Fisker offers up front view of production Karma PHEV

Click above for high-res image gallery of the production Fisker Karma
Fisker has just sent us a few more shots of the production-ready Karma plug-in so that we can get a better look at the car's newly revised face. The front intake has been mildly revised in order to let the GM-sourced 260-horsepower Ecotec engine breath a bit more fresh air. It's a subtle change, but we like the results and think that it makes a big difference to the overall look of the car. We also get a good look at those unique exhaust ports that emit the turbocharged mill's spent gases just aft of the front wheels.
Lastly, we have an interesting view beneath the slinky bodywork, which shows off the aluminum space frame chassis that holds the car together. We presume that the pronounced center tunnel will house the lithium-ion battery pack. The chassis also shows the new flush B-pillars that were absent on the concept and are necessary to meet future safety requirements. Fisker plans to show the Karma, including its never-before-seen interior, at the Detroit Auto Show in January. We'll be there to deliver the goods in person.
Gallery: Production Fisker Karma
[Source: Fisker Automotive]












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
John 9:07AM (12/04/2008)
it looks strangly similar to the corvette
Reply
Mobius_1 10:15AM (12/04/2008)
It actually reminds me of the Estoque.
Quattrofan 11:41AM (12/04/2008)
or this
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/maserati-granturismo-s-mc-sport-line/1200905/
PiCASSO 1:34PM (12/04/2008)
This is SO much better than the Estoque. I actually think this is one of the sexiest large 4-door sedans out there.
jackson liu 9:08AM (12/04/2008)
looks better, although it's still smiling
Reply
416Hammy 9:11AM (12/04/2008)
That front-end styling is a Fisker signature.
Snark 10:40AM (12/04/2008)
That's a mustache.
Who wants a ride? :D
416Hammy 9:12AM (12/04/2008)
Pay attention, Porsche. This is how 4-door sports sedan styling is supposed to be done.
Reply
MTU 5.0 9:15AM (12/04/2008)
Could not agree more, but I would add Lamborghini as well.
jon 9:13AM (12/04/2008)
I rarely if ever comment on here but...
Good God, that car is gorgeous. Another reason I need to win the lottery.
Reply
Jon 9:15AM (12/04/2008)
For some reason I am starting to like this car.
Reply
Kattleox 9:49AM (12/04/2008)
Perhaps it's because it gets 100mpg and 0-60 in 5.8 seconds.
Soccer Mom 9:39AM (12/04/2008)
From big and sporty cars only two look appealing, in my opinion: Karma and Quattroporte. All these new wanna-be's, including Aston, Porsche, Lamborgini just don't look good. The latter three appear to be one-off stretched version of the original sport car. And as anything stretched, the cars lost their proportions, turning into some caricature-like hideousness.
Reply
TJ 9:53AM (12/04/2008)
Hey now... lets not get carried away. The Aston is right there with the Karma and Q-porte...
zamafir 10:31AM (12/04/2008)
the big difference is the masser can handle. the fisker has just over 400 combined hp and just over 900 lb ft of combined torque and hits sixty in 5.8 seconds? WTF? The Q7 TDI V12 has 737 and does it in 5.5, I can't wait to see how many thousands of lbs of batteries the fisker has weighing it down impeding it's range and acceleration.
VladdyTrout 9:41AM (12/04/2008)
I really dig the design of this car. It is smooth.
This is what the new Jaguar XJ sedan should look like. Jaguar needs to forget about keeping that retro look and go with a design similar to this one.
Sleek, smooth and powerful.
Reply
Stumpy 9:50AM (12/04/2008)
That is a sleek looking car.
Reply
john.paulsson 1:08PM (12/04/2008)
The good thing about not having a heritage to live up to is that you can make one.
Reply
Alex 9:54AM (12/04/2008)
The front end tweaks definitely help this car out. I really like the overall shape of the car, but i'm still not digging the smile. Those rhombi on the rear bumper look silly and out of place; and i'm not sold on the ones in the front either.
Reply
m4rtis 10:00AM (12/04/2008)
I still can't get over the mustache up front
Reply