All,
After researching the A123 defective battery issue, I still remain unsure which of the following scenarios is true:
A) *ALL* (or nearly all) Fisker Karmas made up until the defect was discovered (around March 2012) received batteries processed at the improperly calibrated welding station at A123. Even though only a small percentage of these batteries will undergo premature failure (perhaps 1%?), virtually all Karmas will need their batteries replaced once the non-defective ones are in good supply.
B) Only a small fraction of Karmas made up until the defect was discovered received batteries that have the defect. Therefore the majority of Karmas will not need a replacement battery before the natural lifetime of the battery ends.
Fisker's own information, as well as independent news reports, have been conflicting in this regard. I've read "all", "most", and "only a tiny fraction" of Karmas may have received a defective battery.
Does anyone have information about which possibility is (more) correct?
Thanks.
After researching the A123 defective battery issue, I still remain unsure which of the following scenarios is true:
A) *ALL* (or nearly all) Fisker Karmas made up until the defect was discovered (around March 2012) received batteries processed at the improperly calibrated welding station at A123. Even though only a small percentage of these batteries will undergo premature failure (perhaps 1%?), virtually all Karmas will need their batteries replaced once the non-defective ones are in good supply.
B) Only a small fraction of Karmas made up until the defect was discovered received batteries that have the defect. Therefore the majority of Karmas will not need a replacement battery before the natural lifetime of the battery ends.
Fisker's own information, as well as independent news reports, have been conflicting in this regard. I've read "all", "most", and "only a tiny fraction" of Karmas may have received a defective battery.
Does anyone have information about which possibility is (more) correct?
Thanks.