READ THE FULL PRESS RELEASE HEREFisker Automotive said:
Photo gallery from AutoEvolution.com
[Update: higher-quality photos now available from Autoblog, several posts below.]
First factory-built production Fisker Karma unveiled at 2010 Paris Motor Show
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Photo gallery from AutoEvolution.com
[Update: higher-quality photos now available from Autoblog, several posts below.]
It looks as good as ever. But I would have liked to have seen a new colour, as we have to start making choices soon at our dealer's. 
This grey scheme ('shadow') is the same one as used on the car that went on tour through the US and Canada. It is still my favourite, but I would like to see the 'earth', 'deep ocean' and 'white sand' colour schemes on a real car before making up my mind.
This grey scheme ('shadow') is the same one as used on the car that went on tour through the US and Canada. It is still my favourite, but I would like to see the 'earth', 'deep ocean' and 'white sand' colour schemes on a real car before making up my mind.Gear shift lever is gone on the regular production model. The design looks otherwise intact. Anyone see anything else different?
That motor takes up a lot of space under the hood. Does anyone know what the fuel tank capacity and gas mileage in non-electric only mode is?
That motor takes up a lot of space under the hood. Does anyone know what the fuel tank capacity and gas mileage in non-electric only mode is?
I agree with you that it would be nice to see more real colors. Have you seen the following Karma ad (more here)? I believe this is the Earth color, although please correct me if I'm wrong:Good Karma said:It looks as good as ever. But I would have liked to have seen a new colour, as we have to start making choices soon at our dealer's.
The gauges have also been improved; here's a close up:xradman said:
More discussion on the much-improved shift lever is here:
http://fiskerbuzz.com/forums/Thread-Fisker-Karma-shifter-design-has-changed
Thank you for posting that Don. Welcome to the forums!Don A said:
More information on the Karma in Paris from acclaimed automotive critic Dan Neil of the WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/10/01/and-the-strangest-paint-award-goes-to-fisker/
![]()
Video as well:
http://online.wsj.com/video/news-hub-why-green-is-red-hot-at-paris-motor-show/2194F853-47A5-48BE-ADBA-B1A2B9430017.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/10/01/and-the-strangest-paint-award-goes-to-fisker/
Video as well:
http://online.wsj.com/video/news-hub-why-green-is-red-hot-at-paris-motor-show/2194F853-47A5-48BE-ADBA-B1A2B9430017.html
The foot of the side mirrors seems to have changed a bit. It's a bit bigger now and the shape has also changed somewhat. I guess the original design caused too much turbulence (noise), which ofcourse you want to avoid in a quiet, electric car.
@ Wimbledon: I hadn't noticed the earth-colour in that picture yet. Maybe I got distracted
@ Xradman: I read somewhere - don't remember where - that the fuel tank holds just 12 liters (which is about 3 gallons). That would be way too little if it does 25 mpg in non-electric mode. I think the 25 mpg you calculated is not correct. An Audi A6 3.2 does 25 mpg, so a 2.0 liter turbocharged engine doing low and steady rpm's - it is just charging a battery - has to do much better than that. It is more likely 50-75 mpg.
@ Wimbledon: I hadn't noticed the earth-colour in that picture yet. Maybe I got distracted
@ Xradman: I read somewhere - don't remember where - that the fuel tank holds just 12 liters (which is about 3 gallons). That would be way too little if it does 25 mpg in non-electric mode. I think the 25 mpg you calculated is not correct. An Audi A6 3.2 does 25 mpg, so a 2.0 liter turbocharged engine doing low and steady rpm's - it is just charging a battery - has to do much better than that. It is more likely 50-75 mpg.
I actually calculated this using Fiskers own operating cost calculator and no it is not a mistake. Their calculator shows 50 miles of electric and then 25 mpg. You can try it here for yourself.Good Karma said:
They are using costs of $0.11/kWh for electricity and $2.81 per gallon for gas. If you enter 50 miles per day into the calculator it show an electric cost of $1.76 and a gasoline cost of $0.00 per day. Add 25 miles to the 50 for 75 miles a day and the electric cost stays the same and the gas cost goes to $2.81 per day or exactly 1 gallon for the extra 25 miles. Add another 25 miles for 100 miles and the gas cost goes to $5.62 which equal 2 gallons for the extra 50 miles.
You're right Don, the calculator indicates 25 mpg in generator-mode. My bad.
It's not a very good figure. I still doubt whether it is correct (whether the calculator is correct), since it's the same mileage you get from a much bigger gas engine doing less steady rpm's, including accelerating.
By the way, interesting to see that the car automatically switches to generator-mode (sports mode) after 80% of the battery capacity has been used ($ 1,76 divided by $ 0,11 = 16 kWh of 20 kWh available). This is probaby done to preserve battery life. That 80% is enough to get you to 50 miles.
---
I also have to correct myself on the colour: upon closer inspection it is not same colour ('shadow') as the car that went on a US-tour. I think the car in Paris is in a new colour we haven't seen before. It's more blue, so probably this is 'deep ocean'. Now we're only waiting for 'white sand' and 'earth' on a real car.
It's not a very good figure. I still doubt whether it is correct (whether the calculator is correct), since it's the same mileage you get from a much bigger gas engine doing less steady rpm's, including accelerating.
By the way, interesting to see that the car automatically switches to generator-mode (sports mode) after 80% of the battery capacity has been used ($ 1,76 divided by $ 0,11 = 16 kWh of 20 kWh available). This is probaby done to preserve battery life. That 80% is enough to get you to 50 miles.
---
I also have to correct myself on the colour: upon closer inspection it is not same colour ('shadow') as the car that went on a US-tour. I think the car in Paris is in a new colour we haven't seen before. It's more blue, so probably this is 'deep ocean'. Now we're only waiting for 'white sand' and 'earth' on a real car.
Could 'Diamond Dust' perhaps be the name of the paint or painting process? I know that Fisker plans on putting small glass particles in the paint, and I guess we can see the result in the Paris show car (and the Detroit show car, which also had these sparkles). In Paris they (Valmet?) have overdone it a bit and that must be why Henrik Fisker has said it will be toned down.
Speculation, speculation, speculation :-b
Speculation, speculation, speculation :-b
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
