[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by Captain Haddock

Yes the estate was a luxury car back in its hay day. If my memory is correct cost was around 6 lakhs in 1994.

As avira_tk mate mentioned in the previous post, the era you are talking about had very little or no competition in that segment. We had Premier Padmini's, HM Ambassador's, Maruti 800's that's it. It was a different time when automobile manufacturers enjoyed monopoly thank to GOI's protective rules and license raj.

The estate had truck like engine but was the safest car one could buy then,raw metal tank it was. I remember how it took out volumes of metal from a ford fiesta in a sideswipe. The metal used was first grade unlike today's wafer thin hatches. Even if we put 10 airbags in a punto or polo it will never be safe as that mammoth. Driving it was so much safer,real metal and a huge engine protected the occupants from hazards.

Mate are you serious?? You must watch those tons on crash test videos on YouTube which compare classic American cars which are metal behemoths(much more heavier and more metal than any Tata car) to modern cars with more crumple zones. In all the crashes the dummy inside the "tank like" metal behemoth car takes catastrophic and fatal hits whereas the dummy in a modern car with airbags and enough crumple zones stays safe.

I agree, it was not that reliable or smooth. But the worst thing that could happen is getting stranded in the middle of nowhere not returning in caskets.

Go see some crash test videos on YouTube mate to clear your perception.

University of southampton did a london-delhi trip in it and concluded it was a very sturdy and robust car.

There are many examples like these mate, a puny Kinetic Honda scooter crossed the Sahara desert. What's the point here? Besides the Rover city car
you are talking about was a sales dud in the UK and it disappeared as soon as it arrived. Also here are some links that shows its dismal performance and voted worst car among top 10 worst cars in the UK.

Links: http://www.motorbeam.com/2013/09/car...10-worst-cars/

http://www.drivespark.com/four-wheel...rs-005596.html

http://www.motoroids.com/news/cityro...last-25-years/

I will restrain from highlighting the issues in the City Rover(rebadged Tata Indica) lest it be branded as colonial hangover.

Also since you brought in Jeezzza into the discussion look what his counterpart James May(aka Captain Slow) had to say about City Rover(rebadged Tata Indica), "that is the worst car I have driven on this program"

Safari is refined enough for it's segment. It is a safe vehicle,it's a 2.5 ton truck.Just like the estate it's very safe thanks to huge mass and higher gauge of metal used. Pajero is a 25 lakh suv if safari can do half of what the pajero does safari is a good car in my books.

Are your seriously kidding me mate? you first brought Safari into comparison with Mitsubishi Pajero and are now bringing in the pricing to justify the difference between the two. What's your point? With all due respect to Safari NO it does not even do 1/3rd of what a Pajero is capable of doing. I drove a 10 year old Pajero and a 7 year old Safari, the less said about the safari the better. I don't need to tell about the finesse of a 10 year old Pajero.

Nano is a practical city car and is a good replacement for bikes.It was a design appreciated by leading auto geeks like Leno. Why do you still rate the nano as an utter failure ? The nano has many advantages like space,higher seating position,fuel economy over 800.Yes the engine is harsh and safety is an issue,but it is a reasonable city car,far from an utter failure.

Sales figure say it the other way mate. Although I applaud Tata Motors for this effort they took, unfortunately it failed miserably. This can be seen from rising inventory levels and Cyrus Mistry himself saying if the sales don't pick up they would dump the Nano. Link to the news:

http://motorbash.com/tata-nano-may-b...rease-by-2017/

http://zeenews.india.com/business/au...no_117389.html

Bolt's revetron trumps the segment. 140 Nm is segment leading. VW's Tsi GT is not in the same segment as that of the bolt.

Mate still I don't see enough revotron Bolt's and Zest's on road in comparison to Polo Tsi's and Honda Vtec's. The sales figures tell the same story. Again I like Tata's efforts but it's not paying off.

An Indian made petrol engine stealing the thunder from the legends like Ivtec of honda is a matter of pride for Indians.

Let's not mix patriotism with cars. We pay for what we buy. It is simple economics and nothing to do with patriotism. Well I think Tata should do something like what Mahindra has done and have been greatly successful at. It is good to see Cyrus Mistry taking efforts to revive Tata Motors by focusing on quality and after sales service. Let us see if something positive comes out of this.

[vivekgk]

Firstly, I confess, I own a Tata. My ownership experiences, positive and negative, will likely skew my opinions. I understand that your opinion may differ, and I respect it, though I might not agree.

My ownership experience has had it's share of ups and downs. Since I bought an Indigo CS TDI, a relatively trouble-free model, in 2010, by which time, the platform had been in use for more than a decade, a lot of the troubles had been ironed out. The car performed as well as could be expected. It wasn't the most refined, or easy to drive or highly fuel efficient, but it did give me 70000 kms of reliable performance, and never gave up on me or left me stranded. The Service centers were a mixed bag, and once I stopped servicing at the ASCs after 50000 km service, it has been very cheap to run. I had a couple of power window failures, and a battery drain once, but these were fixed under warranty. No other major issues that I can recall right now, that originated from the manufacturer. Had a lot of issues with the service centres though. But I would not recommend this car to anyone offhand, because there are other, better options. But as a standalone product, it is fine.

And the same thing is true. If you were looking for a perfect product that had gorgeous looks, premium interiors, rich features, blazing performance, great mileage, cheap service, maximum safety and good resale value, there is no single product that tops out at it all. The Swift checks most of the boxes, but loses out on looks to the Hyundai, which loses out to Toyota in service, which loses out on interiors, and so on.

The newer Tata products don't come last in any aspect. I love the interiors on the new Zest, which is something I could never say about a Tata product before. When it comes to making a purchase decision, there comes a point when you should stop comparing to other cars and see if the product matches your expectations or not. Find out what you want in a car, and decide on a product that does those things as per your expectations, at a price you're willing to pay.

Brand perception can change in a second. If you bring out a solidly specced product that looks good, has good features and is affordable, you can overcome brand image. The huge no of bookings for the Kwid and Zest are evidence of that. Renault had one successful product before, and everything else they made flopped. Tata had never tasted success since the Swift diesel came out, but they did well with the Zest, because it offered a diesel AMT, decent styling, great interiors and solid mechanicals.

So do I have faith in Tata? Yes I do. I believe that Tata is a company that had good products that were made badly, and made for too long. Now that they have tasted success with the Zest, they seem to have got their priorities right, and seem to be heading in the right direction. It might take longer than Tata's planned, but I've no doubt that Tata Motors will emerge as a trusted brand before long.

I agree partially with navin_v8 regarding patriotism. Buying an Indian car doesn't automatically make you a patriot, and buying a foreign car doesn't make you a traitor. But, there is a trend of automatically dismissing anything designed and made in India as inferior without giving it a chance. Like certain posters here, who just point, laugh and mock and fail to give credit where credit's due.

Oh, and one thing regarding the crash safety of Tata cars. Tata actually has a crash test facility and uses it. Toyota on the other hand, has never crash tested the Innova AFAIK, because they say that it isn't necessary under extant regulations, and they just don't sell it in countries where crash tests are mandatory. This is true of many current cars in India, where safety often takes a back seat. Another example that I'd like to quote here is that of tyres. Tata has never put thinner, unsafe tyres on lower variants of any car, which is a practice that several leading manufacturers follow in India.

[ksameer1234]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

Mate still I don't see enough revotron Bolt's and Zest's on road in comparison to Polo Tsi's and Honda Vtec's. The sales figures tell the same story.

I will want to reiterate what I was mentioning sometime back. Zest and bolt are turning out to be quite successful in smaller cities and towns. I only see their numbers increasing and have a feeling these two models will pull consistent numbers for Tata unless they fumble horribly.

Of course, sales numbers at national level tell a totally contrasting story but once Zest is established in small towns, it will only raise barrier of entry for Honda and VW.

Originally Posted by krsna777

It is very obvious that Tata car has an image of cab car due to Indica. People stopped buying indica for the same reason.

Again I'll want to pitch in with perspective of a person from small towns and remote locations. When I took my Zest at remote places, it was actually a reassuring feeling to see Tata cars, even if they are cabs. At least I know there is a some local mechanic around who knows Tata internals.

I have seen that the positives of having familiar machinery outweighs negatives from social perception in these towns.

Originally Posted by vivekgk

When it comes to making a purchase decision, there comes a point when you should stop comparing to other cars and see if the product matches your expectations or not. Find out what you want in a car, and decide on a product that does those things as per your expectations, at a price you're willing to pay.

This is precisely what we did while zeroing in on Zest. While comparing on paper, I found it on par with all the competitors. As for real-world reliability, I put my faith in the fact that in today's age, no manufacturer can afford to ignore the voice of any dissatisfied customer.

[Captain Haddock]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support: We do NOT permit biased or misleading messages. Keep it real. Accept the pros & cons for any car / brand.

[vivekgk]

Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, I posted too quickly...

Originally Posted by navin_v8

As avira_tk mate mentioned in the previous post, the era you are talking about had very little or no competition in that segment. We had Premier Padmini's, HM Ambassador's, Maruti 800's that's it. It was a different time when automobile manufacturers enjoyed monopoly thank to GOI's protective rules and license raj.

At this time, when everyone else was making licensed copies of products designed, launched and discarded everywhere else in the world, Tata Motors had the sheer guts to come up with a whole new platform, and three products based on it, targeting different segments. Mahindra was making WWII jeeps at that point, HM and PAL were making post-WWII cars with little upgrades and Maruti's entire product line was shipped in from Japan and aided by the Government. You need to put this in perspective.

Originally Posted by navin_v8

Mate are you serious?? You must watch those tons on crash test videos on YouTube which compare classic American cars which are metal behemoths(much more heavier and more metal than any Tata car) to modern cars with more crumple zones. In all the crashes the dummy inside the "tank like" metal behemoth car takes catastrophic and fatal hits whereas the dummy in a modern car with airbags and enough crumple zones stays safe.

Old American cars were notorious for using bad quality metal and putting form ahead of function. There's even a book called 'Unsafe at any speed" that brought public attention to the subject. This however, doesn't have anything to do with Tata Motors, the only manufacturer in India with a crash test facility. (AFAIK) What I do recall is a famous incident when Malayalam movie actor and car afficionado Mr. Mammooty, crashed and rolled his Tata Estate at high speed and escaped without a scratch. Tata cars do have better sheet metal. The Indica was known for its heavy panels, and the Vista when it was launched was the first car to use stronger tailored blanks for its panels.

Also since you brought in Jeezzza into the discussion look what his counterpart James May(aka Captain Slow) had to say about City Rover(rebadged Tata Indica), "that is the worst car I have driven on this program"

The CityRover was a bad idea, I agree, especially since the Indica platform was already more than 10 years old at that point. But Top Gear is known for it's extreme commentary and often undeserved hatred for what the reviewers consider "Unworthy" cars, so this is hardly a point against Tata Motors' decision to export their cars. If anything, blame Rover for not thinking this through.

Are your seriously kidding me mate? you first brought Safari into comparison with Mitsubishi Pajero and are now bringing in the pricing to justify the difference between the two. What's your point? With all due respect to Safari NO it does not even do 1/3rd of what a Pajero is capable of doing. I drove a 10 year old Pajero and a 7 year old Safari, the less said about the safari the better. I don't need to tell about the finesse of a 10 year old Pajero.

The Pajero is an exceptionally well engineered product, I agree. And being a Japanese product from a company known for reliability, it has legendary reliability. It is also more than twice as expensive as the Safari, and the Safari's price has to be taken into consideration when you're comparing. For the price, the Safari does offer incredible value, and the 4WD models can do almost everything the Pajero does. Maybe not as well, but it's no slouch. Not to mention, there was nothing like it when it was launched. Again, the fact that this is an all Indian effort from the ground up has to be taken into consideration. It's all relative. The Safari doesn't become a bad car just because the Pajero is better.

Tata Motors in quite unique among all the other manufacturers in India, in that it is the only company in our country that has managed to develop in house and manufacture indigenously, a whole range of products, from entry-level hatchbacks to luxury SUVs, in a relatively short span of about twenty years. This is no small achievement, which is why I still have faith in them.

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by vivekgk

Firstly, I confess, I own a Tata. My ownership experiences, positive and negative, will likely skew my opinions.

Mate many are biased towards the cars they own but very few have the courage to speak up against its flaws. You can go through some of the threads on Tata car niggles on TeamBHP to know what I am saying.

My ownership experience has had it's share of ups and downs. Since I bought an Indigo CS TDI, a relatively trouble-free model, in 2010, by which time, the platform had been in use for more than a decade.

So if you are ok with a decade old platform (Your words and I quote, "At this time, when everyone else was making licensed copies of products designed, launched and discarded everywhere else in the world.") then what's wrong with foreign manufacturers who gave us their dyes to make licensed copies that were discarded elsewhere in the early 90's but still were technically way ahead of what others(read domestic manufacturers) offered. Also it was a business decision by them to keep the costs low by bringing in older models to survive in the ultra cost conscious Indian market. For example everyone knows about how an older design model like Toyota Qualis annihilated its competition(Tata Sumo, Mahindra Armada, etc.) which were equally old.

And the same thing is true. If you were looking for a perfect product that had gorgeous looks, premium interiors, rich features, blazing performance, great mileage, cheap service, maximum safety and good resale value, there is no single product that tops out at it all. The Swift checks most of the boxes, but loses out on looks to the Hyundai, which loses out to Toyota in service, which loses out on interiors, and so on.

Everybody looks for a perfect product but compromise on some or the other aspect. About Hyundai's service, last time I heard it was second to Maruti Suzuki after sales service, the country's largest car maker.

The newer Tata products don't come last in any aspect. I love the interiors on the new Zest, which is something I could never say about a Tata product before. When it comes to making a purchase decision, there comes a point when you should stop comparing to other cars and see if the product matches your expectations or not. Find out what you want in a car, and decide on a product that does those things as per your expectations, at a price you're willing to pay.

Mate don't misunderstand me as a Tata basher, I know and have seen the Zest in flesh. But the ugly truth is it isn't selling as Tata expected it to and the numbers speak the same story.

Brand perception can change in a second. If you bring out a solidly specced product that looks good, has good features and is affordable, you can overcome brand image. The huge no of bookings for the Kwid and Zest are evidence of that. Renault had one successful product before, and everything else they made flopped. Tata had never tasted success since the Swift diesel came out, but they did well with the Zest, because it offered a diesel AMT, decent styling, great interiors and solid mechanicals.

As I mentioned before I applaud Tata's efforts, BUT the sales numbers for the Zest don't speak so mate. Some links to ponder on:
http://www.financialexpress.com/arti...tention/43332/

http://www.business-standard.com/art...1700302_1.html

http://www.motorbeam.com/2015/03/car...0-units-month/

So do I have faith in Tata? Yes I do. I believe that Tata is a company that had good products that were made badly, and made for too long.

Mahindra did the opposite and tasted success while doing so especially in the SUV category.

Now that they have tasted success with the Zest, they seem to have got their priorities right, and seem to be heading in the right direction. It might take longer than Tata's planned, but I've no doubt that Tata Motors will emerge as a trusted brand before long.

Even I hope so mate. But I have been hearing them having problems with their vendors. One of them is the deficient supply of AMT boxes from their vendor Magnetti Marelli.

But, there is a trend of automatically dismissing anything designed and made in India as inferior without giving it a chance.

I also partially agree with you on this point but why partially because Mahindra is another Indian manufacturer who has been belting out some fantastic products over the last few years and sales figures say people buying this Made in India product left right and centre.

Oh, and one thing regarding the crash safety of Tata cars. Tata actually has a crash test facility and uses it.

The nano too was tested in this facility I believe and received a zero star safety rating from Euro NCAP test.

Toyota on the other hand, has never crash tested the Innova AFAIK

That's not entirely true. Toyota has its own crash testing standards called GOA (Global Outstanding Assessment) and from what I have read on the below mentioned link, the Innova is crash tested by Toyota.

https://translate.google.co.in/trans...ml&prev=search

Originally Posted by vivekgk

At this time, when everyone else was making licensed copies of products designed, launched and discarded everywhere else in the world, Tata Motors had the sheer guts to come up with a whole new platform, and three products based on it, targeting different segments.

And the fact is Tata cars when launched for the first time had all the novelty, but once the competition came knocking read Toyota Qualis, Mahindra Scorpio, etc. the sales started falling and people moved on to better quality and reliability which was unheard of during that era.

Mahindra was making WWII jeeps at that point

They still are mate and making tons of money out of it. Case in point the Mahindra Thar CRDe and pickup versions called Mahindra Maxx. The fact is they have build a success story out of it whereas Tata has not capitalized on their vehicles so far.

HM and PAL were making post-WWII cars with little upgrades

Innovate or die is the mantra which held true for both of the above manufacturers. Only that they didn't have the financial muscle as that of the Tata group.

Maruti's entire product line was shipped in from Japan and aided by the Government.

So what's wrong with it, look at what a behemoth of a company MSIL has become. Tata uses AMT boxes supplied by Magnetti Marelli and engines from Fiat, what's wrong with getting help from outside companies, it is business after all.

Old American cars were notorious for using bad quality metal and putting form ahead of function. There's even a book called 'Unsafe at any speed" that brought public attention to the subject. This however, doesn't have anything to do with Tata Motors, the only manufacturer in India with a crash test facility.

Dude when I was speaking about crash test it was the so called "tank like" metal body of Tata cars vis a vis state of the art cars with crumple zones to absorb the impact. American cars or European cars go figure the heavy metal body crash test impact on the dummies vis a vis a car with thin build and more crumple zones. Also can you please share the crash test results done by Tata motors?

(AFAIK) What I do recall is a famous incident when Malayalam movie actor and car afficionado Mr. Mammooty, crashed and rolled his Tata Estate at high speed and escaped without a scratch. Tata cars do have better sheet metal. The Indica was known for its heavy panels, and the Vista when it was launched was the first car to use stronger tailored blanks for its panels.

There are many exceptions like these. You should come and see the Bombay Pune expressway littered with Tata cars which are smashed beyond recognition strong metal body, heavy panels, etc. not withstanding. The point it heavier body is no guarantee of safety. It is just a perception the heavier the sheet metal it is the better is the safety. In case of a battle tank I will agree but not in case of cars.

But Top Gear is known for it's extreme commentary and often undeserved hatred for what the reviewers consider "Unworthy" cars, so this is hardly a point against Tata Motors' decision to export their cars. If anything, blame Rover for not thinking this through.

I brought Top Gear into consideration as someone quoted Jeezza about non reliability of some European cars vis a vis Tata cars.

The Pajero is an exceptionally well engineered product, I agree. And being a Japanese product from a company known for reliability, it has legendary reliability. It is also more than twice as expensive as the Safari, and the Safari's price has to be taken into consideration when you're comparing.

So what's the point here. If that was the case then we would not be seeing a sea of Toyota Fortuners(costs same as Pajero) on roads as compared to Tata Safari.

For the price, the Safari does offer incredible value, and the 4WD models can do almost everything the Pajero does. Maybe not as well, but it's no slouch.

I have nothing to say here mate. I will not justify the legendary status of the Pajero to Safari. I have driven both and although Safari does offer value but does not hold itself for long. A 10+ year old Pajero still feels and drives like new whereas the Safari rattles and struggles to keep up. Heck what the hell I am justifying the Pajero again whereas it doesn't need it. Everyone worth his automobile enthusiast salt knows what the Pajero is.

Not to mention, there was nothing like it when it was launched. Again, the fact that this is an all Indian effort from the ground up has to be taken into consideration. It's all relative. The Safari doesn't become a bad car just because the Pajero is better.

People make choices which is better for them mate. But that does not mean justifying their decision by going beyond what their choice offers. No car becomes bad just because the other is better. It is just a choice of the people, that's why we see people buying Toyota Fortuner(outselling Safari more than twice or even thrice although costing the double that of Safari) over Tata Safari. The sales figures tell the same story. See this link: http://autoportal.com/newcars/tata/s...es-statistics/

I am not even bringing the Safari and XUV5OO into the discussion as everyone knows what numbers they do.

Tata Motors in quite unique among all the other manufacturers in India, in that it is the only company in our country that has managed to develop in house and manufacture indigenously, a whole range of products, from entry-level hatchbacks to luxury SUVs, in a relatively short span of about twenty years. This is no small achievement, which is why I still have faith in them.

Mate don't misunderstand me. I too admire the way Tata has come from their first pickup model Tata Telcoline(on which Tata Sierra was based on) to the present day Safari Storme and Zest and Bolt. But they should focus on quality and after sales. They should also remember competition from domestic manufacturers(read Mahindra) is only going to intensify and they should not be too late to join the party lest they be left out.

[vivekgk]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

So if you are ok with a decade old platform (Your words and I quote, "At this time, when everyone else was making licensed copies of products designed, launched and discarded everywhere else in the world.") then what's wrong with foreign manufacturers who gave us their dyes to make licensed copies that were discarded elsewhere in the early 90's but still were technically way ahead of what others(read domestic manufacturers) offered. Also it was a business decision by them to keep the costs low by bringing in older models to survive in the ultra cost conscious Indian market. For example everyone knows about how an older design model like Toyota Qualis annihilated its competition(Tata Sumo, Mahindra Armada, etc.) which were equally old.

At the time the Tata 207 products were launched, only Maruti was making contemporary products. Premier was making the Padmini and 118NE, HM had the Amby and the Conti, and Mahindra was making Jeeps. The foreign manufacturers didn't enter the arena until later on, and most of them came out with their current products, or previous gen.

About Hyundai's service, last time I heard it was second to Maruti Suzuki after sales service, the country's largest car maker.

My office is right next to a Hyundai service center, three of my colleagues and my landlord have or had Hyundais. They all agree that the cars are great and that the ASCs are crooks. Every day, I hear customers arguing with the service staff about the high prices for normal spares and regular services. Again, this could be an issue with the particular service center. But the general opinion is that Hyundai isn't cheap to maintain. Plus, it is only recently that parts have become available over the counter.

Also can you please share the crash test results done by Tata motors?

I said that Tata had a crash test facility. Nobody else in India has invested in one. A company investing in a crash test facility is a sign that safety is something that they consider important.

The point it heavier body is no guarantee of safety. It is just a perception the heavier the sheet metal it is the better is the safety. In case of a battle tank I will agree but not in case of cars.

If you take a look at the kerb weights of cars over the years, you'll notice that they've been increasing since the 80s, because of added safety features. Cars in every segment are getting heavier. And it's not just a myth. Look through these forums, and you can see picture comparisons of European version of Swift and the Indian version, showing missing reinforcements and cross beams, all in an effort to reduce weight to extract more KMPL, with the result that the crumple zones are crumpling all the way to the C Pillar in an accident.

The original idea of crumple zones is that it absorbs energy in a crash, while deforming. And logic states that thinner metal will require less force to deform, thus absorbing less energy.

Nowadays, it has become an excuse for manufacturers to build flimsy cars that become mangled heaps of metal in even minor collisions, requiring major repairs costing lakhs in replacement parts and labour. As long as the superstructure of the car is made strong, the passenger compartment will be intact, ensuring that the occupants are alive to pay the bills.

I brought Top Gear into consideration as someone quoted Jeezza about non reliability of some European cars vis a vis Tata cars.

Top Gear's latest versions are good entertainment, not really a guide any more. No matter who brought it into the discussion, it's irrelevant.

I have nothing to say here mate.

There really isn't anything to be said. You get what you pay for. If you pay Sedan money for an SUV, you expect some compromises. But rattles aside, the Safari isn't a bad vehicle, and is quite capable and good value.

People make choices which is better for them mate. But that does not mean justifying their decision by going beyond what their choice offers. No car becomes bad just because the other is better. It is just a choice of the people, that's why we see people buying Toyota Fortuner (outselling Safari more than twice or even thrice although costing the double that of Safari) over Tata Safari.

Sales have to do with a lot of other stuff, like the purchasing power increasing, and availability of easy finance, and people willing to spend a lot more on vehicles, brand image, looks etc. A Toyota badge has a higher value than Mitsuibishi or Honda or Ford or Nissan. The Pajero might be better at handling abuser and better in the long run than the Fortuner, but it just isn't as prestigious as a Toyota at that price range. Most people who buy the Fortuner aren't the ones who'd give anything below that price range a second look.

Mate don't misunderstand me. I too admire the way Tata has come from their first pickup model Tata Telcoline(on which Tata Sierra was based on) to the present day Safari Storme and Zest and Bolt. But they should focus on quality and after sales. They should also remember competition from domestic manufacturers(read Mahindra) is only going to intensify and they should not be too late to join the party lest they be left out.

The point being discussed in the thread is whether Tata can do it. All I'm saying is, Tata Motors spearheaded innovation in multiple segments in our country in the past, and with it's latest products, looks poised to deliver impressive, quality products at great price points.

The Bolt and the Zest are great products on their own, but they are much older than their competition. When you have a much newer product from a better valued brand at a nearly similar price, naturally the older models are overlooked. The Vista platform is 7 years old now, and they really do need to come up with newer vehicles to keep up. The same goes for the Safari as well. We know that the Kite is in development, with both sedan and hatch models, as well as the Hexa, and I'm hoping that the improvement in the quality and fit/finish of the Bolt and Zest are a taste of what to expect from Tata in the future.

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by vivekgk

At the time the Tata 207 products were launched, only Maruti was making contemporary products. Premier was making the Padmini and 118NE, HM had the Amby and the Conti, and Mahindra was making Jeeps. The foreign manufacturers didn't enter the arena until later on, and most of them came out with their current products, or previous gen.

Thanks for the recap mate. I was telling exactly that, until the competition came knocking Tata vehicles were good compared to Amby's and Padmini's. But once the competition came in people realised how crude Tata vehicles were and to top it unreliable and sketchy. First you said foreign manufacturers dumped their old discarded models in India and now you are saying they came with their "current" products or previous gen. I am thoroughly confused by your post.

My office is right next to a Hyundai service center, three of my colleagues and my landlord have or had Hyundais. They all agree that the cars are great and that the ASCs are crooks. Every day, I hear customers arguing with the service staff about the high prices for normal spares and regular services. Again, this could be an issue with the particular service center. But the general opinion is that Hyundai isn't cheap to maintain. Plus, it is only recently that parts have become available over the counter.

My neighbourhood is right next to Tata motors service centre and I have seen customers fuming and making a ruckus due to poor after sales. In fact one reputed Tata after sales service closed down their shop and opted for to go private due to constant issues. About Hyundai, my brother in law has a Santro and an Accent, an uncle has an Eon and an Accent, a friend has an Accent, cousin brother has an Accent, a neighbour has an Eon. All of them are very much satisfied with the after sales service of Hyundai and the cars mentioned are their second or third Hyundai. This is not at all the case of people who have owned a Tata among my family and friends. Their second car is not a Tata, not even a single one.

I said that Tata had a crash test facility. Nobody else in India has invested in one. A company investing in a crash test facility is a sign that safety is something that they consider important.

You still didn't answer my question, do you have access to the crash test results. Maybe this link will enlighten you on Tata's crash test results for their domestic cars vis a vis export cars.

http://www.autocarindia.com/auto-new...ty-375843.aspx

If you take a look at the kerb weights of cars over the years, you'll notice that they've been increasing since the 80s, because of added safety features. Cars in every segment are getting heavier. And it's not just a myth. Look through these forums, and you can see picture comparisons of European version of Swift and the Indian version, showing missing reinforcements and cross beams, all in an effort to reduce weight to extract more KMPL, with the result that the crumple zones are crumpling all the way to the C Pillar in an accident.

I am sure you haven't seen some crash test videos on youtube to understand the crash dynamics. With regards to "crumple zones are crumpling all the way to the C Pillar in an accident" even a truck would have the same effect while doing insane speeds that warrants such a catastrophic crash, heavy metal body not withstanding. To throw some light on what Tata does refer to the above link and I quote one line from it, "Take, for example, the Tata Aria 2WD. When it was launched a few years ago, an engineer admitted that a few body reinforcements had been removed; there were no plans to sell the Aria 2WD in Europe and hence, it wouldn’t have to meet Euro NCAP norms."

The original idea of crumple zones is that it absorbs energy in a crash, while deforming. And logic states that thinner metal will require less force to deform, thus absorbing less energy.

Some YouTube crash test videos defy logic about thinner metal absorbing less energy.

Nowadays, it has become an excuse for manufacturers to build flimsy cars that become mangled heaps of metal in even minor collisions, requiring major repairs costing lakhs in replacement parts and labour. As long as the superstructure of the car is made strong, the passenger compartment will be intact, ensuring that the occupants are alive to pay the bills.

Nope that is not true at all. Look at this link and watch the videos that busts the myth "the heavier it is the better it is". Also newer cars are much safer for pedestrians as well in case of a minor collision.
http://www.core77.com/posts/23660/Ol...Which-is-Safer

Top Gear's latest versions are good entertainment, not really a guide any more. No matter who brought it into the discussion, it's irrelevant.

I was just replying topgear to topgear response. Whether it makes sense or not does not really matter.

There really isn't anything to be said. You get what you pay for. If you pay Sedan money for an SUV, you expect some compromises. But rattles aside, the Safari isn't a bad vehicle, and is quite capable and good value.

If you get what you pay for, then how come people compare Mitsubishi Pajero with Tata Safari is what I fail to understand. Rattles, rusting, poor panels, plastic fading, mechanical issues, etc. may not matter to people who overlook those aspects justifying why people buy a Pajero or a Fortuner or even a XUV 5OO over a Tata Safari. Refer to the sales figure data and graph in the my previous post to get an idea.

Sales have to do with a lot of other stuff, like the purchasing power increasing, and availability of easy finance, and people willing to spend a lot more on vehicles, brand image, looks etc.

Yes but one thing to be considered is Pajero and Fortuner costs thrice that of a Tata Safari but still outsells the Safari month on month and year on year. Even the Scorpio which is a direct competitor of Safari outsells it by a big margin(refer to the sales chart I have mentioned in the previous post). It is not only about the brand image, looks, etc. but also about quality, reliability, after sales, etc. where Tata vehicles miss the mark.

A Toyota badge has a higher value than Mitsuibishi or Honda or Ford or Nissan. The Pajero might be better at handling abuser and better in the long run than the Fortuner, but it just isn't as prestigious as a Toyota at that price range. Most people who buy the Fortuner aren't the ones who'd give anything below that price range a second look.

Mate I never compared Pajero to Fortuner or even brought in Honda, Ford or Nissan into the picture. I am thoroughly confused by your point here where you are comparing different brands. My point was just to highlight the sales figures vis a vis Tata Safari. We were talking about Pajero compared with Safari. Where did Toyota, Honda, Ford and Nissan come from? If you would have brought in Scorpio or even XUV 5OO in comparison with Safari then it would have made sense.

The point being discussed in the thread is whether Tata can do it. All I'm saying is, Tata Motors spearheaded innovation in multiple segments in our country in the past, and with it's latest products, looks poised to deliver impressive, quality products at great price points.

I am not denying the fact about Tata's innovation with their new cars. But why does the Bolt looks to me like a modified Indica? why does Tata Safari Storme look so dated when compared to its competition? why Zest inspite of having a turbo petrol and the national diesel engine with good features not selling? Why the Nano which was launched with much fanfare is piling up inventories?

The Bolt and the Zest are great products on their own, but they are much older than their competition. When you have a much newer product from a better valued brand at a nearly similar price, naturally the older models are overlooked.

This line is highly confusing when I read this statement of yours, "Tata Motors spearheaded innovation in multiple segments in our country in the past, and with it's latest products, looks poised to deliver impressive, quality products at great price points."

The Vista platform is 7 years old now, and they really do need to come up with newer vehicles to keep up.

The same goes for the Safari as well. We know that the Kite is in development, with both sedan and hatch models, as well as the Hexa, and I'm hoping that the improvement in the quality and fit/finish of the Bolt and Zest are a taste of what to expect from Tata in the future.

I sincerely hope Tata get's it right this time.

[centaur]

Cyrus Mistry has resigned.

NEW DELHI: Cyrus Mistry resigns as Chairman of Tata Sons, the holding company of Indian conglomerate Tata Group. ​ The decision was taken at a Board meeting held on Monday. ​ He joined Tata Sons as Chairman in December 2012.

The Board has named Ratan N Tata as Interim Chairman of Tata Sons. The Board has constituted a Selection Committee to choose a new Chairman. The Committee comprises Ratan N Tata, Venu Srinivasan, Amit Chandra, Ronen Sen and Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya, as per the criteria in the Articles of Association of Tata Sons. The committee has been mandated to complete the selection process in four months.

In addition to being Group Chairman, Mistry is also the chairman of leading Tata group companies including Tata Steel, Tata Motors, Jaguar Land Rover Automotive, Tata Consultancy Services, Tata Power Company, The Indian Hotels Company, Tata Global Beverages, Tata Chemicals, Tata Industries and Tata Teleservices.

Mistry was earlier managing director of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group. Under his leadership, Shapoorji Pallonji’s construction business grew into a billion-dollar enterprise, evolving from pure-play construction to execution of complex projects in the marine, oil and gas, and rail sectors, across a number of international geographies.

Mistry graduated with a degree in civil engineering from Imperial College, London, UK, in 1990. In 1997, he received an MSc in management from the London Business School.

Mistry serves as the co-chair of the India-US CEO Forum and the India-UK CEO Forum. He is also a member of the Presidential CEO Advisory Board of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Source

[FlyingSpur]

Thread closed. Discussion continued here