Fisker Karma Electric Car Gets Worse Mileage Than an SUV

That's right. Not only did the U.S. give $529 million to Finland to build this car in their country, as neo96 has stated here:www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">above top secret

We funded a company to build an absolute fraud!! According to Forbes, the electric car gets worse mileage than a Ford Explorer SUV in the city. Thanks Al Gore, you've done it again.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The Fisker Karma electric car, developed mainly with your tax money so that a bunch of rich VC’s wouldn’t have to risk any real money, has rolled out with an nominal EPA MPGe of 52 in all electric mode (we will ignore the gasoline engine for this analysis). Not bad?

Unfortunately, it’s a sham. This figure is calculated using the grossly flawed EPA process that substantially underestimates the amount of fossil fuels required to power the electric car, as I showed in great depth in an earlier Forbes.com article. In short, the EPA methodology leaves out, among other things, the conversion efficiency in generating the electricity from fossil fuels in the first place.

Here is the kicker:

As I calculated in my earlier Forbes article, one needs to multiply the EPA MPGe by .365 to get a number that truly compares fossil fuel use of an electric car with a traditional gasoline engine car on an apples to apples basis. In the case of the Fisker Karma, we get a true MPGe of 19. This makes it worse than even the city rating of a Ford Explorer SUV.

This Administration needs to change its m.o. Everyone around the world is starting to recognize how stupid they are and comes looking for a handout......and these idiots in D.C. give it to them.

My personal favorite quote in the article depicts the looney tunes in the White House.

Press responses from Fisker Automotive highlight the problem here: electric vehicle makers want to pretend that the electricity to charge the car comes from magic sparkle ponies sprinkling pixie dust rather than burning fossil fuels.

Forbes.com

So what do ya'll think?

Thanks for your time,

Pax

reply to post by paxnatus


So the EPA is saying, It really doesn't work. Which is good for the oil and auto industry.
Or they are saying it doesn't work when it really does. Which is good for the oil and auto industry.
Now let me see... lets flip a two headed coin.

Wait a second. Is this the car that runs on happy thoughts or the one that runs on farts? Oh it's neither? And it's produced off-shore? Why would we pay for this???

The car is a POS. Plain and simple. 100k for a 32 mile range on all electric. 230 mile range with both gas and electric.

All these hybrid-electric cars are unreasonable once the energy input into the manufacturing, shipping, assembly, and transport are brought into the equation. we're told that the future lies in Hybrids and electrics and not being able to travel more than ~100 miles a charge(at best), instead of using 300+mpg carburetors on small blocks which the major makers have suppressed since at least the 60s.

My grandpa bought a lincoln or mercury(cant recall which exactly)whose carburetor gave 120+ mpg stock. he and his friend studied it, modified it, and achieved 300+mpg. they drove to Detroit on less than a full tank of gas, presented it to Ford Motors, who excitedly paid them 25k each and a new model year car each for them. in exchange they turned over their designs and the prototype, expecting this to become a production model. no such luck.
my grandpa always said that if I ever came up with a great idea, i should run with it and never let it out of my hands. he was always upset that his contribution was essentially locked in a back room, never to see the light of day, while he watched the gas prices rise and rise. If he were alive today, i'm sure his blood would boil at the joke of efficiency that these cars are.

eta: so the gasoline efficiency (20mpg) is better than the corrected electric efficiency(19mpg)
why drive electric?

Originally posted by greygary
My grandpa bought a lincoln or mercury(cant recall which exactly)whose carburetor gave 120+ mpg stock. he and his friend studied it, modified it, and achieved 300+mpg. they drove to Detroit on less than a full tank of gas, presented it to Ford Motors, who excitedly paid them 25k each and a new model year car each for them.

Nice little fairy story there, except you forgot the traditional starting phrase "Once upon a time"
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by greygary
My grandpa bought a lincoln or mercury(cant recall which exactly)whose carburetor gave 120+ mpg stock. he and his friend studied it, modified it, and achieved 300+mpg. they drove to Detroit on less than a full tank of gas, presented it to Ford Motors, who excitedly paid them 25k each and a new model year car each for them.

Nice little fairy story there, except you forgot the traditional starting phrase "Once upon a time"
en.wikipedia.org...

yeah. not a once upon a time.

the carb that came with the car was not standard for production models. that's why he even bothered tinkering in the first case. he drove it around day when he got it and noticed the fuel gauge barely dropped, so he and his buddy(both mechanics) checked it out and the carburetor was different from the factory standard. the part was either flawed or a design that wasn't supposed to leave the factory but did. being gear heads, they understood what was different and improved on it.

Just because YOU lack the necessary skills, doesn't mean it is impossible, especially for a more mechanically inclined mind or minds working together. My gramps was always fixing or improving things, from vacuums to cars to boats. he had an inventor/engineer's mind, but god forbid he handle the day to day business operations.


eta: i think i see why you said once upon a time. when I said stock in my 1st post, i meant the one that came on the car, not the one that was supposed to go on the car/came on production models. my point being that the car company had an exponentially better product than the one released to the public, but chose not to release it. Hence the quick buy-up of the product and improved design and burial in the ford vaults. sorry for any confusion

Originally posted by greygary
they understood what was different and improved on it.

Yet they never bothered to build their own, or market it to others....

Like I said, just a fairy story!

reply to post by spoor


clearly you don't understand how things work in the real world. when you sell the idea and designs, they no longer belongs to you. in any part. whatsoever.

They took a product, created improvements, and sold it all to ford thinking that their product was going to be used. Wouldn't you take a new car, and the equivalent of $200k in 2010 dollars, plus the potential for some on the backend, for a product that you thought would improve the lives of your countrymen? If you thought it would make a real difference? I know I would.

Additionally, you act like setting up a factory and starting production is some easy thing for a couple of country boys without a college education between them. Hell it's even out of the reach of most folks now.

I could start building carburetors in my garage but without a factory to mass produce, what good is it? You can't easily meet a break even without significant investment and resources, both of which weren't available. And then there is the fact that a distribution network would have to be set up, and advertising, and promotional demonstrations, and then you have to manage your supply chain and quality control. overwhelmed with the intricacies of running a real world business yet?
All of which was a bit out of reach for most low to middle class folks back then, especially folk who had to work 40+ hours a week to put food on a table and a roof over their families heads.


As to your assertion that they never built their own or marketed it, what do you think ford bought? a sweet story or a hypothesis? no, they only pay for results.

Gramps took the good carb, took a standard one, examined and compared them, modded the standard carb to his improved design, (which is the"making their own" that you're missing). they drove back to detroit from el paso, and showed ford the two carbs. this is the "marketing" that you seem to be overlooking.
You don't need a million customers. Just a millionaire customer.

Commercialized hybrid or electric cars are just a big joke.
Everything that is too efficient is discarded or a company will faces sanctions. It was like that 100 years ago and its still like that today. Just do a quick research about the history of the lightbulb.

Heres a little video, about 2 min. shows how hybrids are arguably the worst eco friendly vehicle.

reply to post by paxnatus


These articles are lies. We have the answers. You know what the true mileage of even the most inefficient electric car is? Infinite miles per gallon. Just build solar powered charging stations like this one. People can build these on top of their garages.

Don't be stupid guys, there're literally billions of reasons they want to make you think that oil is the only thing that can make the world go around.

reply to post by paxnatus


You are flat out wrong :

Car & Driver gives reports of 85 mpg on electric and 33 city and 38 highway on petrol.It's got a 235bhp Inline 4 cylinder petrol with a combined range of 67 mpg combined so recheque your facts.

Forbes is wrong about alot of things. They are "Porn For The SCUM!". Hell, their Richest list is inaccurate year after year!

If we want to reduce gas consumption, the answer is obvious. Smaller cars and lower speeds. But the auto industry has very effectively brainwashed americans into opposing both measures.

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45


No one ever said that we have to get rid of high power mega monsters, just merge performance with efficiency.

The Porsche 918 Spyder Hybrid P918 is the launch pad. Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG ECell is also gonna help us. Ferrari's 599 replacement due for launch at Geneva 2012 will have a hybrid version. A hybrid Ferrari FF may also be likely!

reply to post by Cuervo


The problem with solar is the sun doesn't shine everyday and for the people living in the northern latitudes won't get much usage out of them.

But hey lets push alternative energy that depends on climate but oh wait last time i heard there was "climate change" caused by mankind.

Oh well lets throw billions of dollars on the endeavor that produce nothing but less than stellar results all in the name of progress and your paying for it.

Sure why not.

The way I see it is that gas powered cars continue our dependency on foreign oil. Electrical cars have the ability to free us from some of that dependency. Electricity can be made from solar, wind, nuclear, and even natural gas powered turbines. Even with lower mileage, they still benefit us.

On the mileage, just try to get the stated mileage on any vehicle. Unless you have a perfectly tuned vehicle in optimum driving conditions you won't get close. In the real world you have wind, poor road conditions, engine wear, and even tire pressure differences to deal with.

reply to post by greygary


Your claims are preposterous. There is no way just modifying the carb would make that much of a difference in fuel economy. Even if I ignore the blatant lie about the carb, your grandfather would have wanted a hell of a lot more for his design, and even if Ford snatched it up he could have just designed something similar being the genius he apparently was.

Why is it that the oil companies are the only bad guys in industry? Do we take their word on it that electric cars and alternative energies are good? Considering the components used in making batteries require some obtrusive methods to remove and have a negative impact on the environment, are we making the right choice? We will still need the fossil fuels for things like plastic and lubrication for the moving parts of a windmill.... Green energy is a marketing ploy to demonize the oil companies and make people think they are doing something positive for the environment.

You don't need fossil fuels to charge an electric car.

The whole basis of that article was twisted to support Oil companies.

Iceland can drive electric cars and charge them all on Geothermal energy.

You can use a woodstove to heat your home, plus on top of the woodstove is a small boiler to run a Steam Engine which spins a generator to charge your electric car.


Miles Per Gallon is twisted in this article. You don't need crude oil to run electric cars

reply to post by Kaploink


It is going to end our dependance on not just foreign oil but oil period.

For far too long have we been under the banner of OPEC who have been manipulating prices on mere speculation alone without no actual facts present or even considered.

Vietnam, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan have all been and can all be connected to you guessed it, oil!

The time is now that we all swear to end the Wars Over Energy completely as it's done nothing positive for us but push us further into endless wars.

Our cheapest idea that is readily available to us today is transfer the entire electric grid off of coal, petrol to solar panels, hydra, wind.

To the OP :

Average SUV mpg is between 12/20 - 20/30 The 1995 - 2006 Hummer H1 was by far the worst of the worst with a pitiful 8/11!

Spoor, I dont know about 300 mpg but I know Ford had a contest in the 60's to see who could build the most efficient carburetor and a top mechanic came up with a redesign that got him at least 100 mpg on I think half a gallon of gas - cannot find the article now but i know that at least was possible in the 60's.

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
If we want to reduce gas consumption, the answer is obvious. Smaller cars and lower speeds. But the auto industry has very effectively brainwashed americans into opposing both measures.

I agree. We could do this with electric. My vehicle of choice is an electric bike. It weighs about 200 lbs with me on it and can carry me 20 miles between charges with a 48 volt battery doing 25 to 28 miles an hour and uses a 750 watt hub motor. Fun as heck to drive.

They could triple that technology, put it in a small car and you would have a great car for hoping around the city. It would be dirt cheap, cost only pennies to recharge, and (based on my bike/knowledge of the parts used) would cost less than 5000 dollars (possibly half that. ) My bike with motor, battery and electronics installed was less than 1000 dollars. It would do at least 50 mph, have a range of 60 miles. Use 4 times this equipment and you get 70 mph with 80 miles for round trip between charges. Replacement batteries will cost about 600 dollars every 3 years but thats still way cheaper than what people use in gas. I use SLA batteries currently and they cost about 80 a year. This car would use lithium Iron Phosphate batteries..

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Has a 200 mpg carburetor been suppressed by the oil industry?

Short answer: No, it's a myth.

As for your bike/small vehicle theory: Short Drive: The Anglo-Indian Tata Electric Car

100 miles per charge for less than $10,000.

As to the OP, I can't even address the absurdity. Granted, a large amount of American energy comes from coal...but it should be obvious by now that it doesn't have to.