• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Automaker Fisker recalls some 2,400 Karmas for cooling fan issue

MaggieD said:
That's what venture capitalists are for, RM.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't see the "invest" word. Thought you were asking why a company would build a $100k+ car.

I hate to say this, but I don't think Fisker is gonna make it. Good thing Tesla is doing so well, plus I like their cars a little better. The Karma and the new Atlantic look great, but the Tesla Model S is just sexy.

tesla-model-s.jpg
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The engines were vastly underpowered especially for what was supposed to be a sports car
Click to expand...

I agree, but I would say more like underpowered instead of 'vastly underpowered'.

Times were different then.

The DeLorean did 0-60 in 10.5-11 sec (again, if I recall). That was actually peppy for those days...but by no means fast.

The fastest stock Covette then did 0-60 in about 7-8 seconds.

Today, a ZR-1 will do it in about 3. A 'basic' Mustang GT will do it in about 4.3 sec.. Plus, the fastest Camaro in 1982 had only 165 hp. Today, a ZL-1 Camaro has about 580 hp.

The late 70's/early 80's was a BAD time for stock high performance cars, imo.

The cars were pretty...but MAN were they slow.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
There is no new technology here at all, it is simply a fancy wrapper, around a basic hybrid car. The car gets 32 miles per charge and then gets 20mpg. Other than being politically connected, what is the "new tech" involved? This is crony capitalism at its worst and the "comming soon" plant in Newark, DE (Joe Biden's home state) is still not even a reality.
Click to expand...

Well, there is. It's not a fundamentally new overall drivetrain, but there are little bits that are spread around. The solar power roof and the regenerative braking systems are where the real technology is.

Plus, it's faster than most hybrids. It has 490 hp and almost 1,000 lb-ft. I don't know another hybrid that gets near those numbers. Will that translate into big sales? Probably not. But like I said, this is the razor's edge of hybrid tech.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
It was supposed to be the first plug in hybrid,
Click to expand...

All hybrids are "plug in", that is the normal battery recharge procedure (and is quite slow at normal house current). The Fiskar is a little different in that it is more like a freight train than a traditional hybrid, since the IC engine powers a generator that runs the electric drive train, not using a spearate mechanical drive system, like most other hybrids.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Sorry, didn't see the "invest" word. Thought you were asking why a company would build a $100k+ car.

I hate to say this, but I don't think Fisker is gonna make it. Good thing Tesla is doing so well, plus I like their cars a little better. The Karma and the new Atlantic look great, but the Tesla Model S is just sexy.

View attachment 67132776
Click to expand...

Tesla is likely losing money on each one sold, great car, but if they dont sell around 20 000 a year they will go broke
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Tesla is likely losing money on each one sold, great car, but if they dont sell around 20 000 a year they will go broke
Click to expand...

It's prices are comparable to other luxury four-doors (after tax credits, granted) and that's it's best chance. It could steal business from BMW, Audi, M-B and Acura. 20,000 might not be too high of a goal for a brand new start up company.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Well, there is. It's not a fundamentally new overall drivetrain, but there are little bits that are spread around. The solar power roof and the regenerative braking systems are where the real technology is.

Plus, it's faster than most hybrids. It has 490 hp and almost 1,000 lb-ft. I don't know another hybrid that gets near those numbers. Will that translate into big sales? Probably not. But like I said, this is the razor's edge of hybrid tech.
Click to expand...

There are many hybrids and nearly all use the regenerative braking technology. Performance is hardly a concern for most hybrid buyers and there are many that are sporty or luxury models.

See links: Best Hybrid Cars - Compare Hybrid Cars | Hybrid Cars

http://www.familycar.com/Classroom/AlternativePowerSystems.htm

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~thb/Publications/Geller_Benjamin.pdf
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
There are many hybrids and nearly all use the regenerative braking technology. Performance is hardly a concern for most hybrid buyers and there are many that are sporty or luxury models. See link: Best Hybrid Cars - Compare Hybrid Cars | Hybrid Cars
Click to expand...

LOL!

When hybrid technology first came out, it's detractors were all in unison saying hybrid's will never ever sell because they were slow, and American's like fast cars.
 
RadicalModerate said:
LOL!

When hybrid technology first came out, it's detractors were all in unison saying hybrid's will never ever sell because they were slow, and American's like fast cars.
Click to expand...

The biggest drawback for hybrids is price and range, as most battery systems allow 20 to 40 miles and then must rely on the back-up IC power which usually gets less than the mileage afforded by an efficient TDI powered vehicle at 1/2 the cost. For a short commute vehicle they are perfect, for all else not so much.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The biggest drawback for hybrids is price and range, as most battery systems allow 20 to 40 miles and then must rely on the back-up IC power which usually gets less than the mileage afforded by an efficient TDI powered vehicle at 1/2 the cost. For a short commute vehicle they are perfect, for all else not so much.
Click to expand...

Which is why making them as luxury cars is a good idea. BMW is coming out with a performance Hybrid of its 3 series that has better gas millage and nearly the same performance as the 335. Lexus has its hybrids as the range toppers for its specific lines (ES and IS series excepted)

Hybrids have an advantage in that they can provide great city gas milage and match the performance of cars with poorer milage. The range is not an issue because it has an IC engine. The main issue is weight, hybrids weigh alot
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Which is why making them as luxury cars is a good idea. BMW is coming out with a performance Hybrid of its 3 series that has better gas millage and nearly the same performance as the 335. Lexus has its hybrids as the range toppers for its specific lines (ES and IS series excepted)

Hybrids have an advantage in that they can provide great city gas milage and match the performance of cars with poorer milage.
Click to expand...
The only advantage is to make the owner's feel 'greener'.

It has been proven time and again that unless you own a hybrid for at least 8-10 years, the added cost to purchase one (over a non-hybrid alternative) is greater then the amount of fuel cost savings.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The biggest drawback for hybrids is price and range, as most battery systems allow 20 to 40 miles and then must rely on the back-up IC power which usually gets less than the mileage afforded by an efficient TDI powered vehicle at 1/2 the cost. For a short commute vehicle they are perfect, for all else not so much.
Click to expand...

You don't know much about this I'm afraid. First, all hybrids are not plugins. In fact almost no hybrids are plugins. Second, the hybrid drivetrain isn't as simple as using up the electricity and then switching over to gas. There are three modes of operation: all electric, gas + electric, and all gas. In normal driving you'll go back and forth between the three modes depending on the type of driving and battery charge. They're certainly capable of getting excellent mileage over long distances, though they are better suited to stop-and-go driving. A lot of cab fleets are going to hybrids because they're more efficient.
 
DA60 said:
The only advantage is to make the owner's feel 'greener'.

It has been proven time and again that unless you own most/all hybrids for at least 8-10 years, the added cost to purchase a one is greater then the amount of fuel cost savings.
Click to expand...

And that matters why?

I can buy a BMW 3 series for $40 000 or a BMW 7 series for $120 000 grand. I will never make that money back. Or I can a base Caymen, for 60 000 or a Nissan 370 Z for 30 000 and get generally the same performance. Sometimes it is not about being paid back economically, but about wants and desires
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Tesla is likely losing money on each one sold, great car, but if they dont sell around 20 000 a year they will go broke
Click to expand...

They're pretty close to being profitable. Elon Musk isn't an idiot and he's not just in this to make a point. Hint: buy Tesla stock.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And that matters why?

I can buy a BMW 3 series for $40 000 or a BMW 7 series for $120 000 grand. I will never make that money back. Or I can a base Caymen, for 60 000 or a Nissan 370 Z for 30 000 and get generally the same performance. Sometimes it is not about being paid back economically, but about wants and desires
Click to expand...

Which is what I said...the only reason to buy a hybrid is to make the owner feel 'greener' - a want and/or desire.

In other words, imo, if you buy a hybrid, you are either a rabid tree hugger or an automotive ignoramus - because either way (unless you keep your vehicle for about a decade) you are paying through the nose.

Imo, hybrids are the worst of both worlds.

And if someone is SO worried about global warming - then take the bus more often.

But to lose thousands of dollars just to 'feel' greener seems silly to me.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Which is what I said...the only reason to buy a hybrid is to make the owner feel 'greener' - a want and/or desire.

In other words, imo, if you buy a hybrid, you are either a rabid tree hugger or an automotive dumbass - because either way (unless you keep your vehicle for about a decade) you are paying through the nose.
Click to expand...

and if you buy a porsche you are paying through the nose, but do people have the same rage regarding porsche?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
The only advantage is to make the owner's feel 'greener'.....
Click to expand...

Lets looks at some numbers, I used three vehicles that I am familiar with (Prius 50mpg,Corolla 35mpg,K2500 12mpg). The Prius will often get as much as 70mpg but other people will get as little as 50mpg so I used that number. The corolla is between 32 and 38mpg so I stuck with 35mpg. The K2500 is consistent at around 12mpg loaded or empty.

@50mpg & 12k miles per yr @$4.00 per gal= 240 gal used per yr & $960.00 per yr. / savings=$408.00 yr vs 35mpg

@35mpg & 12k miles per yr @$4.00 per gal= 342 gal used per yr & $1368.00 per yr. / savings=$2632.00 yr vs 12mpg

@12mpg & 12k miles per yr @$4.00 per gal=1000 gal used per yr & $4000.00 per yr. / costing $3040.00 more yr vs 50mpg

If a(50mpg)Prius battery last 8 years, which is about how long the warranty was on the older models IIRC, then at a savings of 408.00 per year vs a 35 mpg Corolla over 8 years, that equals a savings of 3264.00, the money saved by not purchasing that 816 gallons of extra fuel could easily be used to replace the battery. The battery is currently about 2400.00 for a 2010 if purchased through dealer IIRC.

When comparing the 50 mpg and the 12 mpg over an 8 year period I get an astonishing savings of $24,320.00 at the pump in the 8 years and 6080 gal of fuel saved.

When comparing the 35mpg and the 12mpg it would save a whopping $21,056.00 at the pump in 8 years and 5264 gal of fuel saved.

What is simple to understand is that by choosing to drive a 50 MPG vehicle instead of a 12MPG one at a rate of 12k miles per year, the fuel conservation is 6080 gallons over an 8 year period, so even if you want to dismiss the air quality and cost savings achieved by driving @ 50 MPG vs 12, just look at the amount of fuel saved, it is enough to keep three additional 50 mpg vehicles on the road for 8 more years or two 35 MPG ones.

Naturally I used the $4.00 per US gallon
 
AdamT said:
You don't know much about this I'm afraid. First, all hybrids are not plugins. In fact almost no hybrids are plugins. Second, the hybrid drivetrain isn't as simple as using up the electricity and then switching over to gas. There are three modes of operation: all electric, gas + electric, and all gas. In normal driving you'll go back and forth between the three modes depending on the type of driving and battery charge. They're certainly capable of getting excellent mileage over long distances, though they are better suited to stop-and-go driving. A lot of cab fleets are going to hybrids because they're more efficient.
Click to expand...
The main reason cabs are going hybrid is because they drive almost all city driving - which is where the hybrids shine.
But most people do not and for the vast majority of people, unless you own a hybrid for at least 8-10 years; it costs much less to own a similar sized/equipped non-hybrid.
 
Last edited:
Utility Man said:
Lets looks at some numbers, I used three vehicles that I am familiar with (Prius 50mpg,Corolla 35mpg,K2500 12mpg). The Prius will often get as much as 70mpg but other people will get as little as 50mpg so I used that number. The corolla is between 32 and 38mpg so I stuck with 35mpg. The K2500 is consistent at around 12mpg loaded or empty.

@50mpg & 12k miles per yr @$4.00 per gal= 240 gal used per yr & $960.00 per yr. / savings=$408.00 yr vs 35mpg

@35mpg & 12k miles per yr @$4.00 per gal= 342 gal used per yr & $1368.00 per yr. / savings=$2632.00 yr vs 12mpg

@12mpg & 12k miles per yr @$4.00 per gal=1000 gal used per yr & $4000.00 per yr. / costing $3040.00 more yr vs 50mpg

If a(50mpg)Prius battery last 8 years, which is about how long the warranty was on the older models IIRC, then at a savings of 408.00 per year vs a 35 mpg Corolla over 8 years, that equals a savings of 3264.00, the money saved by not purchasing that 816 gallons of extra fuel could easily be used to replace the battery. The battery is currently about 2400.00 for a 2010 if purchased through dealer IIRC.

When comparing the 50 mpg and the 12 mpg over an 8 year period I get an astonishing savings of $24,320.00 at the pump in the 8 years and 6080 gal of fuel saved.

When comparing the 35mpg and the 12mpg it would save a whopping $21,056.00 at the pump in 8 years and 5264 gal of fuel saved.

What is simple to understand is that by choosing to drive a 50 MPG vehicle instead of a 12MPG one at a rate of 12k miles per year, the fuel conservation is 6080 gallons over an 8 year period, so even if you want to dismiss the air quality and cost savings achieved by driving @ 50 MPG vs 12, just look at the amount of fuel saved, it is enough to keep three additional 50 mpg vehicles on the road for 8 more years or two 35 MPG ones.

Naturally I used the $4.00 per US gallon
Click to expand...
I said when comparing similar vehicles...not an econobox and a full size pickup (which I assume is what a K1500 is).


But let's use your data on Prius vs. Corolla.

According to you, you save $408 per year driving a Prius vs. a Corolla. In 5 years, that equals $2,040.
But a Corolla costs almost $8,000 less then a Prius.

Unless you are talking about the Prius c - but that is based on the Yaris...so you would need to compare it to that model. And even then it still is much more expensive to own the Hybrid then the similarly sized and equipped alternative.

www.toyota.com
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
The main reason cabs are going hybrid is because they drive almost all city driving - which is where the hybrids shine.
But most people do not and for the vast majority of people, unless you own a hybrid for at least 8-10 years; it costs much less to own a similar sized/equipped non-hybrid.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think most people actually live in cities, and hybrids still have an advantage in highway driving if, as in many areas, highways are congested during rush hour.
 
AdamT said:
Hmm, I think most people actually live in cities, and hybrids still have an advantage in highway driving if, as in many areas, highways are congested during rush hour.
Click to expand...

I am going on the combined m.p.g. put out by the EPA - which (I assume) takes into account that people generally drive a combination of city/highway.

If you - Mr. Everything Obama Does Is Wonderful - has a problem with that...I suggest you take it up with the Environmental Protection Agency.


Have a nice day.
 
DA60 said:
I said when comparing similar vehicles...
Click to expand...

My bad, I thought you merely anti-hybrid.

When I referred to Corolla, Prius and K2500 I was speaking about vehicles I happen to be familiar with.These are older models ranging from the late 90s through 2010, purchased new and used.

It looks like the EPA compares the 2012 Prius II with the Matrix, the Prius C with the Yaris, both hybrids there break even at about 5.5 years without factoring in resale value. One website to compare those 2012 models is here:Hybrid Table
They seem to match up comparable models for 2012, but they don't compare the Corolla and Prius from what I see. Hybrid Compare

There is currently a 8k dollar difference between those two models as you mentioned.

Corolla and Prius, approx prices and MPG from Toyotas web site:

Corolla..16K MSRP and 31mpg, @ 12k miles per year=387gal yr and 1548.00 yr @ 4.00 per gal

Prius....24K MSRP and 49mpg, @ 12K miles per year=244gal yr and 976.00 yr @ 4.00 per gal

With those numbers the Prius saves about 572.00 per year over the Corolla and 143 gallons of fuel at 12k miles.

In 5 years the Prius saves about 2800.00 in fuel vs the Corolla, so it would take about 14 years to break even at that rate.

The 2008 Prius brings in about 3000.00 more than a 2008 Corolla on the used market, maybe resale value should be figured in.

It seems as though Kellys Blue Book estimates that a private party used 2008 Corolla is worth about 11K,and a 2008 private party Prius is worth about 14K, what I think is a reasonable 5 year resale comparison.

So if after about 5 years the the value is about 3000.00 different and the cost savings at the pump is about 2800.00, someone would be paying approx 2200.00 over 5 years to save 715 gal of fuel while feeling green. That savings of approx 715 gal of fuel used over a 5 year period should calculate in there
somewhere but I am not sure how to figure that on paper, but like I mentioned earlier it saves fuel for other uses etc. Doesn't seem like such a bad deal for having to pay an extra 36.00 a month for a new Prius vs a new Corolla over the 5 year period, a small price to pay in
order to conserve fuel, help keep the hybrid market viable and hopefully move us in the right direction.

From what I understand in the warranty department, hybrids components are considered emission related, so the battery and other components would probably have an 8 year or 100k mile warranty, while the Corolla for example would most likely have a 6 year powertrain warranty. Hard to put a price on the warranty differences.

Naturally there are many variances in individuals lives with such things as the miles driven per year, whether or not they would even purchase a new vehicle and what they are going to use it for etc etc. I should hope that we don't need calculate 5.00+ fuel prices anytime soon, but if we do I would guess that the hybrid owners will probably come out way ahead in the long run.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."
Albert Einstein
 
Utility Man said:
My bad, I thought you merely anti-hybrid.

When I referred to Corolla, Prius and K2500 I was speaking about vehicles I happen to be familiar with.These are older models ranging from the late 90s through 2010, purchased new and used.

It looks like the EPA compares the 2012 Prius II with the Matrix, the Prius C with the Yaris, both hybrids there break even at about 5.5 years without factoring in resale value. One website to compare those 2012 models is here:Hybrid Table
They seem to match up comparable models for 2012, but they don't compare the Corolla and Prius from what I see. Hybrid Compare

There is currently a 8k dollar difference between those two models as you mentioned.

Corolla and Prius, approx prices and MPG from Toyotas web site:

Corolla..16K MSRP and 31mpg, @ 12k miles per year=387gal yr and 1548.00 yr @ 4.00 per gal

Prius....24K MSRP and 49mpg, @ 12K miles per year=244gal yr and 976.00 yr @ 4.00 per gal

With those numbers the Prius saves about 572.00 per year over the Corolla and 143 gallons of fuel at 12k miles.

In 5 years the Prius saves about 2800.00 in fuel vs the Corolla, so it would take about 14 years to break even at that rate.

The 2008 Prius brings in about 3000.00 more than a 2008 Corolla on the used market, maybe resale value should be figured in.

It seems as though Kellys Blue Book estimates that a private party used 2008 Corolla is worth about 11K,and a 2008 private party Prius is worth about 14K, what I think is a reasonable 5 year resale comparison.

So if after about 5 years the the value is about 3000.00 different and the cost savings at the pump is about 2800.00, someone would be paying approx 2200.00 over 5 years to save 715 gal of fuel while feeling green. That savings of approx 715 gal of fuel used over a 5 year period should calculate in there
somewhere but I am not sure how to figure that on paper, but like I mentioned earlier it saves fuel for other uses etc. Doesn't seem like such a bad deal for having to pay an extra 36.00 a month for a new Prius vs a new Corolla over the 5 year period, a small price to pay in
order to conserve fuel, help keep the hybrid market viable and hopefully move us in the right direction.

From what I understand in the warranty department, hybrids components are considered emission related, so the battery and other components would probably have an 8 year or 100k mile warranty, while the Corolla for example would most likely have a 6 year powertrain warranty. Hard to put a price on the warranty differences.

Naturally there are many variances in individuals lives with such things as the miles driven per year, whether or not they would even purchase a new vehicle and what they are going to use it for etc etc. I should hope that we don't need calculate 5.00+ fuel prices anytime soon, but if we do I would guess that the hybrid owners will probably come out way ahead in the long run.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."
Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Well, I applaud you for including all the statistics.

So, bottom line, it would cost (based on your calculations) about $2200 more to own a Prius then a Corolla.

But there are a few things to consider, imo.

1) Leasing. If someone leases instead of buys - then the resale is not going to mean as much if they turn the car in at the end of the lease.

2) The cost of financing. Over 5 years on say a 5% (compounded) loan, you are probably looking at $600/$800 more in interest payment costs for the $8000 difference between the two.
So now you are talking about $3,000 per 5 years - or about $50 per month.
And to people on a budget (and with 8+% unemployment - that's a LOT of people), that's the difference between 'feeling green' or buying the kids an iPad/PS3 with a bunch of games/movies/new home computer/etc..
Which do you think the kids will want?

3) the more highway miles you drive, the less sense a hybrid makes. The more city miles - the more sense.

and 4) For $600 a year just to 'feel green' - you would be FAR better off just buying the non-hybrid alternative, saving the money and taking the bus/train to work once a week or so.
You will be helping the environment, getting a little more exercise and saving a bunch of money.


BTW - I love the idea of an all electric car. and as soon as they come down in price - I will probably buy one.

But I think hybrids are the worst of both worlds (unless you drive almost exclusively in a city).
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
and if you buy a porsche you are paying through the nose, but do people have the same rage regarding porsche?
Click to expand...

No, but that's because Porsche builds some of the most mind bendingly awesome sports cars int he world. They deliver exactly what they promise, without false advertising. World class performance. I'm not saying this to argue, I just like Porsche, and porsches in general. They are very curious cars, their performance exceeds what you would think they could do based on the "paper read out".
 
All this drama over better fuel saving/lower emissions cars/technology.


In the early 90s, Honda had a civic model called the HX. No hybrid, no electric, just good ol gas motor. As I recall, mine got about 40-45mpg on average, and if I was tight that month, and drove carefully, I saw 50mpg, easily. What happened to that? The fact is, the technology exists, and has existed, to achieve better fuel economy, and better emissions. The question is, why wasn't it ever implemented, and when it was, why was it fazed out? Honda stopped making that HX in...95, or 96, I think. When I traded mine in, it had 275K miles on the clock, with NO major work done to the motor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom