Slashdot Mirror
$2500 Tata Nano Car Unveiled in India
theodp writes "After months of rumors and tantalizing leaks, Tata Motors has finally unveiled the Tata Nano, its already legendary $2,500 car that promises to change the face of not only the Indian car market, but the global auto industry. The tiny car is a four-door, five-seat hatch, powered by a 30 hp engine that gets 54 miles per gallon."
Unbelievable! Especially since the Punto is only 8 times as expensive. You are comparing apples and golden oranges.
... Besides being the largest car company in India according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Motors
They are in the process of buying Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080103.wford0103/BNStory/Business
It also owns pieces of Daewoo to boot. They're not a small player. The big three might want to take notice.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I found the comments from the Greens very enlightening. Notice the lack of joy for the poor who will now be able to drive. Their comments fall in the "let them eat cake" category.
To be fair, the Greens would prefer that we *all* eat cake and live like the poorest indians (excepting other Green leaders and spokespeople, of course). :)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Having driven in India, I'm damned if I'd buy one there, either. I would not feel safe in anything less than a heavy tank.
Rover's 'CityRover', (a re-badged Tata), was a failure in the UK, being panned for virtually everything.
Still, some people in the West have bought the appalling 'Gee Whizz', which lets you have windscreen wipers, or lights, on a rainy night - but not both. It also virtually guarantees that you perish in the inevitable accident. If you want all-electric, get a Tesla, (rather pricy, though)
The Smart car is much safer, but a commercial failure.
BTW, the Beetle was not VW's idea - it was Hitler's. VW was created to produce the Beetle, which was designed by Dr. Porsche, (who also did other fun stuff like Panzers).
Heard about this on NPR and they said the top speed is ~50 miles per hour.
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
It's a two cylinder, four stroke engine. I misread that the first time too. From TFA: powered by a 30 HP Bosch 624 cc four stroke engine mounted out back and mated to a CVT. That makes the Nano the first time a 2-cylinder gasoline engine will be used in a car with a single balancer shaft.
Well, has hasn't been enforcing his trademark so I'm pretty confident he doesn't have a case.
I have seen the roads in India, specifically Chennai and Mumbai, and cars like this can improve safety. I saw many little 150cc motorcycles with 3, 4, even 5 people on them tooling around. Many of the bikes with only two people had a woman on the back with a sari, just waiting to get caught in the rear wheel. In fact, one of the accessories for Indian motorcycles is a sari guard, designed just for this purpose.
These new cars are probably a lot safe than the auto-rickshaws running everywhere also.
$2,500 may not seem much to a USA citizen, but it is a huge mount to many Indians. Motorycles are in the $700 range, so this is a 400-500 percent increase when factoring in taxes, etc. New USA motorcycles above 650cc are in the $5,000 and up range, new cars are only about 2.5 to 3 times more expensive.
I applaud Tata motors for bringing to India an automobile that addresses safety and pollution concerns. Would I buy one?? If I could commute completely on city streets, which I can, then yes. You can't buy a used motorcycle of any size in the US for $2,500. Right now, I ride my motorcycle to work as often as I can (probably at least 4 out of 5 days), but even in Phoenix it rains sometimes. For those days, I have to depend on a truck that gets 20 mpg. What a waste for one person, I would rather look into one of these.
And don't tell me about SmartCars. They cost over $20K. I'm not spending that for a car I would use 10 or 15 times a year.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Depends on your version of Italy, I suppose. I've done 200 kph on the road from Firenze to Milano multiple times.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
No the reason you won't see this model over here isn't because of the "auto lobby." It's because Americans aren't going to buy what is essentally a supercharged golf cart. It's has 2 cylinder, 30 HP --most US cars start at 240 HP, 4 cylinders and go up from there. This WOULD be a death trap on any road except maybe some Sunnydale retirement community where golf carts and electric wheel chairs are the only modes of transportion. This car will be fine for navigating narrow, crowded roads where you can't drive very fast anyway, like in India and similar countries. But it isn't cheap just because it's made in India--it's cheap because there's not a lot under the hood.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
54 miles per gallon = 22.9577601 kilometers per liter
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Because one of the little dirty secrets of the Clean Air act was to exclude about everyone other than passenger cars from the rules. They specifically excluded diesel from the rules as the manufacturers were claiming small number of vehicles, poor farmers, and limited impact. Most likely a front for the oil industry.
Does Sweet Crude ring a bell? Specifically named for lack of sulfur which was the major contaminate in diesel.
The oil industry had the chance to make diesel the fuel of the future but their bean counters got in the way. They have known for ages (since McKinley's time) how to remove sulfur from the fuel BUT THEY DID NOT WANT TO. they did it for speciality uses (kerosene lamps so they would not catch fire or stink) but not vehicles. As such states like California went after them, specifically because nearly a dozen of the contaminents in heavy sulfur diesel fuel are carcinogens. Worse studies showed that air in diesel school buses was worse than the air around them!
Diesel had a futre but the industry got greedy and now will pay for it. Its not going to be until 2010 that we have mandatory clean diesels. Hell the current ones put out contaminents that hard catalytic converters.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually I'd say the starting point for US cars is around 100HP, 4 cylinder.
Also worth mentioning is that, just because it supposedly gets 54 MPG, it still may not meet emissions requirements in most US states. The article does not say what emissions control systems, if any, are present. Catalytic converter? Crankcase ventilation? Fuel vapor recycling?
=Smidge=
I'm not an SUV cheerleader by any means, but to suggest that all SUVs have poor crash ratings is mere conjecture. I found some crash ratings that contradict your assertion in 30 seconds.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Stubear,
There used to be big differences between diesel sold in the US and diesel sold in Europe. US diesel was until last year(?) much dirtier, lots of sulfur, etc.
With the changes to diesel fuel in the past year, it's now just a new matter of getting states to accept the European diesels. Beware though, that most auto emissions standards also include specific technology requirements that the European diesel motor makers just don't feel are necessary.
If you don't want "butt jewelry" as they call it, finding something under $2500 should be easy. Of course if you can only ride it half the year, it's probably not worth the extra cost of insurance, titling, and capital other than for sake of entertainment.
I do think you need to watch this video before judging the Smart.
If I mention Stalin, do I get a cookie?
Seriously people, mentioning Hitler in a factual statement does not invoke Godwin's Law. This is not a comparison, it's a statement. A fact (which should be checked for truth, of course) is not the same as comparing someone to Hitler because he doesn't agree with you.
Your BMW is a diesel, which is not comparable because it uses higher compression on a more energy-dense fuel, and is thus inherently more efficient. Instead, realize that everybody is comparing to a gasoline car, and thinks it's impressive because they're used to 30 mpg or less.
Of course, the real reason it's not impressive is that even non-hybrid gasoline cars, such as the Honda CRX HF and 3-cylinder Geo Metro, were capable of getting fuel economy in the 50 mpg range 15 years ago or so, and did it with more horsepower.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Reminds me of the Polish Fiat 126p. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_126
To everyone who thinks the Tata Nano is underpowered, that car had 24hp, and was capable of hauling 4 people. It wasn't comfortable, but it worked. It climbed mountains (I was personally in one of those as it climbed to some small village in the Alps). And it consumed very little fuel - around 40 gpm, I think. And since nobody was comparing it to huge western cars, it was just fine. Read the link.
I think this car will be the bomb, and will be imitated by other car manufacturers in India.
m
Well, since 1 HP is the power to lift 33,000 lbs one foot in one minute, 30 hp should be able to lift 990,000 pounds one foot in one minute. Assuming that the car weighs in at roughly 2500 pounds, and four jumbo sized American occupants of 300 pounds each, we have a total weight of 3700 pounds, which a 30 HP engine should be able to raise 267 feet/minute, exclusive of frictional losses, especially air turbulence over relatively flat terrain.
An extremely steep public road might have a grade of 15% (rise over horizontal distance, or roughly 8.5 degrees slope. Traveling a measured mile along such a road yields an elevation gain of 780 feet, which might indeed prove a challenge for our 30 hp engine with our four sumo sized occupants, which exclusive of losses is capable of gaining that altitude in a bit under three minutes. However, there are very few straight roads this steep; if we assume lots of switchbacks and hairpin turns, an average speed of fifteen mph or so is not utterly unreasonable, although people who live at the top of such a hill might opt for a more powerful car.
A very steep section of highway might have a grade of 5% or maybe 7%. A measured mile at 7% is a gain of 370 feet and our engine could lift our sumo crew that height in one minute, twenty three seconds, limiting our speed to around 44mph on this stretch theoretically. Let's say we have a continuously variable transmission, or at least one that is appropriate to this car, we might end up limited to 30 mph on this stretch.
Of course, with a single, 250 pound occupant, our engine could raise the car and occupant 370 feet in 62 seconds. Since that would be almost 60mph over our measured mile, our actual speed would be limited by aerodynamic, frictional losses, and the ability of a rudimentary transmission to keep the engine in its power band, but assuming that the transmission is designed for efficient operation in the 30-40 mph speed range, it shouldn't be impossible for a single commuter to achieve speeds of 45mph over such a stretch of highway. Given that this piece of highway probably has a climbing lane, this vehicle would not be impractical for a single occupant, provided he'd rather have fifteen grand in his pocket from the purchase of the car than fifteen mph on that stretch of road. Not to mention the cost of gas.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I keep hearing this about the Smart Car and I just don't get it. They're all over the place here in Vancouver, Canada, and zip on and off the freeways with ease (I don't own one, but they often pass my old pickup on the Freeway, then zip off. Cute.). Their construction (basically you're inside a steel cage called a "Tridion Safety Cell") ensures you're pretty safe.
How is that flaimbait?
It is essentially entirely true, without an aggressive attitude.
I would say any urban area I have been to I would consider buying one if I lived there, but when a Yaris (US) 3 door is essentially the same price/mildly cheaper, and has essentially the same mileage, but can fit 4 people, or 2 with a lot more luggage, it is a much better overall deal if parking is not an issue. I live in Philadelphia outside of center city. On excursions to the city there have been times I would have saved 20 minutes and been in a better spot if I had a Smart, and I have a Sub-compact already, but this is a bi-monthly occurance. If I lived in South Philly I would gladly sacrifice car size for the ease of parking.
I don't think safety of the smart is much worse than a Yaris though.
The most troubling thing about the Smart are the fairly large odds it won't exist as a company in 3 years and parts will be hard to get/expensive (it hemorrhages money, and the forfour(which I really liked), and the passion were canceled.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg