Within the past couple of weeks the Anaheim, Calif.-based company has added pages to its new site even as many observers speak of its pending collapse as a near certainty.

When we last checked April 25, the under-construction site was little more than a mockup, but someone has been at work fleshing it out. It now features some tabs that lead somewhere and on the home page are scrolling images of Karmas.

Their colors happen to be red, white and blue. See any unspoken messages there?

If you scroll your mouse over the “Tomorrow” tab, up pops script saying “Tomorrow never dies.”

Is this a general truism, an act of bravado from a dying corporate entity, or does Fisker know some way out of the fine kettle of fish it is now caught in?

Under the “Tomorrow” tab, Fisker has images of pending models everyone has long since seen – the Atlantic, Sunset, and Surf.

Under the FAQ question “Where is Fisker Automotive’s U.S. plant located?” the company answers:

“After receiving the DoE loan, Fisker made it a priority to create U.S. jobs which led to the purchase its own assembly plant in Delaware where we plan to establish production of our second, higher volume line of vehicles baased [sic] on the Atlantic.”

Some of the pages were not displaying correctly for us either. Maybe it was a fluke, or due to be corrected soon?

If you click on the “Press” tab for media access, the “Contact” page comes up (just as if one had simply clicked on Contact to begin with).

We’ve tried sending inquiries to the linked e-mail address inquiries@fiskerautomotive.com and they’ve been rejected as an undeliverable address. Maybe this will be fixed in coming days?

All we know is Fisker is communicating overt and implicit messages in silence even if it does not otherwise respond to inquiries through back-door channels we’ve also tried.

What it is attempting to actually say in slowly assembling a Web site while bankruptcy documents are written up, yet not filed, is still unclear.

The post Fisker Speaks Silently Through New Web Site appeared first on HybridCars.com.

In this case, according to anonymous sources divulging internal communications at Fisker Automotive, things came to a head between Henrik Fisker and CEO Tony Posawatz over whether federal funds should be relied upon.

Contrary to other speculation, the founder of his namesake company did not walk out because Chinese bidders – now since out of the picture – were looking to take a controlling stake.

Agreed upon by all is Fisker needs cash now.

The sources told Reuters that Posawatz sought a way to restore $336 million in lost U.S. Energy Department loans that were frozen in February 2012.

Henrik Fisker, sources say, opposed this and sought a smaller operating budget funded by what revenues the company could make and other funding sources than the federal government.

To date, Fisker Automotive has raised in excess of $1.2 billion in private funding. Its Energy Department loans had withdrawn about $193 million of the originally promised $529 million in taxpayer dollars.

Undoubtedly there is more to this story, but in short, it was said Posawatz wanted to turn back on the public funding to add to the amount Fisker could spend, as it seeks to finalize and launch its Atlantic and restore confidence in the company.

Their disagreement saw them separated in their perspective on what’s best for Fisker Automotive to the tune of “hundreds of millions” one source told Reuters.

Fisker Automotive has declined to comment on this story.

Last Friday, Henrik Fisker also gave a phone interview to the Detroit News, in which he kept it positive without divulging more than he had disagreements with current management.

The company has had a string of setbacks, and Henrik Fisker said he is proud of the company’s achievements, mentioning its Karma has been sold on four continents.

“It’s probably the most difficult decision I’ve ever made, but you know it was a decision that was necessary as I had major disagreements with the current executive management,” he said, “It would be wrong to stay.”

After he turned in his company Karma last Wednesday, he went to a dealership in Santa Monica and paid full price for an approximately $102,000 blue Karma.

“I don’t get a free car because I walked away,” Fisker said. “I wanted to support my local dealer.”

Henrik Fisker also commented on the politicized cloud surrounding his former company, how it had been likened to failed solar panel maker, Solyndra LLC.

“What happened after Solyndra obviously has shifted unfortunately the discussions — rather than talking about … that everybody wants America to be the leader in new technology, it shifted to being more political focused,” Fisker said. “That’s a situation everyone’s going to have to deal with.”

Whether Henrik Fisker goes to work for another automaker, or what he will do next, he said it is still “too early” to say.

AutoNews, Detroit News

The post More Details On Why Fisker Quit Fisker appeared first on HybridCars.com.

On any other day they’d have little reason to be compared except for one thing. For now, they’re America’s only extended-range electric vehicles capable of driving 25-50 miles solely on electric power but with gasoline backup when needed. This is within limits of what studies say a majority of Americans travel each day. Thus, if kept within their recommended daily allowance of prescribed electric range, the Karma and Volt can blissfully bypass gasoline stations for months on end. This means they could cost far less to operate than regular hybrids let alone ordinary cars, all the while saving petroleum and emitting next to nothing.

We’re highlighting these attributes front and center as they’ve been known to be under-emphasized by some assessing these cars according to different priorities. While everyone is entitled to determine what’s important to them, it is these cars’ EV capability with “no range anxiety” that enables proponents to look past other critiques including their relatively high prices, and just-OK gas-only mileage.

About Those Plug-in Powertrains

The rear-wheel-drive Karma is the only pure series hybrid passenger car available. Unlike a parallel hybrid – such as a Toyota Prius which uses its engine to mechanically drive the wheels along with its electric motors – the Karma’s engine never mechanically drives its wheels. Its GM direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder turbocharged engine instead energizes matched twin electric motors offering combined output of 403 horsepower and 959 pound-feet of torque. This power is channeled via a single-speed transmission and the gas engine can augment the electric supply in Sport mode, or the car can run in battery only Stealth mode assuming its 20.1-kwh A123 Systems lithium-ion pack has more than 15-percent charge remaining.

Fisker Karma Powertrain

The front-wheel-drive Volt uses a naturally aspirated 1.4-liter four cylinder feeding a 16.5-kwh LG Chem li-ion battery to send current to its two differently sized electric traction motors. It is a series hybrid most of the time, but its planetary gearset transmission under certain conditions does mechanically assist the front wheels. GM decided to occasionally use the engine in parallel hybrid mode because it proved more efficient under certain conditions. Unlike the Karma, the Volt’s engine cannot be used to augment electrical current to its traction motors beyond standard EV power settings.

Chevy Volt powertrain

In attempting to live up to its extroverted exterior, the Fisker is faster, but it’s no pavement shredder. Its 0-60 mph time of 7.9 seconds in Stealth mode, and 5.9 seconds and high-14-second quarter mile in Sport doesn’t crush many lower priced sporty cars let alone the elites for which it presents a green alternative. It does outpace the Volt though which can run to 60 in around 8 seconds.

The Volt’s top speed is governed to 100 mph. The Karma is limited to 95 mph in Stealth mode, and 125 mph in Sport.

Both cars are portly, having dual drivetrains and dual energy storage merged into one. Both place their batteries in a center tunnel inboard from crash zones. This mass centralization self-compensates to a degree by augmenting handling along with suspension calibrations that help conceal the Volt’s nearly 3,800 pounds, and the Karma’s over 5,300 pounds.

Suspension and Brakes

The Volt’s suspenders are comprised of front control arms, struts, coil springs, and anti-roll bar, and a rear torsion beam with coil springs.

Managing the Karma’s extremely rigid alloy frame are front and rear control arms designed and calibrated with input from engineers that set up the Ford GT.

Set stiffer and using sticky Goodyear F1 sport tires, the Karma’s lateral acceleration figures average 0.92g. The Volt, ever the more sensible, is set softer, equipped with less-grippy, but more fuel-saving low rolling resistance Goodyear Assurance tires, and averages 0.78g on a skidpad.

Both use ABS-equipped regenerative braking. The Karma’s Brembo monobloc calipers – six piston in front, four in rear gripping 14-plus inch rotors – are world class overachievers and the Volt’s brakes work well also, stopping on good pavement from 60 mph in under 120 feet, compared to the Karma’s 110.

Interior Space

Up front, both cars offer enough legroom, headroom and adjustability for most full-size Americans. The Volt saves weight with manually adjustable seats, and the deluxe Karma adds to its body mass index with electrically adjusted seats.

Fisker says it copied a military powertrain design, but where it mirrors the Volt further is its battery tunnel separating front and rear occupants also eliminates the middle rear seat. What’s more, both cars only provide so-so rear seat space.

The Karma’s rear legroom is a bit shorter, and both cars can trap larger feet attempting to squeeze under the front seats. This is not unusual for cars of the semi-practical crowd to which the Karma belongs. It may be less excusable for the Volt which cannot plea the usual alibis only supermodels get away with, and compared to the Prius it was supposed to beat, it comes up short in this area.

The Volt offers more storage space than the Karma being actually a hatchback disguised as a sedan. Its 10.2 cubic foot rear cargo capacity exceeds the Karma’s 6.9-cubic foot trunk and lack of fold-down rear seats.

Controls and Interface

These cars are represented as the new vanguard of an electric future. Alternately, one could contend they are only now catching up with art as old as members of the AARP. Their gee-whiz factor mimics imagery prophesied by movies, stories, cartoons and pictures since before the 1950s. With technology now able to bring fantasy to reality, their design and operational controls are a step closer to satisfying expectations that long lay dormant within society’s collective unconscious.

To wit, from the Volt driver’s seat you’re faced with connectivity plus a plethora of buttons, and two digital LCD screens – one in the instrument location, the other on the center stack. Look up and there are more buttons for OnStar and more in the ceiling. The gizmos are all pretty user friendly too. There is learning curve dependent on how technically literate you are, but it’s reasonably intuitive.

The Volt is a humble family car but the family can feel more like the Jetsons family in a cooler ride than the Volt’s platform-sharing cousin, the Cruze.

Now contrast that to the “timeless” design in the concept car turned production reality, the Karma. Far fewer buttons are visible for its personal command center, and what’s more, all interior materials are decidedly upscale. Where are the swaths of decent-grade plastic, rubberized materials and serviceable cloth as found in the Volt?

Plastic, smashtik. Our Karma was the mid-level EcoSport – not the base-level EcoStandard or environmentally super-sensitive top-shelf EcoChic which opts for only tasteful synthetic and recycled materials.

Nope ours had sacrificed cows for leather, but it at least is tanned with a 100-percent environmentally friendly process. It covers the dash top, seats in an asymmetric mix of leather and suede, and parts of the battery tunnel where you rest your elbow. Beyond that is recycled hardwood, alcantara, metal and acrylic.

As for the Karma’s unapparent controls for HVAC, entertainment, navigation, backup camera and more, this simplicity is in keeping with the discrete theme. They’re actually all integrated into a single 10.2-inch haptic feedback touch screen in the center stack.

Point-Counterpoint

Both cars provide satisfying experiences albeit of two very different flavors. Of the two, the Volt is probably more suitable to take the dog to the vet, or bring home the medium-large haul from the store.

Its is designed to satisfy mainstream America and grandmom may ingress and egress somewhat more easily than she would for the low and long Karma.

Both cars get started with a pushbutton. Both deactivate their electric parking brake with a similarly designed pull switch. The Volt uses a traditional gear selector whereas the Karma has an avante garde backlit, pyramid-shaped pushbutton gear selector.

Keeping to the futuristic theme, from 0 to 25 mph the Karma emits a pedestrian warning sound that is reminiscent of an extraterrestrial’s landing vessel that came to earth and sprouted wheels. It’s actually kind of cool, and fits with the Karma’s stage presence.

The Volt also warns pedestrians when needed by commandeering the horn, emitting a friendly chirp, not an impolite “get out of my way” tone.

Outward visibility is somewhat better in the Volt with exception of the A-pillars which impede view a bit more than the Karma’s. The Karma is easy enough to see out of, but does have that long hood up front with “muscular” fenders concealing its 22-inch wheels.

Punch the accelerator in all-electric mode, and the Karma is quicker but not amazingly so. With torque available off the line, both hit 30-45 mph quickly, and highway speeds acceptably also. Above 70, the rate of acceleration drops off.

Physics 101: Wind resistance increases exponentially at speed meaning the faster you rip toward “the ton,” the more drag must be overcome by the limited energy supply. This saps efficiency and while both cars have slippery aerodynamics, they’re set to perform best at ordinary speeds.

Contrast that to Tesla’s 85-kwh Model S which out drag races a 560-horsepower BMW M5 to 100. Do that a lot, and we suspect it won’t get near the EPA’s efficiency numbers.

As for steering the Volt and Karma, feel is much different also. In the Karma you know you are in a big machine and its fat tires – 255/35WR-22 front; 285/35WR-22 rear – need plenty of help from the electro-hydraulically assisted steering at parking lot speeds. At a walking pace, the Volt is nimbler with a tighter turning radius. Once rolling, either car goes where it’s pointed with minimal fuss and their weight helps each provide a comparatively complaint ride.

As the road gets twisty the Karma is arguably more rewarding. Even though it weighs as much as the Volt plus four 375-pound occupants, its chassis, suspension and tires make up the difference. But the Volt is agile too and would be even more so if its suspension were stiffer with perhaps beefier anti-roll bars or spring rates and given stickier tires too.

But the Volt is not pretending to be a sports car and balances suspension settings toward comfort which means more body roll. It is sporty though, and 85th percentile cornering antics at extra-legal, but not insane speeds are rewarded by crisp handling.

The Karma is set up like a grand touring car, and its grippy rubber slightly compromises mpg and all-electric range in favor of maximizing traction offered by its flat-cornering suspension.

One does wonder what would happen if the big car let loose if pitched too hard into a corner. All that mass sliding sideways might not be pretty. But it’s not really concerning, and it actually encourages you to push the corners. In sharp, slow bends, mashing the accelerator can induce rear sliding oversteer for some tire- and mpg-ruining fun.

Speaking of which, these are ecomobiles and while sneak previews of what it’s like to play with them are fine, what about that all important green factor?

As U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers already reveal, the Volt blows the Karma away. To a point. The lighter weight Volt relies on a 16.5-kwh battery, and uses only 65 percent of its capacity until the battery management system switches to charge-sustaining gas mode. The Karma uses 85-percent capacity from its 20.1-kwh battery. Thus their all-electric range (AER) is within a stone’s throw of each other.

Drive it sedately, and the Karma can do the whole 38 miles the EPA says the Volt’s battery provides. Actually the Karma is EPA-rated for 33 miles, and we’ve seen that and more. Both cars can hit 50 miles AER, but the Volt requires less nursing.

With finite battery reserves, you are encouraged to drive these cars “responsibly” (read: not like sports cars). If you do drive them hard with jackrabbit starts, speeding on the highway and anywhere else, expect AER to suffer.

This said, the EPA rates the Volt as 76-percent more efficient. That is, it’s MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent – see sidebar) is 98, whereas the Karma’s is 54. This means Karma electric costs are higher assuming the EPA cycle is correct. The German TÜV’s more lenient test says the Karma is good for 112 MPGe. You can take this for what it’s worth but it at least suggests easy going will mean better efficiency than the EPA estimates.

In gas-only mode the Volt again outscores the Karma with an EPA-rated 37 mpg vs. 20. Twenty is about what a comparably heavy Cadillac Escalade Hybrid musters but it cannot touch the Karma’s electric-only capabilities.

Again, efficiency numbers are dependent on how you drive. If you keep a cool hand, you can exceed estimates. Drive aggressively and you might think this energy saving talk is mixed with green wash.

What is the Right Choice?

Four possible answers: 1) The Volt. 2) The Karma. 3) Both. 4) Neither.

Of the two, the Volt obviously costs less, is cheaper to operate, thus promises a better return on investment.

Both cars are full EV subsidy eligible, and the Volt’s MSRP including $860 destination charge starts at $39,995. The Karma’s MSRP including $1,000 destination charge starts at $103,000.

The Karma – compared to an exotic V8 or V12 powered luxury car – is also inexpensive to purchase and operate. It’s half the price of an Aston Martin Rapide, for example.

Though not exactly affordable, the Fisker Karma is a bargain compared to many luxury cars.

But without a doubt the Volt has had far fewer quality issues – as in almost none. Actually, it has topped Consumer Reports’ owner satisfaction survey the last two years since its launch, displacing the Porsche 911 from that spot in the process.

The Karma has been recalled a couple times and has had reports of poorly fitted body panels, interior work, and electronic controls. However, its Finnish boutique maker Valmet also produces Porsches and Mercedes among other first-class cars, so we suspect it can get the quality control in line, and may have already.

Aside from this, both cars have been politicized, represent new technology, and there are plenty of fence sitters and detractors bandying various viewpoints.

Our take? If the cars really are viable – and many say they are – the market will vote its pocketbook, and veto unwarranted critical observations, real and imagined. Equally true is neither is perfect, both are first-generation examples and due to be followed by improved versions – but then that is always true of technology and both have their fans who say jump in, the water is fine.

The bottom line? The Volt and Karma are not right for everyone, but are meeting needs now. So, the only right answer is the one you decide.

What is MPGe in layman’s terms?

Simply put, it is how to compare the efficiency of electric vehicles. The Volt has a MPGe of 98, and the Karma gets 54 MPGe. So the Volt is 1.76 times more efficient, or the Karma will go 54 miles on the same electricity the Volt goes 98 miles. Efficiency is nice to know, but what about cost?

Without a little more information this MPGe number doesn’t give us what we can quickly equate when we see the MPG of a typical car; cost of the “fuel” we will be using. This MPGe number is based on 33.7 kilowatt-hours of energy usage. Why? Because the EPA has determined the energy in one gallon of gas is “equivalent” (the e in MPGe) to 33.7 kWh of electricity. So if we know what 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity costs, we could calculate the electric vehicle “fuel” cost.

If you know the cost of a kilowatt-hour at your home, the above information is enough to compare the fuel cost between a gas versus an electric vehicle, but for most consumers, the information in the tables below will paint a clear enough picture:

Related Reading
2012 Karma Review
2013 Volt Review
Karma Certified For Delivery
Volt Battery Reinforced
Fisker: Puts Out Fires, Makes Progress
Fisker Atlantic
Cadillac ELR

The post 2013 Chevrolet Volt vs. 2012 Fisker Karma – Video appeared first on HybridCars.com.

Following a 47-month blur of engineering and development by Fisker Automotive, which had been founded September 2007 in Anaheim, Calif., the production Karma launched December 2011. The company says first year sales are approaching 2,000, including from a growing network in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Fisker’s past couple of years have seen praise juxtaposed with controversy. The start-up was essentially born into a politicized crucible, having to handle various issues from minor to perceptibly larger. We touch on some of these in a sidebar, but for now, let’s talk about Fisker’s car.

As is true for many vehicles, the Karma is not without room for improvement, but it is surprisingly good, as evidenced also by a growing list of awards.

No Holds Barred Design Exercise

If there’s any aspect that even critics cannot easily fault, it’s that the Karma is a smashingly good looking design.

Henrik Fisker and (now) Chief Executive Officer of Europe and Middle East, Bernhard “Barny” Koehler started the product design firm Fisker Coachbuild in 2005 but the ambitious partners wanted more and founded their own auto company.

The first model for Henrik’s namesake brand was drawn to be no less convincing than efforts made when he’d been a board member and design director for Aston Martin and when he worked also for DesignworksUSA – the Southern California-based BMW subsidiary where Koehler finished a 22-year career as director of operations.

Whether the Karma outdoes conventional luxury sport competitors in every respect is questionable. Included among nitpicks, we’ve heard where examples have had poorly fitted body panels, but ours had no such issues. And given what it promises, it would be a mistake to too easily dismiss the car, as it does excel in meaningful ways.

The Karma is the result of Fisker’s desire to enter the green car market with a niche product among niche products – his car would exude head-turning style, deliver respectable performance, albeit this would be “responsible luxury.”

Driving one for a week, we had opportunity to bask in an experience that’s part of why some pay for this echelon of car. In a culture where you are often perceived by what you drive, showing up in a Karma is the next best thing to being some kind of star.

We fielded questions at most places we stopped. One time an impromptu Fisker Q&A session arose when the Karma drew a small assembly of joggers, walkers, as well as a couple of single-speed bicyclists who we watched exclaim among themselves, stop and come back. On another occasion a young woman in an Audi admitted she had followed the Karma as it circled around a parking lot. She said as an auto enthusiast, she couldn’t identify this elusively exotic looking car, so had to stop to find out. She asked questions, showed iPhone photos of two other hopped-up Audi turbos, then shot pictures of the Karma.

Give it enough sunlight, and the world’s largest seamless solar glass roof can net up to 200 free miles (321 km) per year. Its dynamic splayed pattern is said to optimize efficiency and energy is also used to power the interior cooling system.

The Karma looks like it could be packing a big V12 and exudes captivating sensuality. It lets you cavalierly explain enviro-sensibility in a newly qualified meaning of the term, and if you’re open to it, it can smooth the way to meeting new people.

What fun if you’re even remotely sociable – or daunting if you’re shy. Nor can the Karma’s panache be bad for public perceptions, given electrified cars and hybrids have too often been viewed as the province of the self righteous and nerds.

Does the Karma do an 11-second quarter mile or rip to 200 mph? Not hardly, but that does not matter much to many an everyday eyewitness to its curb appeal. That it looks like it could is more than half the game.

The Only Series Hybrid Production Car

The Karma powertrain makes for a mid-range EV capable of around 25-50 miles with gasoline backup.

What actually propels the Karma is the for-now only series hybrid automotive powertrain that lets it function a lot like the extended-range Chevrolet Volt.

Henrik Fisker said he was inspired by a military design and adopted it for his EVer – Electric Vehicle with Extended Range.

The covered GM 2.0-liter Ecotec turbo and other hardware fill out a fairly impressive looking engine bay.

The 5,300-pound car relies on two equal-power traction motors in back adding up to 403 horsepower and 959 pound-feet of torque. Full power is delivered when the engine is running to augment a liquid thermally managed 20.1-kwh A123 Systems nanophosphate lithium iron phosphate battery pack.

The engine is a turbocharged 2.0-liter GM Ecotec inline-four cylinder rated for 260 crankshaft horsepower. The rear-wheel-drive car uses a single-speed transmission, and the engine never mechanically turns the wheels. Instead it serves as a generator routing power through the electric motors just as a diesel does in a locomotive.

The transmission is engaged via a center-mounted shift selector comprised of red-backlit P,N,R,D buttons organized in a sort of pyramid shape. Two forward drive modes – gas-assisted Sport and all-electric Stealth – are triggered by a left-side paddle behind the steering wheel that can be actuated on the fly. A “ding” sound and change of dash color scheme – white for Stealth and orange for Sport – indicate which mode the car is in. All-electric drive depends of course on the battery having juice remaining.

The battery pack uses roughly 85 percent of its capacity before switching to charge sustaining mode using the generator to maintain the battery – not recharge it – and to power the electric motors.

Shift paddles toggle between drive modes.

On the right side to match the drive mode paddle is another paddle for Hill Mode that controls one of two levels of amplified regenerative braking. This is useful when decelerating or on a steep descent. It can be used like a downshift for simulated engine braking, and feeds more electrons into the pack than the standard regenerative setting which is otherwise always active.

The heavy car has power-limiting traction control which contributes to its economy but relegates straight-line burnouts to an impossibility. Acceleration in Sport mode is around 5.9 seconds, and top speed is a governed 125 mph. In Stealth mode, naught to 60 is around 7.9 seconds, and top speed is 95 mph.

Interior

Inside, the swank styling continues, with elegant and uncluttered details offered for each of the Karma’s three sub-models – EcoStandard, EcoSport and EcoChic. Our test car was the middle version. It utilized leather on seats, dash top and steering wheel that’s tanned using an environmentally sensitive process, swatches of wood reclaimed from Lake Michigan or California storms, brushed metalwork, textiles, and LED lighting. This is essentially a production version close in execution to the original show car.

On the other hand, the EPA declares this 16.4-foot long, 78.1-inch wide e-GT to be a subcompact due to limited interior room. The trunk offers 6.9 cubic feet, and you may wonder why there’s not more usable space in such a large vehicle.

The battery dominates the middle section front to back, making it a four-seater. Really, it’s more of a two-seater, as the beautifully upholstered back seats are better suited for children or small adults.

In the center stack, many controls are handled by a 10.2-inch touch-screen. It’s not as amazing as the 17-incher in the Tesla Model S, nor does it surf the ‘Net. It handles climate, radio, navigation, back-up camera, other functions, and while we’ve heard of others having difficulties, ours never shut off, or malfunctioned.

Overall quality for our car was good. Stitching and fit lines were straight and finish was a cut above cars of this class. We’ve heard others report early production models lacking here and there, so if you get one, look extra closely before accepting from the dealer.

Chassis, Suspension and Brakes

The Karma’s truck-like mass would have been even heavier had Fisker not designed a very rigid space frame made of 5,000- and 6,000-series aluminum alloys.

Its backbone is comprised of s super-structural tunnel running down the centerline. In addition to housing the battery it acts like a torque tube tying front to rear. Holding it all together is 259 feet (79 meters) of precision CMT MIG welds and 1,058 self-piercing rivets.

Fisker says it has industry leading strength with more than 33,000 Newton-meters per degree (Nm/deg) of static torsional rigidity – measuring, for example, the amount the frame resists twisting forces when entering a ramp at an angle.

Static bending rigidity is said to measure more than 23,000 N/mm and this, for example, could be the amount the frame resists flexing forces as the car enters a ramp straight on.

Also “world class” is dynamic stiffness – the frame’s resistance to resonant vibrations like those felt when driving over sharp bumps or a rough road.

The result is a chassis that “provides the utmost in occupant safety and exceeds global crash protection standards.” Regarding U.S. standards, the Karma has been crash tested to comply with DOT/NHTSA/FMVSS standards and “meets or exceeds all.” To explain why the car was not independently rated by the EPA with a star rating, Fisker says that the Karma “is outside the price window.” This is not uncommon for $100,000-plus cars and the EPA does not actually crash test cars it rates. This job falls to NHTSA and the Insurance Institute if Highway Safety. Each year they pick cars to test, and their budget often precludes destroying supercars and the like just to rate them.

But for your money, the innovation continues. Frontal impact protection is primarily absorbed by a multi-cell tempered aluminum crush box. If needed, it can be easily replaced, says the company. In the doors are “Dual Phase 600-Series steel-reinforced components” and robust B- pillars add to “substantial” side impact protection.

The center-mounted battery should be of little concern either, says Fisker, being furthest from impact zones.

Controlling the chassis is a suspension designed with input from engineers who helped dial in Ford’s GT supercar. The 124.4-inch wheelbase car utilizes control arms and coil springs front and rear. Weight distribution is 47-percent front, 53-percent-rear.

Front brakes use six-piston caliper Brembo monobloc calipers clamping 14.6-inch by 1.3-inch ventilated front rotors and out back are matching four-piston Brembos pinching 14.4-inch x 1.1-inch ventilated rotors. This arrangement has been known to haul the car to an ABS-chirping stop in just 110 feet from 60 mph thanks also to its sticky GoodyearEagle F1 Supercar tires – 255/35WR-22 front; 285/35WR-22 rear.

Road Manners

With the wireless key communicating from placement somewhere inside the car, the displays light when the EVer start button is pressed. At speeds below 25 mph concealed front and rear external speakers emanate a space-shippy sound meant to alert the unwary and unseeing.

Turning is predictable through its electro-hydraulically assisted steering, and its bulk is well concealed with nearly flat cornering pivoting around the 600-pound battery, centralized and low. Its weight and well-sorted suspension help soak bumps large and small with controlled damping.

While no track racer, tests have shown the Karma’s lateral acceleration averages 0.92g, and it offers a traction-controlled invitation to push the curves. This is one car that eschews low rolling resistance tires for the incremental economy gains they promise in exchange for purpose-made sport rubber. These soft sticky tires never squeal, even when applying a heavy foot in slower, sharper turns that can kick the tail out in mild power oversteer. Dive it in off the accelerator, or merely neutral, and at the limit you will more likely experience understeer.

Acceleration is better in Sport, but not earth-shatteringly so. Stealth mode is more rewarding if you prize the near-silent EV effect, but use it hard and you’ll have the gas back on soon enough when electric range is prematurely exhausted. Some have said the gas engine’s noise is anything but music, but it’s muted pretty well, and not obnoxious to our ears.

Reaching highway speed is no problem and passing power is plentiful, but this is not a car that would run with an 85-kwh Tesla S to 100 mph. It has more than enough usable energy, but remember, this is a “responsible” luxury sports sedan.

With battery capacity less than one-quarter the kilowatts supplying the biggest Tesla EV, and intended to be ostensibly green, the Karma’s hooligan potential is dialed back. With 959 pound feet of torque – nearly 50-percent more than a Dodge Cummins diesel and nearly 60-percent more than a 568 pound-foot Porsche Panamera Turbo – even with only one tall final drive gear, the Karma could be much more of a pavement ripper, but is setup to be only fun enough.

A Wise Purchase?

Beauty is a subjective thing. Emotion-laced motivation can transcend Spartan objectivity. This is proven daily by people who pay for premium jewelry, clothing, houses, art – and luxury cars. If you want to treat yourself to a green luxury car, Fisker has one that could work.

If you are accustomed to high-end, perhaps have a few other cars already, want a frugal vehicle with no range anxiety that emits little or nothing, and prefer something fancier than a Chevy Volt, a Karma could be the ticket.

If driven sedately, and your commute is, say, under 35 suburban miles, you may only need to stop at a gas station every few months. If you have charging where you parking, or en route, all the better.

The Karma is eligible for $7,500 in federal subsidies and state incentives may be available. You will probably want a 240-volt level two charger at home, as house current can take over 10 hours through its 3.3-kw onboard charger.

Potential competitors could be a 60-kwh or 85-kwh Tesla Model S, pending extended-range Cadillac ELR, and pending all-electric Infiniti LE. None of these will be exactly like the Karma which presents its own unique value proposition.

Fisker’s Karma is well-designed, one of the best looking cars on the road, and its existence is remarkable considering obstacles that have had to be overcome. We hope the company makes it past current financial concerns, because if the Karma is any indicator, Fisker undoubtedly has much more yet to contribute.

MSRP: Fisker Karma EcoSport: $111,000 (incl. $1,000 destination and handling). Price as tested: $111,000; Exterior color: Eclipse (black with subtle navy blue metal flake), Interior: Black Sand Moonstone. U.S./Canadian parts content: 50 percent.

Safety: Eight airbags; ABS w/panic brake assist; Electronic Stability Control; lower anchors and tethers for children (LATCH); automatic battery disconnect; signature Fisker Hybrid HZ external sound.

Comfort and convenience: Premium leather and suede from 100-percent sustainable facility; Fisker Command Center 10.2-inch multifunction haptic touch screen; voice activated hands-free navigation w/ rear camera; premium audio with 295 watts, 8 speakers and subwoofer; AM/FM/MP3/USB and AUX Inputs; Sirius Radio ready; Bkluetooth handsfree phone connectivity; Streering wheel mounted audio and phone controls; Bi-Xenon headlamps w/ LED interior lighting; 6-way power adjustable seats with lumbar adj. and memory; dual zone climate control a/c with heated F/R seats; auto-dim rearview mirror w/ Homelink.

A Niche Among Niches

Without question there are many more economically sensible and environmentally sustainable cars than the $103,000-$116,000 Karma, but that is not the point, and its actual raison d’être has been known to elude some green car proponents.

The Karma was meant to provide alternatives to elite, fuel-hungry luxury cars. There is a market for such vehicles. People buy them anyway, so why not make an economical alternative?

The Karma, along with a two-door Sunset convertible and Surf “shooting brake” or hatchback/wagon, were designed together in a spate of creativity. They were intended to lead off with more frugal models to follow, and to show from its inception Fisker Automotive could to go head to head with cars such as Porsche’s Panamera.

Among Porsches, Maseratis, Aston Martins, Bentleys, and others that can cost upwards of a quarter million dollars, Fisker is to these as a Toyota Prius is to sporty 6- and 8-cylinder cars. However, it’s just as cool looking and delivers sufficiently close handling and acceleration. Next to its gas-swilling competitors, the Karma is actually inexpensive. It thus represents a very unique trade-off.

Parked outside a Ferrari dealer the Karma does not look out of place.

Fear, uncertainty and loathing

The degree of caustic reaction in some quarters to Fisker as it develops as a full-fledged automaker is not without irony considering Fisker has been made to jump through hoops Henry Ford couldn’t have conjured in a nightmare. These include over 70,000 pages of regulations all so Fisker might fulfill its ostensibly noble goal: to manufacture environmentally responsible cars that in time would include models at average affordable prices. Fisker says it will be a job provider in an era when off-shoring is eroding this nation’s manufacturing base.

But critics have decried such things as $528.7 million in low-interest federal loans offered September 2009 – that were frozen for missed deadlines – and allegedly under political pressure – in early 2012. This was not before $193 million had been spent upon which Fisker is paying interest and plans are to pay back first principle in the first quarter of 2013.

Fisker has also been rebuked for introducing a six-figure product – anything but a peoples’ car – built in Finland by boutique automaker Valmet. Further, the Karma’s EPA-rated 20 mpg in gas mode, 54 MPGe, 33 miles electric range, 250 miles total range don’t particularly shine compared to other plug-in cars.

Subsequent tests by Germany’s TÜV however said the Karma achieved 112 MPGe, emits a paltry 51 grams of CO2 per kilometer, and is good for 51.6 miles e-range. Unfortunately EPA numbers are what must be displayed on U.S. window stickers.

As for foreign manufacture, Fisker says this expedient was chosen in July 2008 – in full sight of and well before September 2009 when the government approved its loans – and only after Fisker was unable to rent U.S. assembly space prior to purchasing its 3.2-million square foot Delaware assembly plant May 2010 from General Motors.

Fisker Automotive has great ideas, represents new hope, but automakers require lots of cash. By May 2012 Fisker reported in excess of $100 million in gross revenues, however Fisker is still reliant on venture capital having raised $1.2 billion so far.

Its ongoing need for fundraising recently prompted its new CEO Tony Posawatz to travel to Europe to solicit investors where strong potential market is perceived.

Next on the roster is Fisker’s approximately $55,000-$65,000 Atlantic series hybrid.

More teething pains and drama could be chronicled – including concerns with its battery maker, A123 Systems. However Fisker appears poised to come out on top through this just as it has for every issue thrown at it to date, but we’ll save further elaboration for another time.

The bottom line is we have seen some commentators focus on negative aspects of the Fisker story while seemingly omitting other potentially redeeming or mitigating facts in the company’s favor. If this means Fisker’s story has not been properly told, this is a disservice, and we will be looking to delve deeper in a followup analysis.

For now, this brief overview is just to add some balance. Based on facts collected thus far, we can say with confidence that despite all its foibles – some its fault, others not – Fisker has shown it is attempting to do a good thing, and at the very least, it deserves to be represented fairly.

The post 2012 Fisker Karma Review – Video appeared first on HybridCars.com.