Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

The Fisker Ocean EV Is Dirt Cheap. Don’t Buy One.

It will be the most expensive $25,000 you ever spend.

A Fisker going off a cliff.
Heatmap Illustration/Fisker, Getty Images

I’ve been saying lately that a tipping point for EVs will be the electric family crossover that can compete on price with the emperors of suburbia, the ubiquitous Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4, which both start around $30,000. Suddenly, there is one. Although I cannot in good faith recommend it.

The troubled electric vehicle startup Fisker has slashed the price of its basic Ocean EV to just $24,999 in a desperate bid to sell enough vehicles to stave off bankruptcy. The Ocean is now the cheapest EV on the American market. The high-end Ocean Extreme, with a dual motor setup and zero-to-60 time under four seconds, has been discounted from $61,499 to just $37,499.

Fisker might sell a few of these EVs to buyers looking for an offer they can’t refuse, and those sales might keep the lights on a little longer for a company that was recently shamed by historically bad reviews and delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. But all the signs say the flashy electric vehicle startup will run out of juice at any moment.

This wasn’t Henrik Fisker’s first try. Back in 2007, the Danish car designer who made his name at legacy carmakers founded Fisker Automotive, a company that would produce the fish-mouthed Fisker Karma. That car was a luxury take on the range-extended EV, or a vehicle that uses an on-board gas-powered generator to refill the batteries, thus extending its range.

Karma had the looks. Many auto enthusiasts at the time heralded its design. (The car chaps at Top Gear loved it.) Fisker teased future models that would position it as a rival to Tesla, which was still selling small numbers in the days before the Models 3 and Y. But the company didn’t have the follow-through. A series of setbacks, including the bankruptcy of its battery supplier, sent Fisker Automotive on the road to bankruptcy.

Lapses in quality control didn’t help. In 2012, the Karma delivered to Consumer Reports for its car testing program broke down upon arrival, requiring a battery replacement before the car could be driven. It earned a failing grade because of “numerous shortcomings, not just a single or even few flaws.” While Fisker the company bit the dust in 2013, Fisker the man would carry on — though saddled with a reputation as a dreamer who, to put it generously, did not have the attention to detail for a startup company to succeed.

Things looked rosier for Fisker, Inc., the second-chance company he launched in 2016. Instead of an over-engineered range-extended plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, he announced a plain old EV. The Ocean promised whiz-bang features such as a roof lined with solar panels, two-way charging, and “California Mode” — a single button that opened all the glass panels, allowing the sea breeze to waft through the car as it cruised down the Pacific Coast Highway. Underneath the tech hype, though, was a simple proposition: a mid-size crossover EV listed at a price competitive with others in that popular category.

Once again, trouble found Fisker when the car got closer to reality. The new company went public in 2020, but according to Fortune, “a slew of software, supply chain and regulatory problems” prevented Fisker from moving the first Oceans until 2023. It delivered fewer than 5,000 of the EVs last year, despite building more than 10,000 of them.

Then came the testing. YouTube super-reviewer Marques Brownlee titled his video about the Ocean, “This Is the Worst Car I’ve Ever Reviewed” and spent 20 solid minutes outlining the weirdness of his driving experience, including the company asking him to hold off reviewing the car until it could rush out a software update. More than a decade after its disastrous experience with the Karma, Consumer Reports reported that the Fisker Ocean was “unfinished,” with a “bizarre delivery experience” and “disappearing safety features.”

This disastrous narrative arrived alongside reports of Fisker’s financial ruin. Fisker suspended production of the Ocean and tried to raise $150 million to keep the startup afloat, however a rumored last-second deal with Nissan fell apart and now, despite Henrik Fisker’s promise to press on, it appears the company has no clear lifeline to stave off oblivion.

Given the relatively high cost of current EVs, some buyers might be tempted by the fire-sale Fiskers. As The Autopian says, “the Fisker Ocean is a good car when it’s functional,” and if the company can manage to push out a software update, then perhaps it will be functional more often than not. The 231-mile range of the base model isn’t impressive by 2024 standards, but the Ocean Extreme’s reported 360-mile range is a steal at its steeply discounted price.

Still: This is a capital case of caveat emptor. Given Fisker’s long history of poor build quality and software bugs, it’d be a big risk to pony up even the clearance sale price of an Ocean. Not to mention the huge uncertainty of living with one. It can be hard enough to schedule service for a Tesla; now imagine trying to deal with hardware for software problems for an orphan EV whose company bit the dust.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate

Climate Change Won’t Make Winter Storms Less Deadly

In some ways, fossil fuels make snowstorms like the one currently bearing down on the U.S. even more dangerous.

A snowflake with a tombstone.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The relationship between fossil fuels and severe weather is often presented as a cause-and-effect: Burning coal, oil, and gas for heat and energy forces carbon molecules into a reaction with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, which in turn traps heat in the atmosphere and gradually warms our planet. That imbalance, in many cases, makes the weather more extreme.

But this relationship also goes the other way: We use fossil fuels to make ourselves more comfortable — and in some cases, keep us alive — during extreme weather events. Our dependence on oil and gas creates a grim ouroboros: As those events get more extreme, we need more fuel.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Spotlight

Secrecy Is Backfiring on Data Center Developers

The cloak-and-dagger approach is turning the business into a bogeyman.

A redacted data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s time to call it like it is: Many data center developers seem to be moving too fast to build trust in the communities where they’re siting projects.

One of the chief complaints raised by data center opponents across the country is that companies aren’t transparent about their plans, which often becomes the original sin that makes winning debates over energy or water use near-impossible. In too many cases, towns and cities neighboring a proposed data center won’t know who will wind up using the project, either because a tech giant is behind it and keeping plans secret or a real estate firm refuses to disclose to them which company it’ll be sold to.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Missouri Could Be First State to Ban Solar Construction

Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Cole County, Missouri – The Show Me State may be on the precipice of enacting the first state-wide solar moratorium.

  • GOP legislation backed by Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe would institute a temporary ban on building any utility-scale solar projects in the state until at least the end of 2027, including those currently under construction. It threatens to derail development in a state ranked 12th in the nation for solar capacity growth.
  • The bill is quite broad, appearing to affect all solar projects – as in, going beyond the commercial and utility-scale facility bans we’ve previously covered at the local level. Any project that is under construction on the date of enactment would have to stop until the moratorium is lifted.
  • Under the legislation, the state would then issue rulemakings for specific environmental requirements on “construction, placement, and operation” of solar projects. If the environmental rules aren’t issued by the end of 2027, the ban will be extended indefinitely until such rules are in place.
  • Why might Missouri be the first state to ban solar? Heatmap Pro data indicates a proclivity towards the sort of culture war energy politics that define regions of the country like Missouri that flipped from blue to ruby red in the Trump era. Very few solar projects are being actively opposed in the state but more than 12 counties have some form of restrictive ordinance or ban on renewables or battery storage.

Clark County, Ohio – This county has now voted to oppose Invenergy’s Sloopy Solar facility, passing a resolution of disapproval that usually has at least some influence over state regulator decision-making.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow