[RunGaDa]

I think 4 meter or less or more does not matter. India is increasingly getting better highways. We need cars that can save its occupants at 80kmph crashes. Nothing else matters.

[voldemort]

Whether the rule should continue to exist I don't know.

Nevertheless I'm willing to pay a premium for large hatchbacks like the current Polo sold internationally, as well as things like the Golf, Fabia, and the Honda City hatchback sold in some countries.

Somewhat paradoxically I find it easier to drive a bigger car in heavy traffic. Of course, finding a roadside parking spot would be more challenging in a bigger car.

[jithin23]

Originally Posted by 1.2TSI7DSG

You can read the history of this rule in the relevant thread


Million Dollar question

Is it still relevant?

Pros:
1. Keeps the Indian Manufacturers competitive as most of the global platforms are now 4.2 m (eg Polo/Ecosport etc)
2. Forces us to push for more power from smaller engines (1.0 l engines that made 50 HP are now touching 90-100 HP, Diesels like 1.4 on 54HP indica is now a 1.5 on the nexon with 110? hP today)

Now the same pros are cons for a petrol head community like us.

No access to big engines on small cars/ No globally competent cars etc.

Also the recent threads on the dying small car segment makes me question the validity of the rule today.

1. It is still creating value?
2. Are we willing to pay higher for a 4.2 m car?
3. Are we willing to pay higher for a 1.4 p engine in the small car segment?
4. Does the lower duty actually make you buy a car that fits the sizer over something that doesnt?

So what would you do?

I believe that the sub 4m was created intentionally to favour a few OEMs. The reason is even before the sub 4m era, the cars were well specced and decently priced. For example Mistubishi Cedia or the Fiesta 1.6 S, even the OG CRDi Verna(notchback design). Of course there are some good sub 4m cars, however the cost incurred to build a sub 4m specifically for India has caused dilution in quality for these cars particularly. Moreover the 1.2L petrol engine and 1.5 diesel engine capacity rule also needs to be done away with because that does more harm than good because these engines give poor FE when in bumper to bumper traffic. So there's no real meaning of saving cost or fuel, rather it is expensive for the owner to maintain and for the OEM to design such specific engines. This norm needs to be tweaked to 1.6L for both petrol and diesel engines.

When the sub 4m rule is discarded and 1.6 L standarisation is implemented, then there will be a balance in economies of scaled for the OEM as well the end user will get a better quality product.

I never was a fan of this segment. This rule has infact has caused more traffic snarls because more people buy smaller cars and there is no standardised size for parking or lane discipline. I diasgree with the narrow road sentiment as we were a country which had Contessas and Ambassadors move around in small roads. Nowadays cities have expanded so much that the neighbouring district/suburb is also a part of the city(Example: Guduvancheri was considered outskirts of chennai before, now it is a part of Chennai) and so are the road sizes improving. We have expressways which have 6-8 lanes but cars which are just under 4m will rule the roost with someone driving at 70 in a fast lane with the so called sub 4m car. Plus the astronomical cost increase in this segment baffles me. We used to get a XUV 500 W11 for 20L in Bangalore just before covid and now a puny Sonet/Nexon costs 19-20L on Road in Bangalore. Where did the tax benefits and engine benefits go for these sub 4m cars. Worst are the koreans, Givinig us 1.5L diesels and still charging close to 25-26L on road for a 4.2M car. It is due to this sub 4m rule that great cars such as the Hexa went into the sunset and some old timers such as Scorpio N and the new Xuv700 are breaching the 30L mark(this was the starting point of the luxury segment such as Audi A3, BMW X1, Merc A class and so on) which in turn puts owners at an undue strain of taking 7-8 year loans where they end up paying 34L on road with interest(approx calculation).

Our salaries grow in arithmetic progression but the cost to purchase(Purchasing power) or buy something goes in geometric progression. Well done India with the myopic vision for the automobile industry

[ssoni.1411]

I feel manufacturers have made the 4m rule their new cash cow. When the Nexon FL was launched, I looked at the prices and was shocked to see the top model coming close to 20L on road. Creta Diesel top model used to come for 23L that time. With more and more people upgrading their cars or choosing this segment as first time buyer, manufacturers have been milking money. It is the same case with the Sonet FL as well. This sub 4m space has made other segment increase their prices as well. A top model Seltos/Creta is costing almost 25-26L on road, You get XUV700 AX7 model at that price. The easy availability of Loans and EMIs have also influenced people in increasing their budget.

[VaibhavShatna95]

The sub 4M rule doesn't exist in EV space today which is where India and the world is heading so the thread in itself is a bit moot right now if we are trying to predict future.

I do feel it is justified for ICE cars till now though as our infrastructure is lagging by miles when compared to even other developing nations and large cars just add to the traffic congestion which is already a major problem in most cities.

Choosing a smaller sub 4M car does not mean you are compromising safety or performance till legal speeds of 120km/hr but what I am particularly dissatisfied by is the poor quality of Indian roads despite so many car buyers shelling out so much in taxes. The vertical undulations you can now see in newly opened Delhi-Mumbai expressway is a case in point which has left me disheartened for our future infrastructure as well. In 2024 our pothole ridden roads vs the size of our economy and ample labour just points towards 1 thing which is massive corruption in building and maintaing road networks.

[blueather]

I'm fine with small cars. In fact I love small cars.
What I'm not fine with is those anaemic 1.2 L petrol engines. Those gutless engine sour the whole car for me.
That's why I chose a diesel i20 over the petrol one. I mean just 110 Nm of torque in this day and age is horrible.

[sh3lby]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

IMHO the sub 4-metre rule remains completely relevant to India and shall become more so as our car numbers increase. In order to accommodate a larger number of cars for our growing middle and lower middle class we need the 4-metre rule and I dare say a sub 3.6 metre rule t.oo.
I always thought that given our historical narrow city roads and dearth of parking maybe we should have had 4 tax segments – (i) below 3.6m, (ii) 3.6 to 4.0, (iii) above 4.0m and a ban above 4.5m. Cars above 4.5 metres in length ought to be not allowed in India. Plus a punitive rate on engine size above 1.5 litres. We have lost perspective on what engine bhp is needed to lug a family of four around at between 20 to 80 kmph - that's the speed range most cars stay in for over 90% of their running time I guess - a few long-run enthusiasts may differ.

You consider the width of our city roads as a hindrance but then appeal for a compromise on the length of the car rather than the width. Regarding the width, what about Europe's historical city roads which are often as wide as our cramped city roads? They get to enjoy cars not limited by an arbitrary 4m rule despite that! And sub-3.6 m? We'll have to completely remove all crumple zones from the car and make the car even more of a box to achieve that The current Wagon-R is just above 3.6m, do you think it should be subject to the harsh regulations you propose as well? And I think a control on engine size is just as bad. If you are to restrict engines, why not base it solely on economy or emissions? Why 1.5 l and not 2.0? 20-80 kph is also s snail's pace in today's day and age of 120 kph expressways and improving roads. Heck, I can go 40 kph on my roadbike itself! If a car is designed to waft about at 20-80 kph, when the time comes to overtake at 100 kph or go up inclines, the engine will have a hard time.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Look at cars in the 1950s to 1970s in Europe and you'll find engine outputs of between 40 bhp to 70 bhp region. We now think we need 1500cc, 2000cc and 2500cc engines which mainly appeal to the ego and the sense of power. I think what GoI did is right. I only regret they didn't do more.

Why would you compare cars in the 1950s/70s to cars of today at all? They are less safe, barely powerful enough to lug a fully loaded car up a hill and their power figures are not relevant today. 40-70 HP is barely enough to cruise at 80 kph, let alone overtaking while being loaded. With that amount of power, the 120kph permissible speed on our best national highways seems like a gargantuan challenge. You could now argue against higher speed limits, but the car was invented to save time after all right, what's the point in going in the backwards direction?
We don't think we need bigger engines, we do need bigger engines with the improvement in our road network and bigger cars with their (necessary) crumple zones. And not everything needs to be so utilitarian, simply lugging a family of four isn't the only criterion of people nowadays. People should have the option to enjoy a little, and as an enthusiast, I strongly stand by this statement.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The sub- 4 metre car and associated tax benefits will remain a part of our landscape for several reasons - (i) the market needs more affordable small cars to address the aspirations of the lower middle class moving up. (ii) our road infrastructure in our crowded old city areas cannot cope with 5-metre cars or even 4.5-metre cars; same for our parking availability. And given that we are the most densely populated large country this fact isn’t changing for another century though better roads and planning will help but cannot alleviate the issue.(iii) smaller cars = smaller engines = lesser fuel burn = lower oil imports. The delta that a few million small cars contribute to Forex savings might be limited but every step counts.

By restricting cars so much the 'aspiring' lower middle class will have nothing good to look forward to. Manufacturers are putting out better and better products by the day, ie, more bang for your buck - just imagine the options we could have without a length-based ban.
We can have less fuel burn with bigger but more economical engines also.
And with all due respect, I think it is completely unreasonable to expect average citizens like us to cut down on our expectations and settle for less simply to increase things like Forex reserves. You said yourself that the delta that the million small cars might have on Forex reserves might be limited but are ready to sacrifice your quality of life for it?

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I realize my pro-Govt views on sub-4 metre cars flies against the winds of opinion that blow at Team BHP.

It's certainly an extremely debatable take you have sir. With all due respect, your views appear bleak and deadening to me but nevertheless, a healthy debate it is.

[prajwalmr62]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I always thought that given our historical narrow city roads and dearth of parking maybe we should have had 4 tax segments – (i) below 3.6m, (ii) 3.6 to 4.0, (iii) above 4.0m and a ban above 4.5m. Cars above 4.5 metres in length ought to be not allowed in India.

Most of the cities are are expanding outwards rapidly. Areas in and around cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad are being built newly from ground up. To get a township approval in a tier-3 city one has to build 40 feet wide roads inside layouts. Lakhs of kilometers of new highways are being proposed yearly. In these tier-3 towns and highways one often sees WagonR and Maruti 800 which are well under 4m.


The old, narrow city roads are hubs for rich people and these well paved roads mostly sees luxury and ultra-luxury cars which are almost always more than 4m.


Why should government charge a hefty fee for arbitrary lengths and engine sizes? We need to accept the fact that this rule exists to make government richer and not because our politicians' hearts yearn for well-functional society.

Karnataka Govt recently started imposing 10% life time road tax to Electric vehicles. Could it be because they want to save electricity for the poor and needy? Save our power grids from overload? Sometimes simpler explanations are most likely being the right one.

[zxcv444]

Sub-4 Meter rule is irrelevant today when even cars like Nexon, Venue, Sonet cost near Rs.15 lakh today.
More importantly, you get ill-proportioned design (eg.XUV300, Aura) and less interior space. Because of this rule we now have to live with unrefined 3-cylinder engines, whereas in the past we could get affordable 4-cylinder engines. Even worse are the compromises in high-speed driving, safety, build quality and glaring cost-cutting.
Furthermore, a midsize car like Ciaz, Grand Vitara is no harder to park than sub-4 Meter car like Dzire or Brezza. A sub-4 Meter sedan or SUV has no size benefits as such, but have tangible drawbacks.
Therefore the sub-4 Meter rule should be scrapped and the Government should incentivize manufacturers based on more relevant characteristics like fuel efficiency or emissions.

[djay99]

I recall laughing at the sub-4m limit when it was introduced years ago as a result of lobbying by a prominent company, but I would prefer to see pricing based on CO2 emissions rather than size. A 4.2m car will not make much of a difference compared to a 4m car, however the longer car could have more space + increased safety.

More than the sub-4m restriction, I believe India requires a CO2-based tax to fight pollution, which appears to have gripped 86 cities/towns from a recent report that i read.

Also, sub-4m cars have become quite costly, if I may say so. Where has the benefit gone?

[V.Narayan]

My post number #5 has expectedly received some strong responses, two of which above on this page.

The sub 4-metre policy as a stand alone is only a fraction of what our car policy ought to be if the powers that be apply their minds. The sub 4-metre policy by itself can do some good but does not solve for a lot more that needs to be done.

At a per capita of approximately US$ 2850 in 2023 we are already the 4th largest car consumer in the world and at this per capita we are not yet even at the lower end of a middle income country. And even then we have over 340 million cars*. Now imagine a scene 15 years hence where our per capita has doubled and the number of cars has at least doubled if not more.

We need a comprehensive policy on cars, roads and usage priorities which says we need and can deploy X% of city area to roads x our cities are likely to have Y density of population = Z density of cars, two wheelers, cycles and buses/metros and therefore A, B and C should be our policy for public transport, private transport and carbon emissions. Size of cars, size of engines, size of acceptable emissions should follow from such a comprehensive policy. As this thread is on cars I am not getting into the obvious answers on public transport. If this were to be our approach we would end up with limits on size of cars, including their width and road footprint, size of engine and carbon emissions.

As this is a car lovers forum it is not surprising that we car owners forget that the size of our cars is driven by OEMs trying to satiate our egos, our need for status and vroom-vroom. The need for mere transportation has been left far behind by these "higher" needs of the well off i.e., us. This is the reason cars have become bigger with each passing 15 years while continuing to fulfill the same need to transport between 1 to 4 pax at a reasonable speed in reasonable safety. We also forget that we are the road hoggers occupying a grossly disproportionate part of a scare public asset i.e. the road space. A car can never win any measure of square metres of road footprint per pax.

Having owned cars from the sub 4-metre and the 5-metre buckets I'd say to move 4 souls and 3 mid-sized bags we don't need anything more than 4 metres and 1500 cc. Technology and design can be used to improve safety. Anything beyond this is feeding our egos. It has certainly fed mine!

*Statista.com