First image of Fisker's plug-in luxury hybrid released?

You can't be too careful these days, but if the above image isn't just the work of some overzealous fanboy (or girl), that's what Fisker's forthcoming luxury plug-in hybrid will look like. The vehicle itself will be developed in conjunction with Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies, which reportedly hopes to aid Fisker in developing an entire line of "environmentally friendly premium cars." If all goes well, the whip could make its North American entrance at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, but as you can probably imagine, owning such a svelte looking ride won't run you cheap. The company plans to crank out some 15,000 of these creations initially and fetch around $100,000 for each, but until we actually get the word that people are taking delivery, we won't get too attached.

[Via Autoblog]

[euclid @ Oct 26th 2007 9:31AM]

Looks like a Maserati Gran Turismo...which is a good thing. Great stuff.

[crypt @ Oct 26th 2007 9:50AM]

"No Alfred, I think I will take my other car"

"Yes Master Bruce, Ill go plug it in for you"

[ethana2 @ Oct 26th 2007 1:18PM]

If I understand correctly, it's rather difficult to make a hybrid rocket propelled bridging vehicle..

Ion engines?

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 26th 2007 9:45AM]

There is no such thing as an environmentaly friendly car.

Hybrids are a joke because they still use gasoline and in many cases, use even more oil for lubricant/ or use more battery acid to power regenerative batteries which are environmentaly unfriendly. Research has already proven that a Hybrid driver is more likely to DRIVE MORE on the theory that they are saving more money on fuel costs and therefore can drive greater distances or for longer durations.

FULL ELECTRIC (rechargeable cars) would be better but the industry will never go that way because the whole point off the oil companies is to keep us DEPENDANT ON EXXON, CHEVRON and the middle east.

If Americans had a brain they would DEMAND that all cars be switched to FULL ELECTRIC RECHARGEABLE or else they would BOYCOTT companies not willing to do it.

There is no reason why we can't have it simply because recharge lines could be built into the infrastructure along side powerlines.


You can Low Rank me - I DON'T CARE.

Hybrids are not friendly to the environment and they only help people save money in the short term while they continue to pollute the environment.

What we need are FUSION CELLS which could be built based on already xisting technology. BUT THE GAS COMPANIES OWN YOU so they aren't going to let you in on that kinda technology.


Continue paying into your gas stations so you can help Chevron execs buy their multi million dollar island resort getaways.

[terry newell @ Oct 26th 2007 10:23AM]

I couldn't agree with you more!

[joewhat @ Oct 26th 2007 10:42AM]

Although I agree in general I think you are still wrong.

There are different types of hybrid cars and some of them use a small diesel/gas engine to generate electricity stored in batteries. In my opinion this is an option that does make sense, since a gas engine only runs really efficient in a very small range in terms of RPMs. When you directly use the gas engine to run the vehicle you cannot keep the engine within this efficient range due to all the "stop-and-go"s etc. On the other hand the smaller engine powering the generator can always run in optimum range and still use standard fuel. With this system you can run cars with 3 liters of gas without making any sacrifices to security, comfort etc.

So until the fuel cell is really a feasible way to go, some forms of hybrid cars do make sense...

[JBo @ Oct 26th 2007 11:04AM]

It's called incremental advances in technology. Hybrids exist because they can be fueled using our existing infrastructure. Consumers did not have to make a leap of faith as to whether they'd get stranded in the middle of nowhere. Nobody claims that Hybrids are the answer. In fact, the American car companies were late to the Hybrid game because they too know this. What they didn't understand was that alternative fuel (whether it be electric, ethanol, etc.) requires both a massive infrastructure (multiple billions of dollars), and a very big shift in the mindset of consumers.

Toyota and Honda understood that in order to get people to buy these vehicles, they had to make it non-threatening. Now the Prius is a household name, and all consumers, not just Hybrid owners, are far more accepting of non-traditional technology.

We'll get there, consumer demand has now shifted from being weary of new concepts in fueling and propelling cars, to embracing and even demanding those concepts. I agree that it cannot happen soon enough.

[ahrenl @ Oct 26th 2007 1:10PM]

Fusion cells? They still haven't been able do Fusion without putting more energy in then they can extract.

Boycotting cars has nothing to do with intelligence. Most of us depend on them to get to work, like your parents do so you can type stupid things online on your environmentally unfriendly computer.

You know what powers most of the electric grid? Coal burning plants. While they're more efficient than individual combustion engines, they run RIGHT along the same line of thought you have for Hybrid cars.

Therefore I designate you an ignorant hypocrit.

[nikola @ Oct 26th 2007 1:34PM]

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Hybrids reduce the amount of pollution coming out your gas tank into your community. It reduces your consumption of expensive gasoline. If you live where they have green energy sources thats an even bigger plus. If you don't there are plenty of companies online that will let you purchase carbon/smog emission offsets. Here's just one: http://www.climatedefenders.com/

Now do us all a favor and STFU. You even can't afford a Fisker, so why do you care if others want to spend less time at the pump? You say that hybrids are a waste and we should boycott them till they come out with FUSION??? How long you been working for Exxon??

[Stephen Barnes @ Oct 26th 2007 5:06PM]

Until fully battery regenerative cars improve their maximum range, the point isn't to keep us dependent on oil. While adding recharge points along the road is a good idea, usually it takes several hours to recharge a battery operated car. So for right now, hybrids are the best we have for driving farther than just around town.

[ryantrevisol @ Oct 26th 2007 10:14AM]

Looks like an Aston Martin . . . oh wait.

[enzo @ Oct 26th 2007 10:20AM]

That's great... but how about making some non-"premium" plug-in hybrids for people who actually CAN'T afford high gas prices?

[rcappo @ Oct 26th 2007 10:41AM]

I would also like a simple electric car that looks good. 95% of the year I drive 20 miles/day at under 65mph. I would like a car that could be a simple commuter car in pure electric mode. But it would be switchable to gas, LNG, E85, Propane (etc...) when I need to drive 300+ miles a day, maybe 10 times a year. It doesn't need to switch while I am driving down the road either.

[johnzilla @ Oct 26th 2007 11:27AM]

Hybrids (like any mass produced passenger vehicle) use crazy amounts of plastics, metals (some exotic), and other highly-processed manufactured materials. I'll buy into the idea that hybrids make any difference whatsoever over conventional powertrains when someone shows that a hybrid is environmentally "good" throughout the whole vehicle and throughout the entire manufacturing cycle, not just when using the engine.

Disclaimer: I work for a car company, and anyone who thinks that there is some grand conspiracy afoot keeping cool, high-tech and environmentally friendly cars out of consumers' hands doesn't understand human nature and has never worked in a large company (more than 100,000 employees). They also don't understand just how much of a technological feat it is to mass produce something as complex as a passenger vehicle that is safe, profitable, and stylish in addition to being individually configured to a particular customer's preferences. It truly is a miracle that anything resembling a working (and safe) machine comes out the end of a car factory, let alone hundreds of thousands of those machines, hybrid or not.

That car does look cool, though I confess to thinking at first that Engadget was talking about a hybrid pair of scissors (Fisker/Fiskar).

[James @ Oct 26th 2007 11:58AM]

CoughAstonMartincough!

Fisker's had his tracing paper out again.

[Matthew Hilario @ Oct 26th 2007 12:06PM]

srsly we should all just get a powerwheels lamborghini

[Peter Geantil @ Oct 26th 2007 7:34PM]

This is the true car of the future! My bro and his company just finished it. Most aerodynamic thing on the road, by far!

http://www.aptera.com/

[CaliforniaKid @ Oct 30th 2007 12:39AM]

About 5 years ago, a petroleum engineer told me "they" believe we have another 20 to 30 years of fossil fuels left before it will become in such short supply that it will be unbearably expensive.

The nice thing about fully electric cars is that pollution can be contained and controlled in one location instead of out the tailpipe of millions of cars.

I heard the US has enough coal energy equal to two Saudi Arabias. As dirty as coal is, it'll be hard to ignore such an abundant resource.

In the end, John Q. Public will vote with their dollars NOT the best system. Exhibit "A": Beta versus VHS. I rest my case.

Ever since OJ beat the wrap this planet has been in a sharp nosedive. I want off.

[bob @ Jan 14th 2008 10:12AM]

http://www.teslamotors.com/