Fisker Is Taking On Tesla, And Winning
Fisker Is Taking On Tesla, And Winning
Or are they?
Henrik Fisker is a complex man to pin down. His career as an automotive designer is among the most impressive. He penned the Aston Martin DB9 and Vantage, BMW Z8, and the Tesla Model S. All of these were seminal designs that pushed the boundaries of the industry. His designs were regarded as a beautiful symphony of form and functionality. But his reputation was deeply tarnished when he started his own car company called Fisker. Their first car, the Karma, was one of the first high-performance hybrids, but in reality, it had lacklustre performance and had a tendency to set itself on fire. Henrik’s handling of the Karma’s awful design led to the company going bankrupt after only a few years. But Fisker, the company and the man is now back, and he seems to have gotten his old winning streak back. His latest offering, the Ocean EV, seems to utterly bury Tesla. However, is Fisker really a threat to his old employer? Let’s find out.
Let’s look at this new EV first. The Ocean is a small to mid-sized SUV with all of Fisker’s typical design cues. Usually, I find SUVs big ugly lumps that lack any form of grace. But to my eyes, the Ocean bucks this trend with effortless lines and a powerful but restrained stance. To top this off, thanks to some clever packaging, this smaller SUV has a cavernous cargo capacity and decent interior room. But, the beauty of this car is far more than skin deep, as the technology and specs at its core are industry-leading.
** Quick interruption, if you want more from me, or to interact with me, go follow me on Bluesky, X, or Substack**
Take the base spec model, the Ocean Sport. It uses a 75 kWh LFP battery pack that can charge at a rate of 200 kW (by far the fastest charging LFP packs I know of), giving it a 10% to 80% charge time of 33 minutes and a WLTP range of 288 miles. It is no slouch either, with a 0–60 mph time of 7.4 seconds. These specs are impressive and put the Ocean in direct competition with some of the leading models in the EV revolution, like the Tesla Model Y, VW ID4, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6 and many others. But the Ocean massively undercuts them in price! The sport costs only £35,970 ($37,499 in the US). That is around £10,000 cheaper than many of these competitors!
But, the higher-end Ocean models utterly crush these competitors on price and specs. The Ocean Ultra is the second from the top-level trim. It has a 106.5 kWh NMC battery pack that can charge at 250 kW, giving it a 10% to 80% charge time of 35 minutes, which is lightning fast for such a massive battery pack! This gigantic pack also gives it an utterly monstrous range of 429 miles WLTP, which is 21 miles further than the longest range model from Tesla, the $71,090 Model S. The Ocean Ultra comes with 400 kW (536 horsepower) of power, giving it a blistering 0–60 time of 4.2 seconds, and a massive towing capacity of 1,820 kg! All of this is yours for only £49,880 ($52,999 in the US).
You literally cannot find any other EVs with similar specs for range, performance, practicality, charge rate or towing capacity for anywhere near the same price. But it gets better. Fisker recently published its Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) report that found that the Fisker Ocean had the lowest published carbon footprint of any electric SUV thanks to its unique materials list and efficient manufacturing. Now, this has yet to be verified by a third party, but the report is quite thorough, so at the very least, it suggests the Ocean is also more environmentally friendly than any of its competitors.
I feel I haven’t emphasised enough just how far ahead the Ocean is. So, let’s compare it to its biggest rival, the Tesla Model Y.
The base spec Model Y costs £44,990 ($43,990 in the US), which is £9,020 more than the Ocean Sport. For that, you get a 57.5 kWh LFP battery, which is 17.5 kWh smaller than the Ocean Sport and a WLTP range of 260 miles, 28 miles less than the Ocean Sport. The battery only takes 27 minutes to charge from 10% to 80%, six minutes longer than the Ocean Sport, but the Y maxes out at a peak rate of 175 kW. So technically, the Ocean Sport charges faster, as it adds more range in less time. The Model Y does have one saving grace though, as it is slightly quicker with a 0–60 mph of 6.9 seconds, 0.5 seconds faster than the Ocean Sport. However, I doubt many people would pay £9,020 more for that performance upgrade whilst sacrificing range and charge speeds.
The £52,990 ($48,990 US) Model Y Long Range isn’t safe either. It comes with a 75 kWh NMC battery pack, 31.5 kWh less than the Ocean Ultra, and a WLTP range of 331 miles, 98 miles less than the Ocean Ultra. The Model Y LR has a charge rate of 250 kW, the same as the Ocean Ultra. The Model Y LR’s 378 kW of power gives it a 0–60 time of 5 seconds, 0.8 seconds slower than the Ocean Ultra. Yet, despite the Ocean Ultra trouncing the Model Y LR’s spec sheet, it is £3,110 cheaper!
Even the Model Y performance isn’t safe, as the top-of-the-line Ocean Extreme costs only £900 more, has the same 0–60 time (0.2 seconds slower), charges at the same rate, yet can do 120 miles more per charge (WLTP).
Make no mistake: the Fisker Ocean makes Teslas look expensive and limited in their capability. Fisker has buried Tesla. Or have they?
In Q3 2023, Fisker only produced 4,725 vehicles (all Oceans). In comparison, Tesla produced 419,074 cars during the same quarter, most of which were Model Ys and 3s. Fisker has a long way to go before taking a sizeable share of the EV market and eating into Tesla’s sales figures. They are still ramping up production of the Ocean and plan to reach 300 units per day by some point next year, though that is still far behind Tesla’s figures.
But it turns out it is copying the same growth tactics that enabled Tesla’s light-speed growth. Let me explain.
Many have speculated that Fisker is selling these cars at a loss to grow its market share, hoping that production costs will lower in time and allow it to reach profitability in the future. This is a highly risky plan that has backed-fired on numerous companies multiple times. But that isn’t the case.
It is true that Fisker as a company overall has a negative margin, i.e. they are losing money. However, that isn’t the whole story, as their automotive sales have a 7.5% gross margin (according to Fisker’s investor relations). So even at those silly cheap prices, Fisker is still making money! But, if you remember a few years ago, the same could be said for Tesla. The cars were profitable, but the business wasn’t. This was because Tesla was spending more than its profits on new designs and new factories to expand. That is how they were able to grow so quickly, and Fisker is doing the same. They are building massive factories, developing new cars, trucks, and even swappable battery packs!
So, while Fisker is currently not a threat to Tesla and is a small fry in a gigantic pond, they are on a trajectory to become as much of an EV behemoth as Tesla. It will be damn interesting to see if they can reach these lofty heights and avoid repeating the catastrophe of the Karma.
Thanks for reading! Content like this doesn’t happen without your support. So, if you want to see more like this, don’t forget to Subscribe and follow me on BlueSky or Xand help get the word out by hitting the share button below.
Sources: Autoexpress, Fisker, CNN, Investors.com, EV Database, EV Database, EV Database, EV Database, EV Database, EV Database, Bloomberg, Fisker, Tridens, Fisker, Autoweek