[GTO]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

along with the Bolero in rural areas where shifting stuff and people

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

A 1.2L Petrol or the 1.3L Diesel engine will solve the running cost issue, IMO.

For either of these purposes, Maruti already has this:



A loaded Gypsy diesel won't end up cheaper than the Ertiga. It simply doesn't make any business sense to invest in the Gypsy anymore.

[frankmehta]

Besides, I doubt the Gypsy can be sold for much longer with it's close to ZERO safety aids. Seat belts are the only safety device on the car. No one wants an unsafe car to carry their family in.

[patil]

A very good thought and looks like it did not strike to anyone's mind till date. If Maruti executes the same in future you are entitled to a share of the profits. Actually if Maruti can fit the Gypsy into a small car criteria and bring down the prices and plonk the 90 bhp diesel engine and give some additional features it should sell good numbers and should continue selling for some more years.

[romeomidhun]

Originally Posted by GTO

For either of these purposes, Maruti already has this:

Agreed. Still, Ertiga is for people who like car-like experience, and Gypsy is for those who like the true off-road experience, IMO.

Originally Posted by patil

A very good thought and looks like it did not strike to anyone's mind till date. If Maruti executes the same in future you are entitled to a share of the profits.

Thanks! Please recommend it to Maruti people also, so that I can show them a good support for such a demand!

[anujmishra]

Originally Posted by GTO

Maruti won't cut the price of the petrol on which it has F-A-T profit margins, just to accommodate a well priced diesel...

My question is, when Maruti is getting FAT margin on Gyspy sales to the government and defence, then why Mahindra lagged behind in this lucrative market?

Apart from OLD CJs and MMs nothing seen in defence sector. Infact, Mahindra ceased to make CJs and MMs and recently launched Thar.

Is government is really lucrative market for Gypsy or they are just making it for them as they need this and Maruti has to do the business in India?

[romeomidhun]

Let us assume the margin Maruti obtains from selling a bare basic Gypsy at that steep price of 5.5L is Rs 2L. If the monthly sales of Gypsy is 200 units per month, the monthly profit is 4 crores!

If the profit from selling an Alto is Rs 15K (referring GTO's post earlier), this 4 cr profit is equivalent to selling 2667 Altos per month! Then why on earth Maruti should stop producing Gypsy or reintroduce it at a cheaper price!

[shankar.balan]

I dont think this point about the length is correct.
To my knowledge the Gypsy length never has changed from the first ones in 1985 to the current ones in 2012.
The original Gypsy was a narrow track vehicle powered by the 970cc Petrol engine. The same engine also powered the original Maruti 1000.
Then in the early to mid 1990's they created a Wide Track Gypsy- basically a 100mm wider track (10 cm), to help increase its stability. It was still powered by the 970cc engine.
They then added some wider wheel arches and stuff to make it look a bit more rugged.
They then introduced the 1.3 litre Gypsy King which is still doing duty.
There has been no subsequent development per se on this vehicle.

Originally Posted by throttleking

Interesting point. I believe the version before Gypsy king was under 4m length They could have continued that. On the other hand as they are coming up with Gypsy with multijet, they might take care of this.

[silverado]

How many people will buy a Gypsy even if it was 6.5 lakhs?
How many are buying the Thar anyways?
When will maruti recover the costs if it was to re-engineer the car?
What about the ride and cramped interiors?

While many on Teambhp would like to see such a variant, but not many would go ahead and buy it IMO.
Way ahead is to bring JIMNY.

[Maverick79]

Just for clarification.

Is the Sub 4 meter excise benefit clause having a rider on the Engine Caps also, Like less than 1.2 for petrol and less than 1.5 for diesel OR its either of the length / engine capacity?

If its 'either or' then Gypsy can meet the length requirement but not the Petrol engnie CC cap, considering its 1.3 mill.

[romeomidhun]

Originally Posted by Maverick79

Is the Sub 4 meter excise benefit clause having a rider on the Engine Caps also, Like less than 1.2 for petrol and less than 1.5 for diesel OR its either of the length / engine capacity?

Unfortunately, it is not 'EITHER', it is 'AND'.

I would like to change the Govt norm for the tax benefit as follows:

If the car is above 4m in length and engine is bigger than 1.2L for Petrol (1.5L for Diesel), the tax is 28%.
If the length is under 4m, an additional 8% tax is reduced.
If the engine is less than 1.2L for Petrol (1.5L for Diesel), an additional 8% tax is reduced.

So, if a Petrol car is under 4m but engine is 1.3L, the tax will be 20%.
If a Petrol car is 4.2m in length but engine is under1.2L, the tax is the same 20%.
Also, if a Petrol car is under 4m in length and engine is under 1.2L, the tax is 12%.


This way, we could have much better spec'ed cars in the lower segments.

[deetjohn]

I think MSIL is putting the effort on the XA Alpha Compact SUV and rightly so. Going behind the Gypsy without a Diesel 4x4 option will be waste of effort.

Originally Posted by Maverick79

Just for clarification.

Is the Sub 4 meter excise benefit clause having a rider on the Engine Caps also, Like less than 1.2 for petrol and less than 1.5 for diesel OR its either of the length / engine capacity?

If its 'either or' then Gypsy can meet the length requirement but not the Petrol engnie CC cap, considering its 1.3 mill.

The definition of a small car is:

• 4m or shorter in length AND with a 1.2L or smaller Petrol engine.
• 4m or shorter in length AND with a 1.5L or smaller Diesel engine.

[Maverick79]

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

Unfortunately, it is not 'EITHER', it is 'AND'.

I would like to change the Govt norm for the tax benefit as follows:

If the car is above 4m in length and engine is bigger than 1.2L for Petrol (1.5L for Diesel), the tax is 28%.
If the length is under 4m, an additional 8% tax is reduced.
If the engine is less than 1.2L for Petrol (1.5L for Diesel), an additional 8% tax is reduced.

So, if a Petrol car is under 4m but engine is 1.3L, the tax will be 20%.
If a Petrol car is 4.2m in length but engine is under1.2L, the tax is the same 20%.
Also, if a Petrol car is under 4m in length and engine is under 1.2L, the tax is 12%.


This way, we could have much better spec'ed cars in the lower segments.

Originally Posted by deetjohn

I think MSIL is putting the effort on the XA Alpha Compact SUV and rightly so. Going behind the Gypsy without a Diesel 4x4 option will be waste of effort.



The definition of a small car is:

• 4m or shorter in length AND with a 1.2L or smaller Petrol engine.
• 4m or shorter in length AND with a 1.5L or smaller Diesel engine.

Thanks for the clarifications romeomidhun and deetjohn.

Well, if the 4010mm length includes spare wheel, then it can pass the length clause as spare wheel is not included for this calculation.
Though it doesn't meet the engine cap requirment!

[girimajiananth]

Like a lot of them pointed here , diesel engine in a gypsy with 4wd , abs, airbags wont be a feasible option for MSIL .

Too much R&D costs , time to market , etc. I suppose MSIL is happy with the sales volume for gypsy from army itself.

speaking about xa alpha , will it be any better than vitara ?

I drove my neighbours used vitara xl-7 (the one with v6 engine) , man it is an awesome car and quite exclusive .

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Maverick79

Is the Sub 4 meter excise benefit clause having a rider on the Engine Caps also, Like less than 1.2 for petrol and less than 1.5 for diesel OR its either of the length / engine capacity?

To know about applicable excise duties on all vehicle classes, please click here.

[itsashishsharma]

I agree with Romeomidhun, when a versa can be re-marketed as an Eeco with better engine and gearbox, why can'y a Gypsy be?
@GTO, The current one can continue to serve the Defense requirements and going the Hummer way, this old work horse can be given a totally new avtar, with a 5 door/3 door design, obviously hard topped.
And forget Gypsy, If they can produce Ertiga which is an MUV, why can not they make a true SUV at the same price point?