Consumer Reports said it could not recommend the Fisker Karma, but, like almost every other review of the car, said it is beautiful.
Consumer Reports said it could not recommend the Fisker Karma following its test, which began with the car’s battery pack failing within the car’s first 200 miles.
“Overall, the Karma scored too low in our tests to recommend,” the magazine reported in its review of the car.
While the magazine said there was plenty to like about the sleek Karma, there was a lot that was unacceptable. Read on to find out what the magazine editors found objectionable.
The Karma, which Consumer Reports purchased for 108,000 didn’t get off on the right foot with the magazine from the beginning. With just a few miles on the odometer, the Karma, an extended-range electric car that is similar in concept to the Chevrolet Volt, stopped while the magazine conducted initial testing. Fisker picked up the car and replaced its battery pack, finding a fault with the A123 battery pack that eventually led to the fledgling automaker replacing the battery pack in every Fisker on the road to that point.
Click here to read about the Fisker’s battery fire problems.
Fisker returned the car within two days, and while the magazine didn’t report further problems related to the hybrid system battery, it did experience numerous electrical problems.
“We’ve continued to encounter disconcerting intermittent glitches related to the gauges, warning lights, power windows, and radio.”
Click here to read the initial report about the CR Karma’s battery problem and click here to read the followup story.
The magazine liked the interior materials and ride, handling and braking of the car. But some of the features that make the car so compelling – namely it’s low, sleek styling contribute to other problems.
Consumer Reports said the interior is tight and offers limited visibility, making the interior feel claustrophobic. It also criticized the lack of conventional buttons and “the worst touch-screen system we’ve ever seen” and called the dash an “ergonomic disaster.” It also called the car’s turbocharged 2.0-liter four cylinder engine “raspy.”
Click here to read TheDetroitBureau.com’s review of the Karma.
Fisker responded to the review with a statement that reiterates some of the positive aspects of CR’s review and defends some of the criticisms.
“The Karma impressed CR’s evaluators with its outstanding ride, handling and braking, which can be attributed to the car’s low, wide stance, race-inspired suspension and massive Brembo brakes,” Fisker said in its release. “As the Karma is a concept car come to life, packaging and visibility will of course not be that of a minivan.”
The maker also said it is working on numerous improvements, but did not address CR’s complaint about the “raspy” sound of its four-cylinder engine.
“Plans are in place to improve sound quality, which is a new challenge for all silent-running EVs, while software improvements are being made to touch-screen controls to improve responsiveness and functionality.”
CR said that the Fisker provides a 38-mile electric-only range and delivered the equivalent of 66 mpg overall, but on gasoline power alone, it returned just 22 mpg. On a 50-mile commute on a single full charge, the mileage was 44 mpg.
Fisker also pointed out that the 66 mpg-e that Consumer Reports calculated is one of the highest for any production car the magazine has tested.
Also on Tuesday, Fisker said that the Karma already meets its 2025 fuel economy target of 45.6 mpg. The maker said that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rated the Karma an equivalent fuel economy of 47.3 mpg.
“It’s a testament to the disruptive power of technology that a premium luxury sedan like the 2012 Fisker Karma beats its fuel economy target for 2025 – today,” Fisker CEO Tony Posawatz said. “With the Karma, we have brought to market the technology that these regulations are designed to encourage, and we’re pointing the way for the rest of the industry.”