[Dsan]

Travel to any hill station or any market in any big city and you'll realise that smaller the car the better.

Our road infra is not equipped to take the load of current cars, I cant imagine what will happen with bigger size of cars.

I think over and above the current size based taxation, GOI should also introduce Fuel economy based rules of taxation. (in a way CAFE norms take care of it, but general public isn't able to appreciate that impact yet)

[ron178]

Not against subsidising smaller or more efficient cars per se but the sub-4m rule hardly achieves that. I do think axing the rule altogether would kill some of the good small cars we're lucky to still have rather than encourage OEMs to get the ones we want (eg. Polo, Jazz, Clio) which would then touch prices of larger SUVs. There are a number of modern 4m cars that really sound more like "we made a new compact car and 4m was a good size to go" (eg. i20, Balanza) rather than "we chopped off half a car to sell it in India" (eg. Amaze and frankly all of the SUVs).

The engine size requirement is irrelevant today because those small turbos aren't much cleaner or more efficient in practice. Neither does the regulation identify small cars that truly have the benefits of their size, because the tall-flat fronts of a lot of these small crossovers have been shown to not be very pedestrian-friendly.

To really get the advantages of small cars there are a number of more realistic factors to consider than length and engine size, like:
-fuel economy
-emissions
-occupant safety
-pedestrian protection - here India has the potential to lead new research as our road death toll unlike some others revolves around vulnerable road users, but the UNECE regs/European consumer tests are unrealistic and the US doesn't have any. Developing and incentivising better standards for pedestrian-friendly cars would be an actually useful way to reap the benefits of small cars

Maybe if the government and industry work harder to capitalise on what we already have India could lead a new wave of cleaner, safer, more efficient mobility.

[1.2TSI7DSG]

Originally Posted by GTO

Don't underestimate the power of sub-4 meter cars and how the lower taxes affect pricing. sub-4 meter cars accounted for around 2.5 lakh sales & its a similar story in most months!

Not saying that the sub 4 segment is irrelavant but is the rule?
Pondering question:
If you remove this rule will the 2.5 lakh sale number be any different

Originally Posted by libranof1987

What is so scientific about this rule anyway? Why 4m? Why 1.2 or 1.5 for engine capacity? All these parameters are so arbitrary!

None of the parameters were arbitary then. Sub 4 meter meant a hatch back. Unlike today there weren't Pseudo SUVs & chop shop sedans. It was purely to make people buy their first car back then which the auto industry reaps the benfit today. However, with the advent of the era of 100 HP engines, and pseudo SUVs and chopped sedans, is it still relevant?

Originally Posted by Comrade

For me 4 meter length and 1.2L capacity is just random. How will a 4100mm car with 1248cc petrol engine be any different in space, performance, comfort etc etc to a 3998 mm car with 1999cc petrol engine! If you want to give tax benefit to consumers, give it based on ARAI fuel efficiency, emissions and safety. It will solve some purpose.

Originally Posted by ron178

To really get the advantages of small cars there are a number of more realistic factors to consider than length and engine size, like:
-fuel economy
-emissions
-occupant safety
-pedestrian protection - here India has the potential to lead new research as our road death toll unlike some others revolves around vulnerable road users, but the UNECE regs/European consumer tests are unrealistic and the US doesn't have any. Developing and incentivising better standards for pedestrian-friendly cars would be an actually useful way to reap the benefits of small cars

Maybe if the government and industry work harder to capitalise on what we already have India could lead a new wave of cleaner, safer, more efficient mobility.

Every rule will have a loopholes. But definitely need to revisit with a larger data set of parameters.

[arjab]

The sub 4m segment was created to lure buyers into opting for cost competitive vehicles because the products in that segment were taxed less.

Now the price of the product itself has increased so much that even a Nexon top end is commanding an on-road price of somewhere between INR14-15 lakhs(depending on the state in which you take delivery). For a little bit more money you have the option of getting a bigger, more spacious vehicle.

[prajwalmr62]

Indian car manufacturers are heavily in favor of this rule and will lobby their best to ensure it stays in place. Government will keep whatever arbitrary rules they can to keep taxes high.

We can discuss this topic to hell and back, but nothing is going to change.

[Joe367]

Originally Posted by 1.2TSI7DSG

Million Dollar question

Is it still relevant?

Definitely yes. My Town has developed a lot over past 5-10 years and traffic density grown exponentially. But the width of the road and parking spaces are still the same. Sub 4m cars occupy less space, is easy to park and easily maneuverable, but at the same time is large enough to be the primary vehicle for an avg Indian family.

[abaliga]

I would definitely go for a sub 4m car for city use, having said that, sub 4m rule is something I do not agree with, in fact, I believe all cars that cost less than 50 lakh rupee ex showroom should be taxed uniformly, the reason I say this is because of the kind of tax slabs we have, we are getting cars with inferior quality lower down the range, today, a customer who wants to spend 20 lakhs, can hardly get a top end variant of a sub 4m car, except Nexon and XUV3OO, no other offering in this range is 5 star rated.

[Small Bot]

I have a sub-4m car and another just above that - in the Brezza and the Grand Vitara.

Hands down, the Brezza is one of the best decisions I've made in recent years. Even landlords and parking lot security folks who are sceptical about the height of the car are comforted by how maneuverable this car is.

There are unfortunately several public parking spaces which make sub-4m cars a boon to have, in Chennai. In Bangalore, all I can say is try driving an Innova around in all the bylanes and then try a Brezza or a Venue.

This is why sub-4m cars are a massive hit in India, not because of the government taxes or anything. They are a perfect balance between features, pseudo-macho looks, ground clearance for our increasingly horrible roads, half decent performance and ergonomic comfort.

My first choice to take out inside the city will always be the smaller car, and I know several others who do the same.

[Turbohead]

Here's why I believe the sub 4m rule is no longer good for local manufacturing -

To make a profit, a product company needs to sell huge quantities at a lower rate or sell a few units at an exorbitant rate. My biggest pet peeve with this rule is that manufacturers end up developing a product that can only be sold in India because of its unique requirements. And how do they make a profit? Reduce development costs so that they can break even with lower number of units since Indian car market is not so big after all.

The problem with this is that Indian car manufacturers are losing out big time - they have improved a lot in the Indian market but they do not have any products that can be manufactured here and sold at good prices in the global markets. If there were incentives to build a vehicle that can be sold in India as well as other countries, we would've got better quality cars at competitive prices because now they can price it lower at the expense of a slightly longer break even period. The manufacturer stands to gain since they will eventually sell way more units than just selling it in India.

Plus, we get the best of international models which will ensure safety and quality for everyone in the market.

[clementw]

Call me silly but I think that we should look at smaller cars that are more efficient, take lesser space and are easier to park, since most cars on the road seem to have one or two occupants for most of the usage, this will inspire manufacturers to make better, smaller cars. Think the Comet though an EV is just about right sized.

[Mystic]

Pls pardon me if my views are a bit controversial as this is a sensitive subject which has an impact on any kind of subsidy: sub 4m, petrol, diesel, hybrid, EV, CBU, luxury, made in India cars etc.

1. No more subsidies of any kind in automobiles.
2. One should earn a certificate of entitlement to buy a car of a certain price range as per one’s ITR category ( bronze, silver, Gold, Platinum).
3. There needs to be sticker given by IT dept instead of a PDF saying thanks. This sticker in respective colour should be stuck on the windscreen prominently.
3. One person is allowed to own one car only. No ITR, no car eligibility.
4. Our streets were pretty OK 50 years back in all Indian cities. Now they suddenly became tiny because of the increase in the car size especially the width and the multiple cars we own individually.
5. The above points may look not acceptable in a democracy but it will help in long run with the pollution and traffic.

[Kashi053]

Originally Posted by 1.2TSI7DSG

Pros:
1. Keeps the Indian Manufacturers competitive as most of the global platforms are now 4.2 m (eg Polo/Ecosport etc)

So what would you do?

How is this a Pros? This is how Govt killed an excellent product like Polo.
This rule is beneficial to some of the local manufacturers and customers are at biggest loss.

[aveoman19]

I always thought those few extra cms would not make a difference in eaae of parking. Of course I'm not saying that parking a luxo barge is as easy as a small hatch but compromising on design and functionality just to get within that 4 metre length for even largish hatch backs/ pseudo SUVs is not fair. Just my opinion.

[GeeTee TSI]

Another way to look at the redundant nature of the 4m rule is that offerings in the 4.3m CSUV segment have been growing, while competent, global models just north of 3999mm (Polo for example) have never made it to our shores. The length aspect of the rule is more restrictive than the engine capacity IMHO.

Tax vehicles on GVW, emissions and fuel economy by all means, but proportionally and not in slabs.

[Kosfactor]

Yes!

At the very price sensitive end of the segment, you have to incentivize \ force OEMs to innovate -perhaps waive off some taxes entirely to support. I think Tata was having the right intentions with Nano, they were able to finally get it correct with Punch - many products try to do this and failed purely out of their own lack of commitment to the product from the design to execution.

I think the entire segment below Creta will have to rely on used cars very soon if Sub 4M is not having more products. OEMs are happy selling expensive cars with a waiting list than cheaper vehicles.

Its a different discussion altogether if cars have to taxed this high in the first place.