We're aware range-extending duties for Project Nina will be the task of BMW's turbo'd four-cylinder engine but a new potential tie between Fisker Automotive and BMW has come to light.

Auto Express reports that the Fisker Nina sedan, when it debuts in 2013, will closely copy the exterior dimensions of the 2011 BMW 5 Series (length: 192.9 inches; width: 73.2 inches; height: 57.6 inches), while retailing for approximately the same price as a top-level BMW 3 Series.

Figure £40,000 ($62,468 U.S. at today's exchange rate) over in the UK, or somewhere around $45,000 for the Nina here in the States. That's a bit more expensive than the "I can't believe it's only going to be $40,000" uttered by Vice President Joe Biden back in October of 2009, but still relatively reasonable given the Nina's advanced technologies, including its BMW-sourced engine and dual powertrain setup.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 44 Comments
      markrogo
      • 3 Years Ago
      So they are going to do a luxury version of the Chevy Volt with the economies of scale of a tiny startup and charge just a few thousand more? Really? I'm skeptical, but I'd love for them to pull this off. Somehow, Tesla's math looks a ton more believable.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @markrogo
        Hopefully, there will be a Buick Ampera, and a Cadillac ELR Coupe, with A 4 door to follow. Lot's of interest.
          markrogo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          I'm more confident GM can add features and luxury and charge a few thousand more than that tiny Fisker can manage this kind of pricing -- which seems totally unbelievable.
      Actionable Mango
      • 3 Years Ago
      That think looks longer than an aircraft carrier.
      EVnerdGene
      • 3 Years Ago
      ""I can't believe it's only going to be $40,000" uttered by Vice President Joe Biden back in October of 2009" The guy is overpaid.
        electronx16
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        Overpaid? Why? Apparently he was right not to believe it...
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Years Ago
          @electronx16
          yeah, he was right to believe it couldn't be done for less than $40k, but he used his influence to give the loan for Frisker anyway notice I said give
        Spiffster
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        It will be no less than 50k... screw Biden and screw Fisker.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        Or not paid enough. When he's done in the WH, I hear he's got gigs lined up in Vegas...
      Rotation
      • 3 Years Ago
      There's no way that is going to happen. That's just not how cost structures work.
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 3 Years Ago
      that shooting break karma is not that good looking.. as for the nina, I don't like the size target (not much nina about it) but if they can hold the price it's good for the type. let's just see if Fisker lives that long though..
        EVnerdGene
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dan Frederiksen
        not that good looking - agreed nina too big - agreed can't do it for $40k - agreed small volume manufacturer, without a manufacturing base, expensive hi-tech stuff, small volumes
      EVnerdGene
      • 3 Years Ago
      to the marxist youth that think the rich don't pay their share: taxpayers in the top 1% of reported AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) pay 38.02% of all taxes paid to the IRS taxpayers in the top 50% of reported AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) pay 97.3% of all taxes paid to the IRS the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.7% of taxes collected by the IRS and you complain that the rich don't pay enough. I pay very close to 50% of my gross to the government, and I ain't rich by any of your definitions of rich. Butt you young marxists think I should pay more ? you are believing BS and being brain-washed by people that hate this country start thinking for yourself source: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html ( notice the bottom 50% are paying less each year !!!!!!!!!! )
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        @EVnerdGene Those who voted you down, dislike truth when it conflicts with myth. The can't argue with your fact's because you are correct! However, another interpretation could also be placed on your percentage based tax pool! It may also indicate that the poor in the US, have become so very poor, that they simply have no income to contribute?! This vast economic inequality is unhealthy for a capitalist economy. IE: a) Concentrated wealth in a few, highly privileged (usually elderly) individuals and institutions, inevitably leads to a restriction on creativity and a restriction on expenditure on items of the public weal. Yes, it true all great philanthropists are rich, (its a qualification) and giving vast sums of money for Art Museums does enrich the nations cultural life, but what use is that, when the mass education system is so poor that school leavers can not read or write and the years of education have left them with no skills other than drugs and crime? It's very wasteful to be forced to spend increasingly vast sums on suppressing discontent by ever more intrusive and brutal law enforcement! b) I do not advocate an increase in welfare. Welfare breeds welfare dependency. As RFK, said, "first the poor must know that they have hope, then employment, only then they can reach up and be a part of the American dream". If the poor become too poor, how can they contribute to the economy as consumers of US made goods? Mass consumerism is the basis of an industrialised capitalist economy. c) At the end of the Reagan presidency, a great opportunity existed for US internal reform. Reagan had effectively defeated his nations external enemies. He provided an opportunity for the next administration to achieve internal reform. Over the next 20 years,that opportunity was wasted, Successive administrations frittered away the expensively bought Reagan legacy, with dismal foreign policy, and internal decay. d) It's not just the fault of the leaders! Every democracy fails when the citizens shrug off responsibly, and blame the government. When less than 40% of US citizens vote, it becomes the fault of the people, not the system. Listen to the all excuses, then look at the truth. Those who fail to vote, openly brag about failing in the most basic of a citizens duty. e) The US needs internal reform, re-focus on what only the US can do best, re-evaluate what's really important, only then the nation will be able to compete again! The US is still the world leader in innovation and creative business. But, even this lead will be lost unless the nation can re-focus away from the negatives and harness the creative energy of all its citizens to achieve greatness again. f) The US needs inspired leaders. But more importantly it needs inspired citizens who respect one another and can support each other in re-focusing the US back on the path of greatness which is the true US destiny.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          "It may also indicate that the poor in the US, have become so very poor, that they simply have no income to contribute?!" except for some recent illegal immigrants, the poor in the US have cell phones, big-screen TVs, but unfortunately drive gross-polluters because they can't afford a shiny new car. They probably get several checks per month from uncle sugar, and have a debit car for use at the grocery store. Since I'm in the top 50% of AGI earners, I'm in the group that is paying 97% of the taxes that are supporting these free-loaders. The middle-class worker bees are the ones that should be blocking traffic on Wall Street and Washington DC. Oh, k-rrap. I don't have time for protests, cause I have to work to feed my family. we need jobs. businesses create jobs. government creates make-work bureaucracies get govment out of our butts, and we'll create jobs again.
      hahiran
      • 3 Years Ago
      That is one svelte beast. It's what a Jaguar should look like, but no longer does. I would buy one for $40K.
        skierpage
        • 3 Years Ago
        @hahiran
        Do pay attention, that's not the Nina! AFAIK no one has even released a sketch of a Project Nina. That's the much larger than 5-series Fisker Surf, and Car & Driver wrote "While nobody is talking price just yet, with the Karma starting around $90,000, figure on the wagon snuggling up against the six-figure mark."
      Letstakeawalk
      • 3 Years Ago
      With the $7500 credit, it'll be under $40K.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        A few points, of which I'm sure you're aware, since they're self-obvious. 1. The AVTM loans aren't specifically meant to provide low-cost anything - they're meant to jump-start advanced-vehicle manufacturing in the US. 2. The people buying Fiskers really don't really need a tax-credit to afford one. Taking that tax credit away (no argument from me there) would not hurt Fisker sales, IMHO. Fiskers will sell because of their styling, and their performance, both of which will be class-leading in their respected niches. Nothing you've said indicates that Fisker "...is just not a viable business model." I'm all for saving the tax-credit (if you insist we even have one) for models below a certain price point, or even revamping the system so that the tax credit given is calculated on a sliding scale based on income. For example, let the household making $20,000 a year and living in near poverty get a huge tax credit so that the Leaf would be practically free - the working poor would benefit more directly by having a vehicle with reduced operating (read gasoline) costs. As income rises, and a household's ability to buy a $30K car increases, they get less of a tax credit. (My system is meant to provide social justice, while simultaneously providing demand for new advanced vehicles, as well as removing the worst-polluting vehicles off the roads. The working poor generally drive older model autos with questionable emission maintenance, while current studies indicate that under the current system buyers of advanced vehicles are simply replacing another advanced vehicle (Prius owners, mostly).
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "In the case of a $100,000 automobile, such an incentive is hardly effective and incentives should be limited to vehicles under $70,000." I agree. By it's very nature, the hypothetical system I suggested would only fund cars under a certain price range, by the very dint that the buyers couldn't afford to spend any more. Those who could afford more expensive cars wouldn't qualify for the credit, so no credit would be given on cars over a general price range (meaning the luxury/sporty cars that those types would prefer).
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          hey Marco, we're on the same wavelength this morning America will survive obama years, but it can't survive the people that voted him into office
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Republicans: You're No Ronald Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scpnxiXx8I
          super390
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Marco Polo, Huh. Every advanced country except the US has had universal health care for decades, and I don't hear the people of Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan described as welfare dependents. And all of those countries have more redistributive tax systems than the US, which as you know has had a gigantic increase in wealth among the top few percent since the Reagan tax cuts while the country itself has fallen into ruin, with every crisis leading to demands to cut more basic social services, destroy public schools, privatize more public goods via crony giveaways, destroy the minimum wage and force the poor to work longer hours, eliminate all regulation of pollution to increase shareholder dividends, and move the poor from the welfare system to a prison system that is actually becoming a private slave labor system. Seems that America has a problem with dependency on an aristocracy.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          LTW. Social justice is a difficult ambition. I understand your motivation, and to a certain degree I admire your sentiment. But, like Gene, I damn'd if I can see how giving the poor a free car, is going to assist anyone! Sadly, ( I know it's hard for compassionate people to accept), the welfare state produces just that, welfare dependency! Complicated tax systems attempting social engineering, do not achieve their aims. The result is just more civil servants! Such tax schemes always idealistically, sound great! Regrettably, in practise such tax schemes always lead to avoidance by the rich, disincentive for the middle and an increase in hopelessness and institutionalised poverty for the poor!
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "have more redistributive tax systems than the US" like in: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" .....................................................................Carl Marx 1875 where are the youth learning that marxism is a good thing ? Capitalism made the US great. People are breaking our laws to come here because our system is so horrible. Think about the DOE running Apple for the past 30 years. aaaaaaaargh. the youth are brain-washed obozo-zombies - the pubic school system financed with dollars borrowed from china.........we're in deep do-do
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @LTW. I can understand the logic for the Leaf and the Volt receiving new technology incentives. These help to bridge the gap between the Ev and it's gas rival. In the case of a $100,000 automobile, such an incentive is hardly effective and incentives should be limited to vehicles under $70,000. I also feel compassion for the poor, but I believe that it's better to provide employment than welfare! I still believe in RFK's observation, "first the poor must know that they have hope, then employment, only then they can reach up and be a part of the American dream".
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          The US tax system TAKES from the POOR and Gives to the Rich. Look up Capital Gains tax, where the Rich pay a lower percentage of tax, or No Tax, where most of America pays a higher rate, plus has to live under the risk of Unemployment and Bankruptcy from One Major Illness. It's a RIGGED Game.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "2. The people buying Fiskers really don't really need a tax-credit to afford one . . . " What small percentage of that small percentage do you think will be buying this luxury car with a chebbie engine? "social justice" is that another term for Marxism ? aaaaaaaaaargh the youth are brain-washed obozo-zombies
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "Capitalism made the US great. " Then Capitalism made it poor again. Capitalism giveth, and Capitalism taketh away! Capitalism does not favor America exclusively. It favors the Chinese now.... and they are still a mostly communist county. Funny how that works. Communism or Capitalism in their pure forms are ideals that were never tried.... and cannot be attempted in the real world. And each one fails over time. The closer you get to either pure capitalism or communism... the faster it would fail. The USSR went bankrupt much faster that the US system is going to go bankrupt. China thrives because they adopt capitalism were it is needed. And the US has thrived over the years because there are still some anti-capitalism regulation. In a pure capitalist US, monopolies are perfectly legal and would be the goal of each business. Companies become corporations, corporations become conglomerates, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------- A conglomerate can crush a man's freedom just as fast as dictator can. Don't worship either system... it will ultimately fail you if you put too much faith in them. ============================= /end Rant
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Marco Thanks for noticing my compassionate side, and note that I do tend to favor the less fortunate over those that can afford to pay their own way. But also notice that my suggestion was only *if* tax credits were going to be handed out, something that I don't particularly support (for the stated reason that people who can afford to buy the cars don't need a tax credit in the first place). "I damn'd if I can see how giving the poor a free car, is going to assist anyone!" I thought I explained, but I'll rephrase my thoughts. Poor people drive lousy cars. Old, polluting, gas-guzzling cars. At least around here they do. The single most popular vehicle are ex-cop/taxi Crown Vics. They buy them for a grand, and drive them around in very clapped-out states because they can afford to fix them. I understand the popularity, the cars a spacious, very comfy, and are extremely hard to kill, so even one with a couple hundred thousand miles still has a good lifespan left. Unfortunately, those cars emit huge amounts of GHGs and burn equally huge amounts of gasoline. Subsidizing those owners into more efficient modern cars that need very little maintenance would be a benefit to all society. But sure, getting rid of the tax credit, and using that funding in other ways (basic research to bring down battery costs, for example) would be much more to my preference.
          Spiffster
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Damn Marco... damn good points. Dont always agree with you but that is exactly my view in a nutshell. I didnt have to say it, thanks... though 35k cap would make more sense. Anyone spending more than than 40k on a car needs no help from the other tax payers... like subsidizing a Rolex. With a 35k cap, we would see plenty of EVs aimed at that price-point. "With the $7500 credit, it'll be under $40K." Lets be realistic... No, it wont.
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Where the "right" is going is the bottom 99% will not be able to afford to live in this "Capitalist Paradise, for the 1%".
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        :-/ Ugh. We need cheaper EV options. When the government has to loan hundreds of millions of dollars to a car company and then needs to give you a $7500 tax-credit to lower the price to get you to buy it (at a price still well above the average car price) . . . . then the EV critics have a valid point. That is just not a viable business model. $30K cars that are given tax-credits that drop them to $20K to $30K range are acceptable. The remaining part of the high price will be covered by the gasoline savings.
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          The wars have cost us 4 Billion Dollars, and the Iraq war seems to have been just about getting US and British companies into the Iraq Oil Exploration and Pumping business. So, when you talk subsidies, you should look at the war cost as well. It might be cheaper to give Every American who want's one a FREE EV.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I do not see how a relatively low-volume vehicle, sold by a manufacturer with the need to expend significant monies on the sort of things established manufacturers have embedded (dealerships, mechanics, branding, etc.), can be sold for $45K despite what is essentially two drive systems (yes, I know it's series), including what has got to be a very high-priced -- and, IMO, a seriously over-kill -- BMW engine. Fisker's business model just doesn't compute, and I regret that I have conclude that my tax money will be going for naught. Also, I fear that a failure by Fisker will give a black-eye to the entire EV/PHEV field (just as Solyndra is unwarrantedly bringing down the American solar industry).
        Rotation
        • 3 Years Ago
        The EV market already has many lousy/overoptimistic businessmen and some flat-out charlatans giving it a black eye. Fisker, while currently a thorn in the side isn't really much in the big picture. They're not 1/5th as bad as Aptera for example. Solyndra is a really bad situation, no doubt. But the main thing killing the American solar industry is the fact that you can make solar panels a lot cheaper in China due to subsidies and lax environmental standards. That's the nail in the coffin. If Solyndra made a better product cheaper, many people would still buy it despite the bad name.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          "Fisker, while currently a thorn in the side..." You're calling Fisker a thorn in the side of the EV industry? Really?
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Rotation
          Damn, hit the -1 instead of the +1, sorry. But, yes, China has NO Environmental Regulations, that are enforced, a mere payoff to a local official gives you carte blanche to create Cancer Clusters everywhere. Plus, China has High Import Tariffs, and the US has done NOTHING to respond to that. Plus, the government subsidies, and technology transfer. Funny how the US is Not Responding to our attack on our Industrial Base in ANY WAY. It's almost as if the Corporate CEO's in America have decided to give the country Economic CANCER.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        "Also, I fear that a failure by Fisker will give a black-eye to the entire EV/PHEV field." LOL Fortune favors the bold, if you're afraid of failure you should take solace from DF and not even try, and complain about those who do. Solyndra is an albatross, and might even bring shame to Obama, but nobody said every project would succeed.
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        The solar industry is doing great . . . they just left Solyndra behind because competing technologies were better.
          krisztiant
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Fordinsight, actually propaganda is somewhat inconsistent with the concept of truth: as opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. It is often biased, with facts selectively presented (thus, lying by omission) to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. I was simply contemplating how society perceives the "truth" (in real life).
          krisztiant
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Marco: "Talk, no evidence, proof, just talk!" It might be, but people usually never have hard evidences about government deeds (governments attend to it). They know things from the media and try to look behind the curtains, and most importantly, vote. That is the only power they've got, and the only thing what governments are afraid of. Now, an important truth about the truth (as in real life): The truth is whatever is agreed upon, or might come to be agreed upon by some specified group(s). If those specified groups are bigger than the others (voters), the government is royally screwed at the elections, no matter the so called "truth". That's how things simply work (in a democracy).
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Exactly! All this talk of how this is result of Obama's personally corrupt action's, is just that. Talk, no evidence, proof, just talk! Not every stimulus project will succeed, if they were old established companies, with proven products they would need stimulus!
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Krisztiant did you just explain propaganda?
    • Load More Comments