Fisker Automotive
will postpone production of its Karma extended-range plug-in vehicle until the future of bankrupt battery maker A123 Systems is resolved, Bloomberg reports, citing an interview with the automaker's CEO.

During an interview at this week's Los Angeles Auto Show, Tony Posawatz admitted that A123's Michigan factory has stopped making lithium-ion batteries earmarked for the company's sleek Karma sedan. As a result, any available batteries are being saved as potential replacements for examples already out on the road, Bloomberg reports.

As it is, Fisker has held off the start of production for its less-expensive Atlantic model range for various reasons, chief among them that much of the $529 million loan that Fisker was set to receive from the US Energy Department has been frozen. The most recent word is that the Atlantic may see the light of day in 2014.

A123, which filed for bankruptcy in October, will be subject to acquisition bids starting next month. The lead acquisition candidates are understood to be China-based Wanxiang Group Corp. and US-based Johnson Controls.


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
  • 64 Comments
      Rotation
      • 2 Years Ago
      Or they might have stopped production because they have enough cars to cover the demand.
        nobody23753
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        smart thinking, Rotation
        Grendal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        Rotation. You might want to reconsider your position when a raving lunatic troll agrees with you. It makes for a good touchstone. Then again he was misinterpreting what you said to believe that you were anti-Fisker. Which you might be but for very different reasons than he is, I'm sure.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Grendal
          @ Rotation Without government intervention, the US would have no car industry ! Even Ford would have been forced to cease US manufacture. Fisker may not be your choice of car, but your hatred is irrational. If I don't like something, I am not "anti" it's manufacture, I simply don't buy it. I respect the right of those who do appreciate the product. Your problem is, you never understood the Karma's concept. Nor do you 'approve' of the sort of people who buy and appreciate Karma. Karma obviously arouses deeper emotions than just a lack of appeal in automotive design. Karma haters, are like those who hate modern art, or even Justin Beiber ! What you don't understand, you loathe and fear. (I'm no fan of Justin Beiber either, but then I'm not his audience). The E-Type Jaguar (US XKE) is regarded as the most desirable post war classic. But it was a terribly engineered vehicle, put together by a workforce that made worker in the GDR Trabant look like craftsmen. Fiskers Karma, is an EREV, that deploys EV technology in a startlingly beautiful design. A school boy poster design, conceived at a time when EV technology was a by-word for ugly. Fisker Automotive commenced life as a coach-builder. A specialist design component producer. This is the traditional beginning for most specialist sport-car, GT, manufacturers. People want choice ! Your attitude of (paraphrase), "If you want EREV, get a Volt. If you want a very stylish car, get an ICE ., reflects only your narrow thinking. In the words of the ultimate hypocrite, ""Let a hundred flowers blossom" ! ( although Chairman Mao Zedong exhortation may have been sincere, as it's the best way to sever heads !)
          Rotation
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Grendal
          I can't control trolls. And I also cannot prevent a stopped clock from being right twice a day. I am anti-Fisker. The car is a loser. It's a mis-engineered, over-priced greenwashed stupid car. If you want a good EREV, get a Volt. If you want a very stylish car, then ignore the Karma and get an ICE car. I don't feel our government money should be going to make cars like this. Since it is not an efficient car, we don't need to subsidize it or fund it. If the company can find all their funding and customers on their own, then that's fine, I'm no more in favor of banning sale of it than I am of Lamborghinis. But let's not pretend it's at all green.
          Rotation
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Grendal
          I understand the Karma concept completely. It's for those who want to spend a large amount of money on a car and also pretend it is green at the same time when it really isn't. The thing I lack is a respect for that business model. I didn't say if you want an EREV get a Volt. I said if you want a good EREV, get a Volt. The Fisker costs more, works worse and is a worse EREV. It's not even more fuel efficient than other comparable cars. What it is is expensive (i.e. exclusive) and well styled. Hey, that's fine, I have no problem with that. It's far from the only nonsensical car that is well styled, expensive and exclusive. The difference is we don't pretend the others are green and subsidize the purchase of them. What does "a lack of appeal in automotive design" even mean? It isn't proper English. Are you saying I don't appreciate good design?
      boggin
      • 2 Years Ago
      Maybe this is the Universe trying to help Fisker find a new battery manufacturer. First there are battery fires on dry land. Then a hurricane floods them with water and more fires. Now the manufacturer goes bankrupt.
      m_2012
      • 2 Years Ago
      RIP Fisker. A123 will become Chinese and we lose yet another US based company after spending hundred of millions to "save" them under failed bailouts - read, line the pockets of a few.
      nobody23753
      • 2 Years Ago
      FISKER: DIE ALREADY.
      SloopJohnB
      • 2 Years Ago
      Boy...there's a no brainer considering A123 went under several weeks ago....Johnson Controls bought them IIRC but hasn't the slightest idea how to produce the Fisker battery economically. Not surprising since neither did A123 or it wouldn't have gone bankrupt....
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      “Because we have no batteries, there’s no production right now. Inventory is starting to get a little low,” Posawatz said in an interview, without elaborating. “We’d like to restart production as quickly as possible. We should know the outcome of the auction by the middle of December.” Hopefully, production will only be delayed a few weeks.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 2 Years Ago
      This is absolutely maddening. Sell A123 off to the Chinese already. China can produce and sell things. A123 can't seem to do that in America, and they can't even pull that off with a plant in Korea. Nanotech lithium phosphate is an awesome chemistry, but there's no use in it if you can't buy the stuff.
      Scooter
      • 2 Years Ago
      Fisker borrows tax payer money, and builds electric cars for rich Californians. I continue to have 0 respect for this company that has taken handouts from investors and the government to build an exotic toy for the wealthy. People might say the Atlantic will be their car for the public, we both know the Atlantic or any small car they make will easily push $60,000 and above. I respect anybody who wants to build a business, but to take clean energy loans and use them to make cars for rich people is angering. We have ENOUGH stuff for rich people these days. You got all these premium automakers who cater to the richest segment of the population in financial struggles, then begging for handouts. The Nissan Leaf, the Chevy Volt, the Spark, plug in Hybrids, these are the cars leading the way, Fisker isn't leading the way, they have a half billion American Taxpayer dollars and have poorly tested millionaire toys to show for it, with promises of some "affordable" car that is only a rouse poised to be some $60-$80k toy for mini millionaires. There is a clear intent to build premium near supercar status automobiles by Fisker, and nothing else. Im really sick and tired of footing the bill for the supremely rich of America.
        Carma Racing
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Scooter
        Don't blame people lining up for handouts of your tax money. Blame yourself for electing the idiots that give it away.
        John Blaze
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Scooter
        @Scooter, I understand your fustration, however, basically every technology that is introduced always goes to the wealthy first, but after the technology is perfected and parts get cheaper, it always trickles down to the common folk. I don't see this as any different. Hell, even Tesla's roster costs $100,000. No poor people bought that, but 6 years later they are finally offering the Model S and later on an even less expensive car. Companies like GM can take the hit of making a car for the masses from the jump, but not start ups. They have to recop their losses ASAP or go under.
        nobody23753
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Scooter
        Scooter, you are absolutely right, and the statistics show that what you said is true no tjust for Fisker, but for the Stupid, Stupid (fugly too) Volt! The average income of Volt buyers is a very high $175,000. The rest of the USm with an average income of less than $35,000, subsidizes these auto illiterate greenie fanatics and poseurs at the tune of at least $7,500! If this is not stealing from the poor to give to the rich, what is????
        SloopJohnB
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Scooter
        Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla. Tesla.
      Bootkicker
      • 2 Years Ago
      The federal Department of Energy (DOE) promised taxpayers that it had closely examined each applicant, and according to DOE spokesman Damien LeVera, the companies “were rejected, if they looked too rich or too risky.” By the looks of it, ReVolt must have fallen through the cracks. It appears that DOE failed to adequately scrutinize ReVolt Technology, but the Portland Development Commission (PDC) saw the writing on the wall. A mere two months after the DOE offered ReVolt an ARPA-E grant, the PDC also promised the company a $1.2 million loan. But unlike the DOE, PDC acknowledged from the get-go that “this one [ReVolt] we identified as high risk.”
      JakeY
      • 2 Years Ago
      The $7.5k credit is a different matter from the loans. The $7.5k credit doesn't discriminate by owner income or vehicle price for a very good reason: a larger battery would cost more. And getting people to buy a larger battery will bring down the market price for batteries faster (which is the ultimate goal of the credit) than everyone buying a smaller battery. For example you could buy a $30k 16kWh EV like the iMIEV and the government basically gave up $7.5k in tax revenue to generate demand for 16kWh of battery. If on the other hand it goes to the 85kWh battery in the Model S, they gave up the same amount and simulated more than 5 times the volume in battery. This drives down prices faster for the same amount of cost. Plus the idea is to simulate 250k plug-ins per manufacturer. It makes no difference to the goal of the program if it's 250k $100k plug-ins or 250k $30k plug-ins. The ATVM loans on the other hand are designed such that they stimulate manufacture of advanced technology vehicles. Being a loan, a primary consideration is if the company will be profitable (and thus be able to pay back the loan!). For an established company it's easier to build a less expensive car and still be profitable (this explains why Ford and Nissan got the loan). This is not the case for startups, which is why the DOE is picking startups (Tesla and Fisker) that start in the higher end market rather than those that try to build in volume in the start and target the less profitable lower end market (they rejected a bunch of these). Side note: I always find it funny to see outrage about "taking from the poor and giving to the rich" when it relates to a "green industry" and not anywhere near the same outrage when we subsidize the oil industry EVEN MORE at virtually no benefit to us (the green industry at least pushes toward more sustainability, subsidizing the oil industry primarily adds to their bottom line).
      Lloydchiro
      • 2 Years Ago
      I think these cars are cool. The only problem is that they are a little big. I would buy one if I could afford it.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      Yeah, that excuse does not smell right. A123 is desperate for customers.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        A123 has stopped making batteries. Fisker can't buy them if A123 isn't making them. Fisker is holding on to the batteries they have, so that a replacement is available in case there is a problem with a current customer's car.
    • Load More Comments