Tata's $2,000 Nano car to hit Indian streets in July
By Darren Murph 
posted Mar 23rd 2009 11:23AM
posted Mar 23rd 2009 11:23AM
posted Mar 23rd 2009 11:23AM
Estimated time drivers save by using real-time GPS traffic updates
Drivers that use GPS systems with real-time traffic info spend 18% less time behind the wheel than those who do not.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
i love skittles!
I think I just tasted the rainbow.
Would this really improve the quality of life for that target in India, or would it now open up a whole new can of issues for them? Would cost of ownership and possible new things like carbon tax help them in the end?
dude.. india has a car concentration level as high as ameirca if you dont consider the lower class there. this will save people money, and make cars more accessible to those who cannot afford one but need one... also because of its size, it will only reduce the car problems there. i lived there for 12 years before i moved here, and there's no lane driving there but every single road is always full, as a matter of fact, my own grandpa got run over on the road. but anyways, what im saying is that this cant make the car situation any worse, and if anything... just make them accessible to those who need it.
those are some nice tata's
One of the biggest impacts the Nano could have is on the environment. Although the Indian government has tried to put clean natural gas engines into the millions of older taxis and buses, it still hasnt stopped the major urban areas from becoming some of the most polluted in the world. If these nanos can replace those aging vehicles (specifically the taxis and 3-wheeled riksha's), you can be sure to see a huge drop in harmful emissions and hopefully a lot of the air being cleaned up in cities across the country.
looks delicious?
!
*stifles laugh* hehe...tata's
Link would never be able to afford this car. Epona it is.
Just because his wallet doesn't hold enough... Epona is cooler anyway.
Ok, start with the Hate...
everyone around here seemed to hate the fact that 3rd world countries are finally getting affordable transportation for thier needs
oh btw, let me make this easier for u...for the purpose it serves, no airbags are required in this car...its never gonna achieve freeway speeds!
and there were 13 patents granted for the technology used to make this car...
ok now start with the hate
ok sure... i hate it. happy?
The world can not support another billion people driving cars. This car is a step backwards, and will actually hurt India in the long run. While the rest of the world has decoupled from expensive, dirty oil, India will still be a slave to the Middle East, or be forced to pay for the clean technology that the first world has created. In any event, they'll still be behind the times. But whatever; even at that price-point, 99% of that country is still to poor to afford one.
eat lead mother***ker!
^^^ it's for Asucka
1. It is not the world's call to decide if a billion more ppl can drive or not, you can not take the moral high ground while you countinue to buy cars...unless of course you are pledging that for the rest of your life you will not buy one
2. If 99% of the country was too poor to afford these, then please explain why Audis, BMWs and Mercedes cars are selling like hot cakes...I think you got Indian confused with some other country...there are Bentleys in India, and rivate jets and some of the worlds richest ppl...please get a reality check asap
3. We'll just have to see about 'behind the times', right now they seem to be dong just fine in catchin up!
1. India does not own the environment, and what they do to it will effect the rest of the planet. So actually, its not India's "call" to introduce another billion drivers into an already taxed environment.
2. So because a very, very small percentage of India can afford a Gulfstream or an Audi means its not a poor country? Its per capita income is 165th in the world. 165th. Welcome to reality.
3. "Catching up" by adopting policies that every other developed country has abandoned as a failure?
@Asuka - FYI, Tata also acquired Jaguar and Range Rover from Ford. So, yeah they CAN afford.
Per Capita?
which school of dumb ecnomics did you go to?
the 165th rank is due to the HUGE population!
India is one of the worlds biggest economies with one of the biggest middle class populations
moreever, did your grandpa give you the right to drive while Indians cant?
F U
You can stop driving and convince everyone else around to quit cars as well...just cause you got there before someone else doesnt make it yours
@Asuka
". India does not own the environment"
I forgot it's property of the US of A, i'm sorry, please forgive me D:
Don't like that metric? How about this one: the average Indian makes $500 a year. You rebut the rationale of an argument ("per capita is low because the population is huge!"), then ignore the very same rebuttal in your own argument (the size of India's GDP is large because its population is large; its "middle class" is large because it population is large, etc.).
No need to get so jingoistic as to deny reality. India is poor. Every metric supports that conclusion. And that's ok. There's nothing wrong with being poor. There is something wrong, however, with adopting a failed, environmentally-unsound policy (personal transportation) in a country as large as India. That policy was attempted in other nations and proven a failure. Now, those nations are spending untold fortunes to correct that failure and clean up its impact, and yet India wants to adopt the very same failed policy. Its bad for the environment and, in the long run, bad for India. If you could see past your nationalism, you'd understand that. Instead, your wounded ego just wants to compare penis size.
@Asuka
You are stupid. Personal transportation is not the fault it is in fact essential to a democratic system (you get the ability to move everywhere on your own behalf, you get freedom of movement etc). The fault is basing personal transportation on such a pollutant technology like fossile fuel engines. I bet this Tata nano makes a lot more than 40MPG, now ask yourself what are you driving and how does it effect the environment. I hope you don't own a car aswell or else you have no right to tell Indian people who can afford a car not to buy one of these.
Do any of you know what an "ad homonym" is? Its an argument that attacks the messenger, not the message. Its a classic logic fallacy, and its the foundation of your arguments. Again, the First World is finally seeing the error of a petrol-based, personal use economy. It has done untold damage to the environment, and has left it susceptible to the whims of and control by other, unfriendly nations. The world is moving beyond oil, and yet India chooses to embrace an antiquated technology. Its incredibly short-sighted. But go ahead, keep screaming, "No fair! But you have cars! We want cars, too!", as if that's a rational argument.
Yo...A(class)Sucka...
ever heard of PPP GDP?
$500 in India vs in USA is very very different...self rightous dumbass
Asuka, personal transportation is a "failed policy"? lol? I'd laugh if your comment wasn't so stupid. Not only is personal transportation the predominant means by which most of the world gets around, it also occurs by an incredible variety of means: internal combustion auto, electric auto, hybrid auto, watercraft, aircraft, motorcycle, bicycle, on foot.
"Personal transportation" as opposed to "public transportation" as opposed to "commercial transportation". Do I really need to mention "oil-based" in those terms, given its the central issue being discussed here? Do I need to insert the caveat that we ARENT talking about alternative energy (even though it obviously has nothing to do with the conversation) just so you can follow along? Its difficult to have rational discussions with you folks when the majority of your arguments include insults and basic incomprehension.
You should just admit you want your cheap cars no matter the social cost, and that you don't give a damn about the environment. At least I could respect the honesty of that argument. But there's no logic in employing a bunch of fallacies and personal insults; you simply come off like children whose big brothers got something you didn't. You guys are so status-oriented, you'd think you'd be embarrassed to embrace such antiquated, caste-off (pun intended) technology. Enjoy oil and coal while the rest of the world moves on to better things.
Hey Asuka, your argument would make sense if there was any evidence if USA moving beyond gasoline. In fact, the most tangible evidence of being serious about oil consumption would be popularizing cars just big enough to actually do its function of transporting people, rather than massive SUV's who's only function is to show off.
So again, where is your evidence for "the rest of the world moves on to better things."
Hey Surur:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/20/2-4-billion-electric-vehicle-plan-revealed-in-the-us/
That's the most recent example I could think off in less than two minutes, but there's a whole lot more; I'm just not going to waste any more energy on you than I have to. Do your own google search for the developed world's move towards green energy (try "Dutch wind farms"; "German solar panel industry"; etc., etc., etc.). But I'm sure that's not enough for you, right?
No Asuka, its far from enough. How about banning SUV's and doubling fuel taxes? How about radically increasing fuel consumption targets? Those would be real progressive moves, not some inconsequential gestures.
Wrong again; the US recently raised fuel consumption standards by 30% (under Bush no less! Gasp!), and Europe has significant petrol taxes (as well as vehicle taxes) for more than a decade. What that has to do with India and its apparent attempt to adopt an outmoded form of transportation, I don't know. But none of this is relevant because:
1. You asked for proof, and I provided it; just because you don't accept it doesn't make it so.
2. You're not addressing my argument, you're simply trying to redirect the discussion towards a tired indictment of the US (as if its the only country that makes up the developed world).
In two posts you've managed to prove yourself both wrong AND irrational, so there's really no reason to respond to you. I'll leave you a quote from Obama, taken from the link you obviously didn't click: "The nation that leads on energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century".
Asuka,
Your point of view is definitely not wrong. There's a lot of weight in the statement that there are better paths to adopt then manufacture a gasoline based low cost vehicle. But an important point here is that latest technologies don't come cheap. So a country needs to have reached a certain stage in its development cycle for it to be able to invest and build products that make use of the latest technologies (for example electric cars, etc). Availability of cheap affordable transportation is a major factor in facilitating the development of a country along with other factors like infrastructure, etc.
It's not always required that the country has to be well developed to adopt some new technology. For example, India skipped landlines and directly jumped to the mobile revolution since it was quite cheap and could be afforded by most people. India is currently the fastest growing market for cellular devices. But cars are way costlier and the difference in cost between a new environment friendly car (like an electric or a hybrid) and the Tata Nano is too huge a difference for consumers (of a developing country) to afford. So given the situation the country currently finds itself in, the Nano is an excellent help to move the country towards a more developed state. Unless someone finds a way to come up with cheap environment friendly solutions, I think the developing world in general will follow down the same path that developed countries took in the past..
KP
Hey u gotta give India some respect ........... its got the best of both worlds , The costliest iphone and the cheapest car !!
wow, that is awesome! why can't we have this in the US now?
Jai Hao!!
You've managed to combine Hindi and Mandarin in one fell swoop. Congrats.
Now you've got me wondering that means in mandarin... do tell.
Anything would be better than my p.o.s. 89 Ford Bronco. She's been falling apart on me ever since I got it. Cheap cars = I'm sold. Can't get much worse than what I already have.
they're gonna sell A LOT of these apparently . I wonder what impact is it gonna have on the environment
it will have a positive impact on elephants in need of a break: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm
if u care abt the environment then, why dont u stop driving cars urself.
it's so hypocritic.
They aren’t gonna sell a lot for a while, because they can’t produce more than 40,000 this year. And not much more next year. Originally planned were 250,000 cars a year.
It’s even less: around 3000 in 2009 and 40,000 next year. Their new dactory won’t open before the end of 2010.
Considering US has more cars than ppl and that the country consumes 30% of the world energy, I see no reason why it should be preaching India environment friendliness :)
Though I am not happy with this development, cause I am from Delhi and the roads are already choc-a-bloc with cars. These would ensure that people who were driving scooters will shift to cars (Cars are a symbol of prosperity in India) and then it makes driving even worse.
Though going back from Seattle to Delhi roads is so much fun. I mean you can be a raving loony driving your car on the road and ti would seem normal driving in India.
You can proably die in this thing just by hitting the curb or driving over a pothole!
That's one of the reasons it wont be commercialised in other parts of the world t'ill 2011.
Just look at the size of those wheels! Forget the town car and get the "clown car".
There is nothing about this car that even comes close to being safe, but it does meet the demographic for really cheap cars that sometimes get you to your destination in one piece.
why??
are u planning to die in a pothole by then??
People seem to have short memories here in the USofA.
Toyota, Honda, and Nissan (Datsun) used to be laughed at for putting out "rice burners" and other econoboxes. Today, they've eaten the Big 3's lunch.
Then along came the Koreans with Hyundai and Kia. Again, they were laughed at for making junk. Today, they are sharing the Big 3's lunch.
Given history, I would be very careful about laughing at the Chinese and Indians for their initial efforts. In 10 - 15 years, we could all very well be driving around in Cherry's and Tata's. with their huge domestic markets, they can quickly drive down costs with massive economies of scale.
You said is right Did you know Tata bought Jaguar and RangeRover, that's part of Ford's lunch :D
Remember reading its 33 HP, think my plasma tv has more power than that...
Please let me know when you are willing to seat 4 on your plasma and let me drive it down the block...screen down ofcourse!