The SUV of the Year Review of Our 2023 Fisker Ocean Extreme (Sort Of)

Obsessive MotorTrend readers and Fisker fans (yes, those exist) have no doubt noticed the 2023 Fisker Ocean’s absence in our SUV of the Year competition. Although it was invited in 2023 and again this year, Fisker couldn’t provide a car on either occasion, and now the company is going out of business, there won’t be another chance. How would it have fared if Fisker could’ve gotten us a car? Having chaperoned our yearlong review Ocean Extreme and being an SUVOTY judge, I can make an educated guess.

I’ve been judging our Of The Year competitions for a dozen years now, including 10 of the 13 SUV of the Year competitions held during that time. I’m intimately familiar with the program, the process, the test facilities and real-world roads, the six key criteria, and the way our editors and guest judges think. I know which attributes tend to impress the judges, which faults sour them on a vehicle, and which minor drawbacks they're willing to accept on an otherwise excellent vehicle.

Although this isn’t an official SUV of the Year evaluation of the Ocean based on the input of a dozen experts who drove it in the same conditions through the same test courses and on the same real-world roads, it’s a pretty good approximation of where we could’ve landed had we had the opportunity to do so. Here, then, is the Fisker Ocean as judged against our six key criteria: Advancement in Design, Engineering Excellence, Efficiency, Performance of Intended Function, Safety, and Value.

See All 27 Photos27

Advancement in Design

Right out of the gate, the Ocean scores big. Design is its biggest strength, and no one I’ve met has anything bad to say about the way it looks. On the contrary, it’s the one thing we get positive comments on from strangers to this day. Henrik Fisker was, after all, a designer, and he and his Fisker Inc. design team did a great job on their debut product.

It’s the proportions I really love. With the wheels pushed out to the corners of the vehicle and the sloping roofline, the Ocean looks more like a hot hatch viewed in profile than a two-box SUV. From the front rear, the big wheels bulging out of the bodywork gives it a wide, low stance that again reads more tall wagon than off-roader. The clever use of accent lighting on the door handles, D-pillars, and SolarSky roof are all attractive attention-getters in a world full of same-same SUVs.

On the interior, I think we’d have more to say during our deliberations. The heavy use of recycled and sustainable materials would be applauded, and many of our judges would be enamored with the use of textiles as dash trim rather than wood or metal. The interesting linear patterns embossed in the dashboard trim and the seats would also probably get high marks.

Some materials, though, would get dinged for sure. The hollow plastic interior door handles don’t feel like they belong in a car that originally retailed for nearly $70,000. Same for the horn cover and steering wheel buttons.

Design, in our criteria, doesn’t only apply to styling but also functionality. Here, the Ocean is less of a slam-dunk. We’d probably give it props for a big back seat that, despite the sloping roof, still provides pretty decent headroom, and we’d like the rear seat HVAC controls in the arm rest. Everyone who’s tried California mode, which simultaneously opens every window on the vehicle except the windshield, has loved it and the solar panel embedded in the sunroof would probably be deemed a gimmick but also a decent shade provider in the absence of a retractable shade.

The “Taco Trays,” on the other hand, would likely be excoriated for the gimmicks they are—too small and awkwardly placed to really be useful and taking up valuable storage space in the process. We’d almost certainly rather have a glove box and more room in the center armrest. Interior storage that does exist is limited and harder to reach behind the massive infotainment screen (whose 90-degree rotation for video streaming when parked would also probably written off as a gimmick). We’d also have a lot of thoughts about the wireless phone chargers that can only be accessed if you know the exact method for threading your phone under the hard buttons below the screen. Also likely to draw complaints: the interior door grab handles positioned back by your elbow where they’re difficult to reach whether the door is open or closed.

Going back to storage, our judges would probably find the cargo space sufficient but would be disappointed the underfloor storage area isn’t bigger. They’d be downright annoyed that not only is there no front trunk, but the hood is literally bolted closed, making something as basic as a jump start a needless pain.

See All 27 Photos27

Engineering Excellence

This topic would without question dominate the deliberation, as it’s the Fisker’s weakest category. On the plus side, I think we’d be happy with the build quality as it’s certainly screwed together well. Thank contract manufacturer Magna Steyr (which also builds BMW Z4s and Mercedes-Benz G-Wagens) for that.

We’d also likely be happy with the ride quality and very low interior noise levels. The 250-kW peak charging speed and 360-mile EPA-rated range would get callouts for being more than competitive. While every vehicle in an Of The Year competition is evaluated in the context of its direct competition and handling isn’t a top priority for midsize SUV buyers (electric or otherwise), the Ocean would probably get lukewarm comments. It handles fine, and that’s good enough, but there are competitors that provide a more engaging driving experience without trying to be sports cars.

Software, though, would sink the car. Even assuming it had zero bugs, which isn’t the case, the simple fact that basic functions are missing would draw scorn. Having steering wheel buttons for adaptive cruise control that do absolutely nothing because the software either isn’t installed or isn’t enabled would drive the judges crazy. The rather basic driver assistance systems would get ridiculed considering the price class and the fact Fisker’s promised advanced driver assist system also isn’t installed or enabled would also disappoint.

Were Fisker still a going concern, we might be able to talk ourselves into giving the company the benefit of the doubt and assuming promised over-the-air (OTA) software updates would enable those systems. And although we’ve on occasion forgiven a single bug or faulty feature on a pre-production car submitted to the competition, I can’t imagine we’d be willing to give Fisker any grace on the myriad software bugs the Ocean has exhibited since the day we picked it up. Not just little annoyances like the stereo volume that doesn’t always remember where it was set when you turned off the car and comes on louder when started up again, but serious safety concerns like the driver assistance systems that often fault out and disable themselves mid-drive.

See All 27 Photos27

Efficiency

Although the Ocean’s EPA-estimated 99/84/92 mpg-e city/highway/combined is lower than most of its competition, I think we’d give a lot more weight to its range and charging speed. 360 miles of range tops every other midsize EV SUV on the market even today, as does its 250-kW maximum charging speed. One of the engineering-minded judges would no doubt point out Fisker is achieving its range with an unusually large battery for the segment, which is an unsophisticated and costly way to do it, but it’s effective, and we could forgive this choice since the MSRP is still competitive.

We’d also consider the results of our Road Trip Range Test (driving a constant 70 mph until the battery has dropped from 100 percent to 5 percent). In raw numbers, the Ocean does well at 292 miles, but someone would certainly point out the result is 19 percent lower than the EPA estimate, which is just on the wrong side of average in our testing. Still, nearly 300 miles of real-world range would please most judges. The observed 5 to 80 percent charging time of 37 minutes, though, would probably cancel out some of the goodwill garnered by the range. Anything over 30 minutes tends to disappoint.

Performance of Intended Function

As with most of the criteria, the Ocean arriving with bugs and missing features would hurt it badly in this category. It’s hard to argue any vehicle performs its intended function well, whatever that may be, when it’s incomplete and doesn’t work right.

Assuming, for a moment, the Ocean showed up with all its features and no software bugs, how it fared in this category would depend on how the judges classified it. Would they see it as a luxury vehicle or a mass-market player? I could make a case for it either way, and both have their pluses and minuses.

As a luxury vehicle, it would score points for its quiet interior, comfortable ride, sustainable materials, and interesting (if gimmicky) features. On the other hand, a lot of those materials don’t look and feel up to luxury car standards, and key features like ventilated seats aren’t even offered. Its price, at least, would stand up well against luxury two-row electric SUVs.

As a mass-market vehicle, its pricey upper trims would hurt its appeal, but its straight-line performance, range, charging speed, quiet interior, comfortable ride, and striking styling would earn it a lot of points back. I think Fisker tried to walk a line between categories here (which rarely goes well—ask Mazda). and most judges would consider it more mainstream. In that light, it stacks up well against other consumer-friendly midsize two-row electric SUVs in everything but top-end pricing. Tesla’s Model Y would get brought up a lot, and the Ocean’s superior range and charging speed, nicer, quieter cabin, and promised future access to the Supercharger network would outweigh its weaknesses.

See All 27 Photos27

Safety

Given some of the software bugs we’ve encountered impair or completely disable active safety systems, the Ocean as tested would absolutely flunk this category. Plenty of people drive older cars without collision avoidance technologies and get along fine, but they’ve become not only expected but legally mandated in new cars. Having basic safety systems shut down while driving is simply unacceptable.

It's not unheard of, though, for a vehicle that shows up at an Of The Year competition to function perfectly only to have bugs exposed when it goes on sale. Assuming, for the sake of argument, the Ocean functioned perfectly during SUV of the Year testing, it would make it through this category relatively unscathed. No safety rating agency has ever tested an Ocean, not the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in the U.S. or NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) in Europe, so we would have to take Fisker’s word for it the Ocean was designed to achieve five-star ratings in both NHTSA and NCAP testing. This being the first product of this iteration of the Fisker company, we wouldn’t have any historical results to go by, which would leave some judges skeptical. We don’t take automaker claims at face value, especially when it comes to safety.

See All 27 Photos27

Value

I have a feeling this would be the second-longest debate topic after Engineering Excellence. On the one hand, our Extreme’s $63,937 original starting price walked a fine line between mainstream and luxury competition. Judges convinced the Ocean is a luxury product as the company presented it would have a good case, but those who saw it more as a mainstream brand would have a tougher time. On the one hand, it’s pricey compared to the class-leading Model Y AWD Long Range, but Fisker also promised it would eventually introduce cheaper models all the way down to a $39,937 base model. That could make a good counterpoint, but it wouldn’t get a lot of traction, as our general rule is we can only judge the cars we’ve driven, and no one outside of Fisker has ever driven a base model.

As it is, we’d probably consider its range and charging speed a good value, not to mention the style and comfort. The lack of segment standards like seat coolers, adaptive cruise control, and lane centering technology would absolutely count against it, somewhat mitigated by the possibility of some of those features being uploaded in the future via OTA.

See All 27 Photos27

SUVOTY Finalist? Or Winner, Even?

Neither. The software problems that have been present from the first time we drove a production Ocean and continue today would torpedo the Ocean’s chance of being a finalist, much less a winner. It’s highly unlikely a majority of our judges would vote to advance it to the finalist round with all the bugs it continues to have.

What if the Ocean had been perfect? No bugs, no missing features, delivered as promised with multiple trims to evaluate? I’m just guessing, but had all those missing features worked reasonably well, I think it’s likely the Ocean would’ve made it to the finalist round. It would’ve been strong enough in all our categories to get the go-ahead. Whether or not it would’ve won is harder to predict, especially in light of the SUVs it would’ve been up against in 2023 and this year. Based on my own impressions, I think it would’ve had a better chance in ’23 than ’24, but being even pricier than our ’23 winner, a direct competitor already pushing the bounds of its class, would’ve made winning a difficult proposition.

More on Our Long-Term 2023 Fisker Ocean Extreme:

• Our Fisker Ocean Just Arrived for a Yearlong Test. Then Its Maker Went Bankrupt.
• We Know Fisker’s Bankrupt, But What’s This SUV Like as a Car?
• Risky Business? Road-Tripping a Fisker Ocean EV Isn't for the Meek

Sea Salt interior ($2,500: white Alcantara interior color); 22-inch F06 Vortex wheels ($1,450); Sea Grass paint ($975); Retractable cargo cover ($199)