Slashdot Mirror
$3,000 Tata Nano Car Coming To US
walterbyrd writes "The Nano is currently powered by a 37 hp two-cylinder engine and lacks common safety features such as power steering, traction control and airbags. It was originally designed to compete in the Indian market against scooters and motorcycles. . . Along with added safety equipment, it's likely the car will get a larger, less polluting engine for export markets. Unfortunately, that means the price will increase, as well, possibly tripling by the time it goes on sale in the U.S.."
"Only three years away," doesn't make this news again.
Wake me up when one has successfully passed NHTSA crash saftey tests.
If they were smart they'd partner with someone to make the Fiat-500 or the Ford Fiesta air-powered versions. This is a wheel not worth reinventing, to some degree literally.
As recently as the 90s, power steering was still an option on many Saturns, for instance. Traction control was brand new and not even offered, and ABS brakes were a luxury that many did without, and they did just fine.
I see nothing wrong with getting back to that sort of economy.
Poor people could use a new car. Too many who are making $17,000 a year working 2 jobs end up with cars that cost 50% of their paycheck just in maintaince and have to go hungry half the time if something goes wrong.
There are many walmart workers where this would be perfect and are not fortunate like the poor in Europe or other first world countries.
There used to be this option known as "buying a used car," but the Lords here in the USA have ensured there is no supply of used cars in reach of their serfs^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpoor people's spending power.
The Lords' program was called "Cash for Clunkers," and it took ~700,000 used cars off the market by literally destroying the engines intentionally (by pouring some powder directly into the engine and running it until died).
Your unsupportable political opinion aside, there are still more than enough used cars out there. The problem is not a lack of used cars, the problem is a consumption-driven culture that goes out of its way to teach people who most need to be responsible with their money to be irresponsible with their money.
So lift off the throttle a little for a moment, let the gap open up a bit,
And then another car goes in front of you, and you lift up again...
if the safe gap is too large you cannot maintain a safe gap.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not just the buying, it's the fuel/insurance/repairs. Trying to keep a ten-year-old all-American auto on the road is a money pit.
For the same price as a second hand car they could have something they can actually afford to run.
My car is 10 years old. It runs well but costs ~$300 a year to keep running, which is far cheaper than the annual cost of buying or leasing a new car. Not to mention cheaper insurance compared to a new vehicle. It gets ~24 MPG which isn't stellar but keeps me far below the tradeoff point where a car payment for something more efficient is cheaper than fuel costs.
Waiving your arms and claiming new is better is no substitute for a reasonable total cost of ownership analysis.
I agree with this. The problem is that the auto industry wants to sell you new cars. They don't want you to actually look at TCO.
For instance, I have a 1996 Mazda B4000 pickup that gets horrible mileage (around 17mpg). It has around 210,000 miles on it. However, other than fuel, regular maintenance and insurance, there are no other regular payments. Granted, one day, it will need a major repair that will be cost prohibitive and it will get replaced. But, to replace it now, for the sake of better mileage is crazy. Currently, I user about 1,000 gallons of fuel, say at $4/gal or $4,000/yr. Say I could get 25.5 mpg (a 50% increase in fuel economy). I would only need 667 gallons of fuel or $2,668/yr at $4/gal. I would "save" $1,332. But then again, I would have to pay $3,600/yr in car payments, so I would actually pay out $2,268/yr more than keeping my existing vehicle (at least for the first five years). And that is assuming I could get a replacement truck that would actually average 25.5mpg in real life.
Why would I or anybody else choose to do that? And don't give me for environmental reasons, unless you are willing to calculate the impact to the environment on producing that new vehicle from raw material to delivery at the dealership.
A new car should easily go 200,000 miles if one maintains it. If a car built in 2002 is a money pit today, it's because of lack of proper maintenance in the past. Cars are expensive, no doubt. As such, they need to be treated and maintained as such.
Poor people could use a new car. Too many who are making $17,000 a year working 2 jobs end up with cars that cost 50% of their paycheck just in maintaince and have to go hungry half the time if something goes wrong.
There are many walmart workers where this would be perfect and are not fortunate like the poor in Europe or other first world countries.
There used to be this option known as "buying a used car," but the Lords here in the USA have ensured there is no supply of used cars in reach of their serfs^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpoor people's spending power.
The Lords' program was called "Cash for Clunkers," and it took ~700,000 used cars off the market by literally destroying the engines intentionally (by pouring some powder directly into the engine and running it until died).
Your unsupportable political opinion aside, there are still more than enough used cars out there. The problem is not a lack of used cars, the problem is a consumption-driven culture that goes out of its way to teach people who most need to be responsible with their money to be irresponsible with their money.
Yes, there are, but their price did rise dramatically after the cash for clunkers program. Simple supply and demand. Reduce the supply of late model used cars and the price of those cars goes up. As the price difference between a used car and a new car shrinks, people start to buy more new cars (which is how cash for clunkers planned it). However, their trade in does not go back into the pool of used cars, so used cars stay pricey. Since used cars are pricey, the price of new cars can drift higher, too, which has occurred also. This again was planned as part of cash for clunkers -- better profit margins means more jobs, etc.
Without making a comment on the politics involved with cash for clunkers, it accomplished what it set out to do. On the other hand, if one was not able to take advantage of the program, it has definitely driven up the cost of used cars. It is simple supply and demand at work.
unsupportable political opinion aside
Basic economics insists that if the supply of used cars was larger they would command a lower price. Which would put them in affordability reach of more people. This is very simple supply and demand, the most well understood and accepted theory in economics. Suggesting this is wrong is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof.
Cash for Clunkers was designed to benefit specific groups and it arguably did that; but it also did harm to other groups. There is room to debate if it was a net positive for the nation as whole.
I for one find it very difficult from an instinctive point of view to think forcibly removing assets from the economy prior to the end of their useful service life, and compensating people with capital made available by leveraging debt instruments can really work out to be a win for the nation as a whole. I can totally see how the class of folks who did stand to gain from it would have a huge over lap with the class of likely and eligible voters though.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
And poor people can't see that they don't have enough money to buy some things....?
That was more of my point. If you can't afford a nice car or nice TV...then don't fscking buy them...eh?
I can't believe just because someone is poor...that they can't grasp that concept?
Hell, when I left the house and was a broke college student and awhile after that...I couldn't afford everything I wanted...hence, I didn't BUY them...till I could make enough money (or save it back then) to buy things.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Safe driving is keeping up with traffic and keeping alterations of any variables to a minimum. That means where cars are to any side.
Oh come on. I'm not talking about driving super slow. A few MPH slower than the herd in the slow lane and you'll have a nice safe zone in front of you. I'm sure you can manage that without creating an unsafe situation.