[Rahul Rao]

The person who made this rule did not have a scientific mind and did not understand thermodynamics. A engine designer knows that a larger bore and stroke is more effecient than a smaller one. So a 3 pot 1.5 Lit Tdi will be more effecient than a 4 pot 1.5 Lit Tdi even if both are tuned for the same power say 105 Bhp. Issues like poorer low end torque of lesser cylinder engine doesn't display this at lower engine speeds, but it is very noticable if you have two such vehicles cruising at highway speeds.
Commercial vehicles are getting bigger engines that run slower.

Going off the point just for example Volvo 35 ton trucks had 260Hp 7 lit engines reving to 2500rpm. Now they have 370 Hp 11 Lit engines which redline at just 1900 rpm, and are more effecient and cleaner too.

In theory, a engine with 100 bore and 100 stroke 785cc/cylinder should be twice as effecient in (gms/hp) as a 50 bore 50 stroke 98cc/cylinder. In effect it should put out 8 times the power with only 4 times the fuel burned at the same Rpm. Heat emitted by radiator per HP should also be half.

Whatever the case length and engine size should be for the manufacturer to decide, govt should set limit on permissible pollution, safety features, permissible consumption in grams of fuel per km etc.
If a car with longer length is better aerodynamically and so more effecient, or if a manufacturer makes a big smooth 3lit low speed i6 with good low end torque tuned to a measley 100hp capable of returning 20km/lit with a 2 ton suv the govt's only job is to test the 20km/lit, and weather the pollution level is within the Euro limits of the time.

Rahul

[kiku007]

Everyone associated with Maruti, whether it was selling or buying or supplying or servicing or financing or investing, benefited by the 4M rule. The Government and Maruti worked very well together in this matter.

Just about everyone else didn't benefit or at the max got reasonable short lived benefit.

[su1978]

With due respect to all the seniors on this forum, i trust that the tax structure and duties imposed are basically the handiwork of the automobile lobby that works in India. Please correct me if i am wrong.

We are aware about the largest car maker in India and its legacy. Even till date, the majority of directors hold good positions within government of India and ensure that everything is done as per their benefits. Trust that the government at that time(being the larger shareholder), ensured that this company establishes itself and subsequent governments kept on molding the entire system to suit this particular company. Even as on date, rules are being made as per the need and greed of this company. Implementation of Odd-even rule and exemption of CNG powered vehicles, has benefited this company the most. At a time when people were moving away from CNG versions owing to maintenance and other issues, this company was instrumental in lobbying for the the rule so that they get due returns on their investment and other models in their line-up are sold in the market. If we study the market carefully, the policy of government to tax vehicles as per the cubic capacity came into force when this particular company had made substantial research in this field. For example, swift used to come with 1.3 litre petrol engine. When they had the 1.2 litre powerplant and technology ready, rule came that any petrol car above 1.3 litre would be charged on a higher percentage. Second instance is the fact that when this company was overloaded with the inventory for petrol cars, they again lobbied to ensure that the registration period is reduced for diesel vehicles from 15 years to 10 years which has resulted in the sale of petrol cars go up. Other in the automotive industry were left high and dry at a time when they had made substantial investment in the diesel powerplant development. Also the move to ban diesel vehicles from getting registered as a people mover in Delhi/NCR did benefit this company the most and the worst effected were automobile giants like Toyota and Mahindra. This move was one of the smartest moves as Delhi/NCR alone records a daily registration of around 2300 vehicles. All other companies had to follow the suit and make necessary changes as per the changed rules. Or to be left behind and out from the market.

Let us wait for moment and think. It is for us to understand the entire gamut and take decisions.

[landcruiser123]

One more of those myopic approaches to solve problems that our country faces. Instead of making good, usable public transport systems, the government made cars affordable to the urban population in a densely populated country witnessing a very high growth rate.

Adding to that, our lack of civic planning and terrible infrastructure made the problem worse.

Also, I'm sure many of these cars may not pass stringent safety regulations in the EU.

- India-specific small cars were created which do not have any export potential.

TBH, these cars are exported- but to a few other emerging markets.
South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia have some of our sub 4-m models. But yes, exporting to these countries is nowhere financially rewarding as exporting to the USA, EU or Australia.

[King_pin09]

Seriously, NO. India has not benfitted for sure.

My reasons are as follows,

1. No matter how well a sub 4 Metre car is engineered, it stands no comparison to the mature looks and space of a full size sedan.

2. A sub 4 metre sedan car, by virtue of its limited dimensions, is closer to a hatchback in terms of driving dynamics or handling. In fact certain hatchbacks (such as a Punto) are better than a few sub 4 metre sedans.

3. Reduction in the overall length (to less than 4 metres) or reducing the engine size does not necessarily tantamount a proportionate cost saving to the buyer. Certain, sub 4 metre vehicles cost in excess of a million rupees.

4. Reduction length and/ or engine size does not necessarily result an increase in fuel efficiency. It depends largely on an individual driving pattern. Yet, there are some guzzlers around.

5. On a long highway trip, when cruising at triple digit speeds, a larger engine is much more relaxed than a smaller engine.

6. Few long cars have the same/ lesser turning radius as of a small car and hence can be maneuvered with same ease. (For Eg. Etios vs Zest here https://auto.ndtv.com/compare-cars/t...tata-zest-1361).

All in all the concept of a compact car was an intuitive approach with intent to promote usage of smaller cars and reduce the carbon foot print. However, various manufacturers saw this as an opportunity and worked their way around and as a result came up with fresh breed of cars that look hideous and provide no substantial advantage over a normal small car.

[locusjag]

As a soon-to-be sub-4m TUV 300 buyer, let me just say that I will stand to gain from this rule.

The TUV has the footprint of a hatch such as the Jazz, while offering me lots of space in the first 2 rows (some say that it's even better than the space within a Scorpio). But most importantly to me, it fits in most urban parking spaces where a Hexa or XUV couldn't fit in.

Of course, it won't be a highway-scorcher. Neither am I a scorcher, as a driver. You won't catch me doing 80 Kmph + on anything other than a barricaded or elevated expressway.

It is not fuel-efficient. But I'm not buying it for that.

Yes, it looks ugly from certain angles. I often enjoy a secret evil chuckle at this since the looks don't matter to me and at the absurdity (IMO) of buying a car that others would/wouldn't appreciate for its looks.

Even the insurance rates shoot up, once the 1.5L engine-size mark is crossed (unless i'm much mistaken, which I believe I'm not. Let me know!).

[driftagain]

Originally Posted by kiku007

Everyone associated with Maruti, whether it was selling or buying or supplying or servicing or financing or investing, benefited by the 4M rule. The Government and Maruti worked very well together in this matter.

Just about everyone else didn't benefit or at the max got reasonable short lived benefit.

I agree 100% to that. It seems like the rule was tailor made for Maruti. It limited other manufacturers from bringing their global products to India as most of them did not fall under 4m whether it was hatchbacks or sedans. Moreover it gave birth to contraptions called sub 4 mtr sedans.

The tax difference between say a Verna and a Dzire is 15% and that alone is more than the actual price difference between their ex showroom prices. If they had same tax rate, I am sure Dzire would be selling way cheaper and way less than what it is today.

For a new manufacturer bringing an entirely new product just for India becomes a high risk proposition in the sub 4 mtr segment and there being significant tax disadvantage above 4mtr the sedans and suvs above 4mtr seem too expensive in comparison and lose in the price conscious market that India is.

[romeomidhun]

Originally Posted by kiku007

Everyone associated with Maruti, whether it was selling or buying or supplying or servicing or financing or investing, benefited by the 4M rule. The Government and Maruti worked very well together in this matter.

Originally Posted by driftagain

I agree 100% to that. It seems like the rule was tailor made for Maruti.

Hope all the demonetization plan and fiasco won't come on Maruti's head.

Jokes apart, Maruti also had to suffer because of the sub-4m rule. At the time of launch of this rule, Swift was having a 1.3L Petrol engine. Eeco also had the 1.3L engine. Dzire was of 4160mm in length.They had to rework the 1.3L G-series engine for Eeco and come up with the new 1.2L K-series for Ritz and Swift. They had to bring DZire under 4m.

Originally Posted by driftagain

The tax difference between say a Verna and a Dzire is 15% and that alone is more than the actual price difference between their ex showroom prices. If they had same tax rate, I am sure Dzire would be selling way cheaper and way less than what it is today.

I assume "Verna would be selling way cheaper" or "Dzire would be selling way costlier".

But then the case is same with Xcent and Verna.

Now, consider Ciaz. It doesn't enjoy any tax benefit. But it is priced lower than Verna and sells more than it.

[Nissan1180]

Surprised to see so many negative reactions! If the rule had not been in place, India would have seen cars that are sold in the international market being sold with less features. Would that have been nice? Not sure. Yes, Even I want a VW Golf that's sub-4m and has everything that the international version offers. But I want it built in India and tuned to indian conditions so that customers of VW don't have to repent on the VW niggles thread for each of their models. The rule should be amended for sure, but not without giving the Indian government a role in the negotiation.

We want a sub 4-m spacious pure electric car for 10 lakhs that has a range of
200 miles! Do we think manufacturers consider it feasible? Let them decide! Tata made the Nano with 21% more space than most small cars today (7 years after it was conceptualized), but did not bother to form a team capable enough to sell it. Let the companies decide on the challenge. If they succeed, they will be respected in what is perhaps the world's most competitive budget car market.

[civic-sense]

India is a country with narrow roads, if there is one. The small car rule was made to encourage smaller cars on the road so that each cars occupy a smaller footprint, emit less gases etc.

Every rule made is discriminates against one party or the other. Cars with a 1.25 liter engine seems to be penalized unfairly, but the truth is, when you make a rule, you have to draw the line somewhere. You can come up with various permutations and combinations to ascertain whether a certain car is a small car or not, but then the more complex a rule is, the more difficult it is to apply. Simpler rules make sense, so it was good that they stopped at length and engine capacity. Add width, height, GC, bonnet length, boot space, turbo, gears, DRL, roof railing etc and it would have been madness.

For every rule made, there would be people trying to work around it. Compact sedans gave us some ugly cars, but I guess it is anybody's right to be seen inside an ugly car.

I don't have any tangible data on the success of the small car rule, but my rational mind says there were. Japan benefited from Kei cars, so I wonder why India wouldn't have.

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by Nissan1180

Surprised to see so many negative reactions! If the rule had not been in place, India would have seen cars that are sold in the international market being sold with less features. Would that have been nice?

The fact of the matter is, which to me explains the overwhelmingly negative reactions being outpoured here, the major cities in India have become un-liveable (Delhi, Bangalore) or are becoming un-liveable (the rest of the major tier 1 and 2 cities).

Add to this the fact that this un-liveable aura extends to a few hundred Km radius around those cities, so even if you're on the highways, you feel disgusted by the traffic and the behavior of those around you.

I am increasingly seeing Tbhp members voicing their opinions that they don't enjoy driving anymore. Those who live to drive, don't want to drive anymore!

An explosion in the car traffic in our cities is being blamed. Sub 4m cars, forming a major chunk of the car population, is the most ubiquitous on our roads. Hence all this negativity.

Ideally people would take a nuanced view of (the lack of) urban planning, (lack of) last mile connectivity and the (poor) state of public urban transportation before blaming people buying the sub 4m vehicles. But - I get it. I totally get where the hate is coming from.

Let me also add that because our public healthcare is bad, we flock to private healthcare providers. Because public schooling is bad, private schools are our choice. Our resorting to private transportation (most often in the form of sub 4m vehicles) is just a continuation of our overall tendency to eschew the public infrastructure.

[Nissan1180]

Originally Posted by locusjag

Our resorting to private transportation (most often in the form of sub 4m vehicles) is just a continuation of our overall tendency to eschew the public infrastructure.

We must accept that the rule gave us compact, capable cars. The same folks who celebrate the urban infrastructure achievements (which were largely the result of what the previous Govt did- even in Gujarat, the new buses have JNNURM stamped on them), abhorrence of the rule does not make sense in the national context! Not 1 inch of the public transport network has been developed after 2014 and nothing new that has been built is cost effectice enough for consumers! People who are driven around in a Lexus or Merc may have a different view, but majority of us would rather live in a state like Delhi where the CM cares about pollution and tries schemes that may be inconvinient but can control it.

India truly needs a governmemt that will earn the respect of the international community. We need tax free EVs. A budget with no provisions for EVs and an increase in the price of fuels just does not make sense.

[romeomidhun]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

India is a country with narrow roads...

But there is no restriction on the width of the car !
In Japan, the Kei restrictions include length, width and engine capacity.

[ACM]

I hold a fairly different view in favour of the Govt.

Feel it has been an overall positive policy. I am not referring to the SUV definition bit though, as that has been flouted by stuff like plastic bits to show lower ground clearance.

Smaller sized cars being priced lower and also having smaller engines is perfectly fine. It was inevitable that the roads became crammed as more and more of our population were able to afford cars. The cure to that is an effort to build better infrastructure in parallel.

I feel the Govt should have had an even smaller car slab (say 3 mtrs) with almost no tax. (Nano for example). But insisted on ABS + 2 Airbags and certain level of occupant safety.)

Yes people travel cramped but smaller cars (If with all possible safety provisions) will allow for lower middle class to afford cars and travel in more safety than in a 2 wheeler.

The size rule has given us the Tiago & Tigor and Nexon / EcoSport / TUV300 are also fine with the smaller Boot. Swift Dzire has evolved into a very good looking vehicle in it's third iteration (Finally).

Govt. policies will always been circumvented by companies for their benefit (Maruti KERS Energy Regeneration) but the Govt. must keep on plugging away all the loop holes.

Move to BS VI should be faster.

A larger engine that is more fuel efficient and environment friendly than a smaller one should be considered on par and new rules can always be framed for this.

The problem has been that Govt. has not evolved the rules as fast as required.

[sabby_4c]

Honestly, I have always found it clear that this rule was just increase the tax collection while trying to get anti-rich sympathy. If they are concerned about traffic and pollution and oil imports, the stupid engine size rule should have been replaced by a rule considering actual ARAI FE and CO2/SO2/Particle emission as well as special tax cuts for very small but safe cars.