$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.."

Comments

Sorry guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Sorry guys...

[trdrstv]

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.

If they were smart they'd redesign it to only have 3 wheels (2 in the front, 1 in the back). In the US it would qualify as a motorcycle and not need to pass any of the NHTSA crash saftey tests.

Re:Sorry guys...

[suutar]

I dunno. I like the trikes I've seen; if they added a windshell that would keep the rain off, I'd put it high on my list for my next car.

Re:Sorry guys...

[Changa_MC]

I see Harley's that meet all but one of those requirements all the time! All they need to do is quintuple the price and throw an american flag on it and these things will sell like crazy.

Re:Sorry guys...

[iamgnat]

Uhhh...dumbass? yeah the speed limits on our freeways is 70MPH with a minimum in most places of 55MPH. Do you honestly think a 37HP vehicle is even gonna be able to meet the minimum speed?

I'm with you.

The reason they can get away with this cracker jack toy in India is because frankly India don't have jack shit for laws when it comes to their streets. Its well known that in most cities there that street lights and signs are treated more as "suggestions" than any kind of rule and we've all seen the truly crazy shit you'll see strapped to bikes and scooters over there, shit that if you tried it here in the USA you wouldn't make it a block before being busted.

You're being a bit of an ass and not an entirely correct one at that, but I'm still with you.

So please keep your elitist Eurotrash attitude to yourself, mmkay? This is an American site, with an article about a car coming to America, If you would allow that tinker toy on your roads that's YOUR business.

Nope. Now you've lost it. This site may be owned by an American company, but I don't recall ever seeing it stated (by the owners) that it was only intended for the US market and the rest of the world wasn't welcome. There is a large IT world outside of the USA and "nerds" too. There is some argument about it being an article specific to the US market, but isn't the USA all about freedom of speech and expression?

Of course you've let your politicians tax you to the point you pay 3 times for a liter what we pay for a gallon so frankly why anybody should listen to a people that would put up with getting assraped like that is beyond me.

Oh now I see. You wanted to show that you're ignorant of polotics in the USA and abroad. Sorry for the confusion.

Gas prices aren't jacked up due to taxes in Europe. They are deflated here because politicians refuse to put proper road use taxes on the gas because ignorant people like you get all up in arms and because we've been literally giving money to the oil companies (subsidies and tax breaks) to keep them lower than they should be.

I only hope that you aren't in one of the countries that use the Euro, as it looks like that little experiment is gonna hit the shitter, might want to exchange your currency for USD now before the only thing its good for is wiping your ass. Mark my words, Greece bails by Feb, followed by Spain and Portugal, after that stick a fork.

And you really think that the US Government is going to point and snicker if the European economy collapses like you predict? Europe and the US are the main consumers of the worlds goods. If either of their economies fail the impact will be felt through the entire world (that participates in the global economy anyway). And the US isn't exactly in a position to be laughing at other country's economic problems since we have a government (both parties are doing it) that has all but bankrupted itself and little tangible manufacturing that is desired by the rest of the world (either because we want to much for it or the "American" companies have off shored their actual manufacturing to cheaper parts of the world). And since that worked so well with tangible goods, we've been in a constant race to do it with our intelectual goods too. So yeah, we have lots of room to talk about other countries...

Good

[Billly Gates]

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.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Good

[tgd]

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.

Re:Good

[artor3]

What a load of nonsense. There are plenty of used cars to be had. According to Wikipedia, there are around 200 million passenger cars registered in the US. And that doesn't include the 8 million motorcycles and 40 million light trucks.

So, around 0.3% of them were destroyed, and you're gonna spout some conspiracy nonsense about evil Islamo-Commie Obama making it impossible for poor people to find used cars?

I don't know where you got that crap from, but you need to stop listening to that source. They're poisoning you with lies.

Re:Good

[dkleinsc]

... 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.

I just did a quick search for used cars for under $3000, and found quite a few of them on the market within a 50 miles radius. (Like everything else, if you're in a more rural area, you have to travel further to find stuff.) I mean, there are reasonable objections to Cash for Clunkers (e.g. it costs too much), but yours doesn't seem to be based in reality.

Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[Billly Gates]

You hit the nail there. The fact is an average entry level automobile has luxury car features just 2 decades agol. Power sterring, airbags, remote lock, alarm, and power Windows were only available for BMWs and Cadillacs etc. Now even the crappy Ford Fiesta has all of the above.

Americans just spend too much money on cars as the prices keep going up. The average ok car is like $23,000 (Civic, camry, Focus). The problem is the average median wage is only $28,800! (I said median and not average which doesn't include billionaires).

This means people spend a whole years of their salary on a car just to get to work! It is even worse in the south where people buy $46,000 trucks and SUVs yet make only $13 an hour and wonder why they live paycheck to paycheck??

Anyway this car is great for college students and poor folks or those who are sensible and do not want to see half their paycheck just go to get to work in order to look cool to their neighbors.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[Gordonjcp]

When every other car around you can stop very quickly in an emergency situation, you are very likely to crash if your stopping distance is longer than everyone else's

Only if you insist on driving right up the guy in front's arse.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[timeOday]

In 1990 the number of deaths per mile driven was 30 percent higher than it is now.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[Nkwe]

ABS is pretty much needed now. When every other car around you can stop very quickly in an emergency situation, you are very likely to crash if your stopping distance is longer than everyone else's. [...] I resisted ABS as long as I could, and had many close calls where a car in front of me was stopping without looking like they were giving a lot of thought or effort, and I was doing all I could to avoid them.

If the car in front of you stops without warning and you are at risk of rear ending it, then you are following too closely. It is your job as a driver to know your stopping distance for the current driving conditions (car, road, weather, etc.) and maintain appropriate following distance.

If you like to tailgate, I suppose you could argue that you need ABS, but I would recommend not tailgating instead.

That all being said, I like ABS and choose to drive a car with ABS, but I don't think it should be required on all cars.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[ehud42]

Just to be pedantic - in most situations, ABS will NOT decrease your stopping distance, in fact, by definition not locking your tires reduces friction and actually increases stopping distances. What ABS does do, is enable you to stear around objects, etc while slowing down - which you cannot do if your tires are locked.

Power steering is actually a safety hazard - if you engine fails you will quickly lose the ability to safely steer the vehicle - especially if you are applying the brakes.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[Gordonjcp]

So lift off the throttle a little for a moment, let the gap open up a bit, and resume your previous speed. It's not hard.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[chill]

Not possible.

If I don't "tailgate" while commuting to/from work on the Interstate someone will simply change lanes in front of me and magically I'll be tailgating again.

I have found this to be true in every major city I have commuted by auto in: Washington, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Dallas and Seattle.

A space of more than about a car length between me and the car in front of me is an invitation for someone to dangerously merge.

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[Zalbik]

Citation needed. Crash tests I've seen for Smarts show that they are quite survivable.

Correct. Crash tests against fixed barriers (the standard test quoted by manufacturers), indicate good survivability.

However, crash tests against even mid-sized sedans indicate very poor results for a smart car:
  http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html

Keep in mind that cars are typically manufactured to specifically perform well on the standardized barrier crash-test. It's similar to how CPU's are designed to specifically perform well on standardized benchmarks.

Damnit, I just used a computer analogy in a story about cars....somehow, that just...feels....wrong.....

Re:Power steering isn't a safety feature.

[jabberw0k]

You need to leave even more space. Two seconds behind the car in front of you. And if he is tail-gating, his two seconds; and if the car in front of him is tail-gating, another two seconds again. Once you leave that six seconds in front of you, not enough cars can pass you to fill the space, so you can easily keep a five or six second gap. Try it. Works for me, has for decades.

Cheap = shit

[AmiMoJo]

The reason it's cheap is because it's shit. Not just performance wise, this thing is made of incredibly thin sheets of metal that buckle when you apply slight pressure to them with your hand. It is basically a very slightly less unsafe scooter, or possible more unsafe because at least scooter riders realize how vulnerable they are and sometimes wear a helmet.

Re:Cheap = shit

[blue_teeth]

Hola, Hello,

I presume Sir, you own & drive (fully paid) a Mercedes Benz G-Class SUV.  Else, you are just acting like a silly woman bragging on handbags.

I am in India and drive a large Japanese SUV.  Even I was curious on these Tata Nano contraptions.  Drove one out of curiosity.  It feels and drives like a car.  In urban traffic, it is perfectly capable of moving 4 normal sized adult individuals.  I repeat urban India.  Unless someone is driving a military tank, I do not see a Tata Nano getting totalled.  It's a small car capable of transporting 4 normal size people in a civilized way.

PS:  I am still interested in your theory: Expensive = Golden Shit

BT

Re:A lack of market knowledge?

[Joce640k]

Smart cars are designed to make parking easy in European cities. That's it. That's the design goal. That's why they're as long as a normal car is wide.

I live in Spain. Most of the Smart Cars I see driving around here are company cars with logos on them. Sales reps, that sort of thing. Very few people buy them for themselves, they're way overpriced for what they are.

I've driven one and I wouldn't buy one even if they were cheaper. They drive OK but the suspension's awful for something that's supposed to be a city car.

Re:OK, triple the price

[TheSync]

The VW Beetle came to the US, if memory serves, at $1666 in 1960s dollars.

Inflation Calculator says "What cost $1666 in 1960 would cost $12476.90 in 2011."

Or How to Do 20MPH on a Freeway

[SuperKendall]

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.

Lower insurance on Category L7e "Quadricycle" cars

[lkcl]

there's a strange fact that people have missed, here: in France, Category L7e cars (350kg, under 20HP) actually have *less* accidents, and so the insurance is lower. the reason why, i believe, is that these cars are so underpowered and, despite passing crash tests with flying colours they "look" unsafe, that both the drivers themselves and also other road users treat them with much more caution.

if, for example, you have a large vehicle that can do 0-60 in 9 seconds, and you are behind a small vehicle that can do 0-60 in 30, the rate of acceleration is so much what you are not used to that you would immediately realise, just from the look of the other car, that the driver in front of you is not "putting it on": his car *really* can't accelerate any quicker. automatically, you've just adjusted, slowed down, and will now be paying attention.

increased attention means increased awareness. increased awareness means less accidents.

so, far from being "unsafer", these Category L7e "micro-cars", apart from having insane fuel economy (100mpg is not uncommon) actually create a "sea of cautious respect" around them. this could be so much horse-shit speculation, but the insurance statistics speak for themselves.