$2,000 Car Does 56 MPG: The Tata Nano

[Guest]

Seriously, what a waste of effort. My jeep has a two stroke Detroit Diesel 3-53T in it and I get 34mpg, which is more than most cars. And guess what the engine was designed in 1938.
It doesnt look all that hot now does it. My vehicle is 4500lbs too

My scooter has a 7.8hp engine on it and I get 196mpg. It has 4 wheels and a single speed with a centrfgal clutch able to go 55mph. It accelerates faster than that car, and oh yeah. It only cost me the price of the wheels to make it, so $60

K-TRON

 

[Guest]

Tata is going to modify this car for USA, well it wont be $2k, it will definitely be aroung $4.5K , even then cheaper by many standards. Nad they have the tech to make it give 50mpg. Engine will be upgraded to hit the max speed limit of USA, with seat belts, air bags, ABS, all disc brakes. etc.. which complies with the USA regulatory standards. Now imagine was/is there any other car which costs less than $5K.

You never need to go more than the speed limit, you can save your money from getting into rich people's pocket.

 

[tbq]

The target market for this car are the people who ride motorcycles. Look for pictures of entire families riding on one in India. No, these cars are not safe by US standards, but they're a lot safer than a motorcycle.

 

[jawshoeaw]

56mpg + airbags, AWD, traction control, ABS, ESB, wide tires, etc., =26mpg.

I was test driving a Honda Fit and I noticed the EPA mpg was a little higher on one of the Fits than the other. The salesman said the Fit "Sport" got one or two mpg less because of added weight/drag of the various spoilers and side skirts meant to give it a "sportier" look. And that's just some plastic. Honda held off on stability control for the Civic for awhile for same reason - weight (well, cost also).

City fuel economy is based on three things, weight, weight, and weight. And no fair railing against SUVs when many 4 door sedans with a six cylinder are lucky to break 20mpg in city driving (translated - almost all driving)
Example for 2009: GMC Acadia, a small SUV - 17mpg city. Toyota Camry 19mpg city. I know the Acadia is no Suburban but it's an SUV and looks the part.

 

[jawshoeaw]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]i agree this is not a care you want to be on the highways with, but this is the perfect car for city driving where you basically do 25-30 mps and the big thing is finding street parking. plus for $2-3k if they ding it who cares...[/citation]
Why can't it be a car on the highway. People riding motorcycles - course you don't put your whole family on a motorcycle (usually). Americans IMO are too worried about every little thing. I bet you could put the basic safety equipment in the nano and still get 40mpg for under $5000. And then let the modders loose - imagine a whole market of car modding opened up by your starting price only being $3-5K.

 

[astrotrain1000]

Amercian safety standards are ridiculous. A car like this is perfect for big city driving and you don't need all the safety features because you would rarely go above 30-40mph. People should be able to choose the safety feature they want based on their needs, instead the government forces prices up with stupid mandates. To the guy who said capitalism doesn't work: Capitalism does work, we just haven't lived in a truly capitalistic society since before the Great Depression.

 

[bria5544]

I don't think you truely understand what a crash at 30-40 MPH will result in. Check out http://www.iihs.org/ and watch some of their tests on modern and safe cars with crumple zones and many airbags. All the IIHS's tests are run at 40MPH into a non moving barrier. If you crash in the real world, both objects could potentially be going 30-40MPH which is more like 60-80MPH combined force. Think of crashing your $2k tin can at those kind of speeds. Just something to think about.

 

[christop]

The thing about this little piece.. WAIT TILL A HUGE SUV HITS YOU AND YOU ARE DEAD....I would not feel safe in that little thing with hummers and ford trucks all over the place

 

[ZeroTech]

I drive a small car, but for me that car looks ugly as hell.
That said, if they beef up the safety a bit more, this car might be great as taxies in NY.

Anyway, I think FULLY electric cars are what we need to invest on. Make better batteries, that last long and recharge quick (recharge time is very important).

 

[bustapr]

Looks like a nice deal for 2k but I don't think that the wieners at the oil companies will let this car get to the US. Just look at the electric car, the oil companies just started to cry and threaten the government and what happened to the electric car? They were taken away from the people and hippies by force.

 

[JamesT5192]

I saw someone say that if two of these crased into eachother, the driver would be ok. These are made of aluminum! They would take both cars to the scrap yard before they tried getting the body out.
Seriously, these are good for city only driving at low speeds with stop and go conditions. Just hope that no one backs over it without noticeing

 

[Shadow703793]

For those complaining about safety:
http://upload.ecvv.com/upload/Info/20086/India_Autorickshaw20086261428453.jpg
Those are what are used in India today. I'm pretty sure the Nano is MUCH safer than that.

 

[blackbeastofaaaaagh]

Actually, when two SUVs hit each other the drivers typically would suffer far worse injuries than if they were both crashed while driving small cars. Just watch the crash test (which always simulate a collision with a vehicle of the same weight) videos of most SUVs and you will see how badly those vehicles collapse.
Large number of drivers of light trucks have gotten paralized after being rear ended by another SUV/truck at just 10 mph (not even enough to inflate the airbags). The lack of crumple zones and flimsy seats (that can avoid federal collapse test standards due to a loophole) prove fatal. The irony is that if you are going to be rear-ended by a light truck, it is far better to be in a car than in another light truck. Also, check out on youtube, Top Gear Crash Test Renault Espace vs Land Rover Discovery (SUV versus minivan).

I would also like to add that no matter how big you think you are on the road, there is always someone bigger than you. An 18 wheeler will flatten an SUV just as effortlessly as a compact in a high speed collision.

 

[JonnyDough]

I'm curious as to the emissions of this little car. I didn't see anyone mention it. 2 cylinder engines are not always as clean burning. Last I knew too, India had a bad problem with pollution.

 

[Guest]

The main ennemy of MPG is weight.
The nano is really light....

Don't forget that in 20 years the average weight of cars (in the same category) has increased by 50% to 100% !
Why ? Because some people thought that protecting the people inside might be a good idea...
So the power needed to move these cars has also increased by 50% to 100% to maintain performances.
Note that the MPG didn't really increased because of the improvements in the engine's technology.

The nano is like a small 80's European car with a small motor. But I won't use in in a highway surrounded with trucks and SUVs that would squeeze me in the first accident.

 

[gm0n3y]

@anonymous6541616 (if that is your real name)

You are correct, we are stuck in a ridiculous arms race with larger and larger vehicles prowling our highways. Ironically, if you actually look at safety statistics they show that luxury/performance sedans (like the 5 series, m45, etc, especially the higher end ones) are the safest vehicles on the road. This is because they combine excellent safety features with performance. Having good brakes, handling and power will help you avoid injuries much better than another 1000lbs of weight.

 

[anamaniac]

I'd get that.
Or a bike.
I like cheap and efficient. Screw safety.

Just not for winter driving. 😉

 

[k-tron]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom][/citation]

 

[spm_76]

There are many people, particularly in the US still claiming that the Nano is unsafe. The Nano is actually safer than the best selling US SUV - the Ford Ranger (or F150). The Euro NCAP crash tests prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.

Americans have this strange idea that driving a big SUV makes them safer. Nothing could be further from the truth. SUVs lack a monocoque cage structure that protects occupants and allows effective crumple zones to be provided. Also, it is the design of the vehicle and not its size that has the biggest impact on vehicle safety.

Compare the crash test video. See how the Ford Ranger's cabin folds up on the offset test. The Nano cabin remains intact and protects the driver. The tests are carried out at 35-40mph and take into account occupant protection and deceleration forces that occupants are subjected to. Basically, in a 35-40 mph crash, the Nano is safer than a Ford Ranger SUV.

At higher speeds, occupants of neither is likely to be safe, but those in the Nano will still be safer than those in the Ford SUV. In real world crashes with other vehicles, the Nano will do much better safety wise in comparison to the Ford SUV than in the EuroNCAP tests where it is crashed into a concrete block. This is because the difficulty in designing small cars the Nano is in the limited crush depth available. They need to employ clever design and extensive computer and real crash testing to achieve the necessary safety rating. However when crashing into another vehicle, the other vehicle's crumple zone adds to the Nano's crumple depth, making for a much safer crash than crashing into a concrete block.

The tests don't lie, and they prove once and for all that the Tata Nano is safe for US roads, and in fact safer than most SUVs driving on US roads.

Ford Ranger 2008 - EuroNCAP rating - 2 Star
www.euroncap.com/tests...
Crash Test:
www.euroncap.com/Playe...
www.youtube.com/watch?...

Tata Nano - 2009 Testing - Expected EuroNCAP Rating - 4 Star
www.youtube.com/watch?...

 

[spm_76]

Ford Ranger 2008 - EuroNCAP rating - 2 Star
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtsZyfll5uk

Tata Nano - 2009 Testing - Expected EuroNCAP Rating - 4 Star
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1FckXItYbo
Tata Nano after crash Euro NCAP crash test - windscreen, windows and safety cage intact, and doors open and shut.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s2jU7girbyM/SmUnKgv8D1I/AAAAAAAABro/qG1MZLRVN3o/s400/Nano_Crash_Test_001.jpg
http://www.motorbeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Tata_Nano_Crash_Test.jpg