• 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

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.

Mmm, I don't think the EPA says anything about population distribution or the average speed during highway commutes. I think when they give highway figures they assume that you're crusing along at around the posted speed limit, whereas rush hour highway commutes tend to look more like this:

gridlock.jpg
 
I can't help but notice the huge fault in a very expensive green car: not very many people can buy it. Call me simple in logic here, but I feel like its a terrible idea to invest in a manufacturer that makes their carbon footprint lowering cars so inaccessible to the general public. I'm guessing the idea behind the entire thing was to support the growth of green energy and the movement toward gasoline alternatives... but most people can't buy them! So what if a few people now have access to a slightly greener car? We've still got millions that don't.

And this is all ignoring the fact that you could probably reduce carbon emissions and costs just as much by simply carpooling more frequently.
 
More importantly, it sounds like they made a POS...

"As stated previously, the Karma is rated at 52 mpg-e by the EPA, including a rather pedestrian 20 mpg combined when the gasoline engine is running."

Glare, stiff suspension, cramped seating...for 100k??? How could this be a bad investment of taxpayer dollars?
 
I can't help but notice the huge fault in a very expensive green car: not very many people can buy it. Call me simple in logic here, but I feel like its a terrible idea to invest in a manufacturer that makes their carbon footprint lowering cars so inaccessible to the general public. I'm guessing the idea behind the entire thing was to support the growth of green energy and the movement toward gasoline alternatives... but most people can't buy them! So what if a few people now have access to a slightly greener car? We've still got millions that don't.

And this is all ignoring the fact that you could probably reduce carbon emissions and costs just as much by simply carpooling more frequently.
Good points, imo.
 
I can't help but notice the huge fault in a very expensive green car: not very many people can buy it. Call me simple in logic here, but I feel like its a terrible idea to invest in a manufacturer that makes their carbon footprint lowering cars so inaccessible to the general public. I'm guessing the idea behind the entire thing was to support the growth of green energy and the movement toward gasoline alternatives... but most people can't buy them! So what if a few people now have access to a slightly greener car? We've still got millions that don't.

And this is all ignoring the fact that you could probably reduce carbon emissions and costs just as much by simply carpooling more frequently.

Fisker was an automotive designer who wanted to start his own company. The original goal was to contract nearly everything out, and do nothing but styling and some engineering in house. It was designed from the start to be a luxury car using hybrid technology. It was never going to be a high volume car, and it was done with lower then what most people would expect for start up funds.
 
Fisker was an automotive designer who wanted to start his own company. The original goal was to contract nearly everything out, and do nothing but styling and some engineering in house. It was designed from the start to be a luxury car using hybrid technology. It was never going to be a high volume car, and it was done with lower then what most people would expect for start up funds.

And power to him...but do it like everyone else has to...raising capital through private means.

Not getting the government to lend you hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars just so you can turn out cars that the vast majority of them can even afford.
 
Fisker was an automotive designer who wanted to start his own company. The original goal was to contract nearly everything out, and do nothing but styling and some engineering in house. It was designed from the start to be a luxury car using hybrid technology. It was never going to be a high volume car, and it was done with lower then what most people would expect for start up funds.

Oh, I don't have an issue with Fisker, I have an issue with government funds spent on it. They can create all the luxury hybrids they want. But government funding to support green alternatives shouldn't be fed to them. I'm sure there is a bevy of green projects that would love government funding... and their products will be useful to a much greater percentage of the population. I'd like to restate that this whole green energy initiative isn't really any good if only the rich can afford it.

Instead of trying to reach the most expensive technology, we ought to work on improving the affordable technology.
 
Fisker will be the next Delorean. They'll make crappy, expensive cars for a couple years, and then no one will ever hear from them again. It would be no great shame if every single one of those POS Karmas burnt to the ground.

I really hope they don't get their additional funding, for a number of personal and political reasons.

Yeah, but DeLoreans are actually interesting. Plus there's a company in Houston that still manufactures them. The karma was never cool, or iconic, and nobody ever heard of them until they started bursting into flames and injuring soccer moms turned wannabe trophy wives. Probably won't even score a paragraph in the oddities or hall of shame section of automotive history.
 
Last edited:
Instead of trying to reach the most expensive technology, we ought to work on improving the affordable technology.
That's not the way it works if you want to move forward. Color TV's were for rich people only at one point in time as were widescreens a few decades later. PC's weren't always as cheap as they are now. If it wasn't for a few small businesses and some hobbyists willing to spend their money, PCs would have never taken off. No technology jumps full-grown from nothing - it's almost always expensive at the start.
 
That's not the way it works if you want to move forward. Color TV's were for rich people only at one point in time as were widescreens a few decades later. PC's weren't always as cheap as they are now. If it wasn't for a few small businesses and some nerds willing to spend their money PC would have never taken off. No technology jumps full-grown from nothing - it's almost always expensive at the start.

That's true. PCs, as they have evolved today, are probably the most life-changing invention in my lifetime. Done in people's garages ;) and without a huge infusion of capital from the Federal government. You'll never convince me that our government has any business becoming a venture capitalist with taxpayer money.
 
That's true. PCs, as they have evolved today, are probably the most life-changing invention in my lifetime. Done in people's garages ;) and without a huge infusion of capital from the Federal government. You'll never convince me that our government has any business becoming a venture capitalist with taxpayer money.
Then you're condemning all of NASA's programs and most of the military as well? You think all those space and military systems were built by a company on their dime then sold to NASA and the military if they hit the jackpot?!?

Even today's space systems that are "private" get a lot of NASA funding, though at least they are finally getting private money as well - as did these business ventures. Should we stop providing funds and loans to the private companies that are trying to build our next generation rockets and private launch facilities?
 
Then you're condemning all of NASA's programs and most of the military as well? You think all those space and military systems were built by a company on their dime then sold to NASA and the military if they hit the jackpot?!?

Even today's space systems that are "private" get a lot of NASA funding, though at least they are finally getting private money as well - as did these business ventures. Should we stop providing funds and loans to the private companies that are trying to build our next generation rockets and private launch facilities?

No, not at all. NASA and their missions are tied to national security. Lots of wonderful unintentional consequences have come to us because of the space program. Our military? Same thing. Green cars? Notsomuch.

When our country wants to "solve" green technology through the private sector, they need only tax gasoline to solve our national deficit. Gasoline $7.00/gallon? Problem solved in five years.
 
Last edited:
No, not at all. NASA and their missions are tied to national security. Lots of wonderful unintentional consequences have come to us because of the space program. Our military? Same thing. Green cars? Notsomuch.

When our country wants to "solve" green technology through the private sector, they need only tax gasoline to solve our national deficit. Gasoline $7.00/gallon? Problem solved in five years.

I'll also add to this that instead of our country acting like venture capitalists in this area? They could better use those billions to replace all Federally-owned vehicles with the types of vehicles they are encouraging. Natural gas wouldn't be a bad deal.
 
No, not at all. NASA and their missions are tied to national security. Lots of wonderful unintentional consequences have come to us because of the space program. Our military? Same thing. Green cars? Notsomuch.

When our country wants to "solve" green technology through the private sector, they need only tax gasoline to solve our national deficit. Gasoline $7.00/gallon? Problem solved in five years.
If gas were made more expensive people would scream even more than they're screaming now. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's virtually a political impossibility.
 
I'll also add to this that instead of our country acting like venture capitalists in this area? They could better use those billions to replace all Federally-owned vehicles with the types of vehicles they are encouraging. Natural gas wouldn't be a bad deal.
Many governments (state/local) have been doing just that slowly, as their vehicles need replacing. I'm pretty sure the Fed is also doing that to some extent.
 
If gas were made more expensive people would scream even more than they're screaming now. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's virtually a political impossibility.

Maybe. But maybe it doesn't have to go that high that fast. There will come a point, probably far below $7, that American interest will switch from sporty, sexy and 'tuff' to economy.
 
Many governments (state/local) have been doing just that slowly, as their vehicles need replacing. I'm pretty sure the Fed is also doing that to some extent.

Again, instead of billions to winners/losers, billions to fleets. As more and more of these cars get on the road, the fuel will be there (in the case of natural gas, as an example); the parking spaces with rechargers will be allocated. They can't do it fast enough, in my opinion.

I rather think the American public could get behind a program like that. We know we're held hostage by the Middle East. Nobody likes it.
 
Again, instead of billions to winners/losers, billions to fleets. As more and more of these cars get on the road, the fuel will be there (in the case of natural gas, as an example); the parking spaces with rechargers will be allocated. They can't do it fast enough, in my opinion.

I rather think the American public could get behind a program like that. We know we're held hostage by the Middle East. Nobody likes it.
SO...the solution to the energy problem is to purchase cars that can go a total of 32 miles on a single charge (for 60-100k$), then spend the money to dig up the ground, bury copper cables connected to charging stations (and to do it in significant numbers you are going to need to tear up a LOT of pavement and bury a TON of copper medium) which are going to cost who knows how much per second of use, and the charging stations are going to require power stations and transformers...that are fueled by...fossil fuel burning plants. And when the charging stations ARENT available, the car you are driving to save energy gets LESS MPG than your new standard pickup truck?
 
SO...the solution to the energy problem is to purchase cars that can go a total of 32 miles on a single charge (for 60-100k$), then spend the money to dig up the ground, bury copper cables connected to charging stations (and to do it in significant numbers you are going to need to tear up a LOT of pavement and bury a TON of copper medium) which are going to cost who knows how much per second of use, and the charging stations are going to require power stations and transformers...that are fueled by...fossil fuel burning plants. And when the charging stations ARENT available, the car you are driving to save energy gets LESS MPG than your new standard pickup truck?

Well, then, by your view, the whole approach is nonsensical. I don't think you've got that right. There are already parking stalls in downtown Chicago that accommodate charging. It can't cost what you're claiming.

I'm not really "up" on the technology for electric cars--but it's my impression it plugs right into your household current. What's the big deal? As to natural gas? We have natural gas cars on the road already; but the refueling is currently done on the fleet owner's property. What's the big deal there? I think you're wrong.

Edit:

The Toyota Prius gets 51 city/48 highway/50 combined. That's hardly the gas mileage of a pick-up truck.
 
Well, then, by your view, the whole approach is nonsensical. I don't think you've got that right. There are already parking stalls in downtown Chicago that accommodate charging. It can't cost what you're claiming.

I'm not really "up" on the technology for electric cars--but it's my impression it plugs right into your household current. What's the big deal? As to natural gas? We have natural gas cars on the road already; but the refueling is currently done on the fleet owner's property. What's the big deal there? I think you're wrong.

Edit:

The Toyota Prius gets 51 city/48 highway/50 combined. That's hardly the gas mileage of a pick-up truck.
The vehicle in question gets 20mpg when on gas. It is listed at something similar to the Prius on electric only (in 'stealth' mode...all electrics) but then, it can ONLY go 32 miles...so thats kinda false advertising.

That house current HAS to be generated somewhere...right? Electricity has to travel over copper medium...which is finite without being amplified. Ah...and lets not forget...places like California already run with rolling blackouts...now they are supposed to charge a fleet of cars? Generated by fossil fuels?

I didnt suggest a cost for laying the conduit but typically you can count on an industry standard of an average of $18 a linear foot, not including the cost of trenching and resurfacing (as per michigan.gov subdivision renovation costs...varies based on locale). Then you have to soec standards requiring manholes and handholes at regular intervals...throw in about $800 every 100 feet (spec requirements vary and its been more than a year or two since I engineered IT projects). Oh...and that was with the fed...I dont even want to think about what city union contract costs are.
 
The vehicle in question gets 20mpg when on gas. It is listed at something similar to the Prius on electric only (in 'stealth' mode...all electrics) but then, it can ONLY go 32 miles...so thats kinda false advertising.

That house current HAS to be generated somewhere...right? Electricity has to travel over copper medium...which is finite without being amplified. Ah...and lets not forget...places like California already run with rolling blackouts...now they are supposed to charge a fleet of cars? Generated by fossil fuels?

I didnt suggest a cost for laying the conduit but typically you can count on an industry standard of an average of $18 a linear foot, not including the cost of trenching and resurfacing (as per michigan.gov subdivision renovation costs...varies based on locale). Then you have to soec standards requiring manholes and handholes at regular intervals...throw in about $800 every 100 feet (spec requirements vary and its been more than a year or two since I engineered IT projects). Oh...and that was with the fed...I dont even want to think about what city union contract costs are.

So are you saying that electric cars and natural gas cars are boondoggles?
 
That's true. PCs, as they have evolved today, are probably the most life-changing invention in my lifetime. Done in people's garages ;) and without a huge infusion of capital from the Federal government. You'll never convince me that our government has any business becoming a venture capitalist with taxpayer money.

Exactly.

Venture capitalism is a very high-stakes, high-risk form of investing. It is not something that the government, nor any other entity, should ever be doing with money belonging to those who haven't explicitly chosen to have their money used in that manner.

It strikes me as rather ironic that it seems a lot of criticism against Mitt Romney is based on his having been involved in venture capitalism. But he did so with his own money, and with that of investors who chose to invest in that sort of thing; he wasn't doing it with taxpayer money.

If there is anything to criticize Mr. Romney about with regard to his involvement in privately-funded venture capitalism, then what are we to think of the Obama administration's reckless, irresponsible use of taxpayer money in venture capitalism?
 
For the record, the current Corvette Z06...which has 505hp, can travel at speeds CLOSE to 200mph, and was, at one point, a record holder at Nurburgring, get's around 25mpg highway(s'long as you can keep your right foot out of it), and 18 or so city. And that car is BLISTERINGLY, violently fast. It has a push rod motor that can trace it's basic, overall design, all the way back to the 40s. And...GASP...leaf springs.


Car companies are trying to reinvent the wheel, and the fact is, they're using expensive products for consumer research and testing. Are hybrids dangerous? No. Not that sort of testing. But neither are they all THAT economic, when you consider the amount of capitol and time put into their development. But they HAVE to have SOMETHING, to show us progress, right? Because every moron with a wallet in this country seems to think that "keep moving forward", "progress", or, dare I say it, "An American REVolution"...along with whatever other catch phrase or buzzword you can think of, means something completely new, and anything short of that, simply isn't real progress. I'll go back to my old Civic HX, designed in the late 80s, built till the mid 90s, which got GREAT gas mileage, and had LOW emissions. But car companies feel they can't give us americans that sort of car, even though similar things are all the rage in Europe...because, here in the US, it's just not green enough. Never mind that it's MORE green than the stuff these same companies are CALLING green, lol.

Not saying that car companies shouldn't invest in these new technologies, lord knows I can't believe we still don't have a workable hydrogen car, even though GM built one back in the late 90s, or something like that. But what I AM saying is, I feel that we the consumers are getting the hose in the deal, because WE"RE the one's doing the product testing for them, WE'RE the ones being sold something on a false pretense...that these cars are both economical, and good for the environment.
 
So are you saying that electric cars and natural gas cars are boondoggles?
Im saying it isnt the panacea that is being promised. Thats all. Natural gas vehicles have been used effectively since the 70's...good start. Better more efficient mass transit options. Good. Golf carts...and scooters for short hops. Awesome idea. Walking a few blocks...OK...never mind...this IS America after all.

We had a thread a few months back that showed that only about 30% of current hybrid owners will buy a new one. Not sure what that says...but we arent there yet. Doesnt mean we shouldnt keep trying. Im not against hybrids and green cars. But...32 miles on a single charge? 20 MPG afterward? Just doesnt make sense.
 
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.

...and more and more people are moving from the hellhole wastelands of the suburbs into the cities, so driving trends are changing in a electric-vehicle friendly direction.
 
Back
Top Bottom