bucks a gallon but we'll be off oil.
    • se1zure, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1well if you are in the market for a performance car in this price range this is a good choice, but at the same time, most of us with $80,000 cars arent to concerned with the cost of gas.

      I would say one of the other electric cars, like the miles XS500 which will cost you ~$30,000 (price of the lowest end bmw, or highest end camry) is a great choice for ANY consumer. Most of us are going to rack up at least 50,000 miles, and quite a few of us 100,000 miles. If gas continues to rise, the car will have payed for itself in savings on gas after 100,000 miles.
  • jaderobbins, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1i think the roadster is a much sexier ride.
  • kroni, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3like I said before, a Corvette would be cheaper. And the performance of this sport car is poor. You can get any new 4 in line euro car that does very good mileage, and cost a third or less, and keep almost all of the 80 K USD. Thats money like to pay all the gasoline a 4 in line euro car would use in his entire life cycle.
    • se1zure, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1well the tesla is still more expensive, but after you have put 100,000 miles on it, assuming you bought either a z06 or zr1 the only two cars with similar 0-60 (although the top speeds range much more), your vette will have probably eaten up $30,000+ worth of gasoline (assuming some inflation in gas prices over the 6 or so years). NOt to mention you would have put out ~19 pounds of pollution per gallon used.

      Sure, get the z06 if you want a car like everyone elses, with only marginal acceleration advantage, and guzzle gas left and right.
  • Poltron, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6crawford makes a Subaru STi with 450HP for about $50k and has 42 mpg. i'm just saying. i think $80k is too much.
    • DarkSideWRX, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Dugg for Subaru supporting comment.
    • EricAnderton, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1"Subaru STi with 450HP for about $50k and has 42 mpg"

      I like Subaru as much as the next guy, but that mpg estimate is laughable. The EPA must've gathered that data while driving downhill, in neutral, pushed by a tailwind, with the windows up. Nobody is ever going to see that kind of mileage on that car unless they drive like my grandmother.

      That said, a Subaru generating 450HP with god-only-knows-how-much torque... I wouldn't mind taking it for a test-drive. :)
  • vicsvenge, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3so one tank of fuel per year.... that's assuming that one drives the car as much as Fisker expects... aka never. Car is nothing but a show pony. That and I hate to break it to the you all, but the Lexus GS hybrid, a four door, sub $60k car goes 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and has a higher top speed.

    And to piss everyone off even more I get 28 average miles per gallon in my 13 year old 95 Eclipse turbo with almost 200hp at the wheels. So go ahead spend your extra $5000 to have hybrid stickers all over your car, but I bought my car for that much and I'm still getting the same gas mileage, and probably better performance too.
    • DarkSideWRX, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2but can you drive in the car pool lane by yourself?...
      • vicsvenge, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1do I live in a state where I give a flying ***** about the car pool lane?
  • AgmLauncher, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3"the Fisker Karma has been doing the one thing Tesla has yet to do: bring a hybrid sports car to market"

    Ummm, maybe because Tesla isn't in the market to make cars that still use fossil fuels?
  • regeya, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yippie skippie, so when gasoline is gone, not only will the rich be the only ones who'll be able to afford food, they're the only ones who'll be able to drive.
  • tp123, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3$80,000 is too rich for my blood. I'm waiting for the Aptera Typ-1 to be released later this year for under $29,000. Check it out http://apteraforum.com
  • Jareth86, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Hey guys, how about taking this whole "green" thing seriously and making a ***** affordable one for the general public. Crazy, I know.
  • xadious, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1This looks fantastic. I've always wondered why there weren't any hybrid cars that used the gas to power a generator to charge the battery as opposed to power an actual engine.

    One question though, and i haven't found the answer anywhere on the official site -- there's no mention of how much gas is required to charge the battery from a fully flat state (example, if you were away from a power source).

    If the battery was completely flat, and you weren't close to a power source, you'd use gas which would in turn charge the battery via the generator, how much gas would you need to charge the battery fully and how much MPG would that translate to. It's very strange that they don't mention this point which i think is a very important point and is always mentioned when it comes to cars using gas - even on hybrids.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.