[supremeBaleno]

@Amartya, if the Nano was launched without any price-promise, you could call it unrealistic when people expect it to cost less than what it does.

But the Nano was to be a 1-lakh car. So, is it unrealistic to expect it to be in the whereabouts of 1lakh ? And is it wrong to be disappointed when it ends up costing more than 2 times the promised price ?

I dont know what an auto-rick costs, and it does not really matter here unless the Nano was planned as an alternative to the rick. And if you know that a car cant be made at the price of a rick, why go about proclaiming that we will make a 1-lakh car ?

Here was how I expected it to be (based on the price-promise) :

Nano base version :
Ex-showroom cost - 1 lakh // As promised.
Insurance + taxes + VAT etc - 25K
OTR price : 1.25 lakhs

Nano mid trim :
Ex-showroom cost - 1.15 lakhs // Some bells & whistles added.
Insurance + taxes + VAT etc - 30K
OTR price : 1.45 lakhs

Nano top trim :
Ex-showroom cost - 1.30 lakhs // Some more bells & whistles added.
Insurance + taxes + VAT etc - 35K
OTR price : 1.65 lakhs

Now that would have been a reasonable alternative to the M800, for the common man.

The Nano with its current pricing is only going to end up in the garage of those that already have 1 or more 'proper' cars, with the Nano being a fun addition. The biker-family-of-4 can continue on their Platinas and Dawns.

[shortbread]

Dear Baleno,

Its funny to note how you calculate your OTR price, but it also goes to show that your knowledge of how cars are taxed is negligible. No worries, an ex factory bears taxes on it before becoming and ex showroom car and the corresponding price. Meaning this will vary from state to state, depending of various factors least of which will be negligible things like trasportation costs, a car made in Gujrat will cost less to trasport to a local showroom than compared to a southern state. Over the e x showroom price again you have things like local road taxes etc..

So the only time a cars price remains stable is when it leaves the factory, and the fact is despite factors like steel prices shooting up, banks doubling interest rates, political issues, building, dismantling and rebuilding the factory from one corner of India to the other, it is still 1 lac for the base model.

Albeit Tata is not in this trade for charity, but they could have easily cried out a million excuses why they could not stick to the price, but they did not.

Each individuals interpretation of this price is different, as I can see, but claiming that they did not make a 1 lac car is baseless.

[airbender]

Originally Posted by drsnt

fully agreed not just in auto sector but in every sector red tapism licence raj of the government led to stagnation and monopoly. also agree that if market would have been open then maruti might not had been what it's today, had toyota, honda, nissan and others auto majors entered simultaneously in india i seriously doubt if maruti would be the same success story.

just out of curiosity where does suzuki stand in global sales?

Just for information, Suzuki stands nowhere in global sales. In almost every developed country they stand in the bottom pile even after being in the industry for decades. Hyundai/Kia inspite of being much younger than Suzuki are doing lot better.

Originally Posted by longhorn

I believe you forgot that the Ambassador (modified Morris Oxford), Premier Padmini (an outdated Fiat) were on sale much much before Maruti came into the picture. AFAIK, Standard 2000 (Rover product) entered the market after Maruti came into the picture. In fact the Indian govt had actually considered some other manufacturer (Citroen if I am not wrong)and Suzuki came in the fray much later. So its wrong to say that the Indian govt gave access only to Maruti. I agree that Maruti got the first mover advantage. But that's mainly because they(Suzuki) were willing to enter the Indian market and set up base here when most manufacturers worldwide thought it was not worthwhile doing so. Even after the economy was opened up, just see how many years Toyota and Honda took to enter the Indian market. Take a count the number of products they have on offer and out of that how many are manufactured locally.

This is from Wiki:

Pressure started mounting on Indira and Sanjay Gandhi to share the details of the progress on the Maruti Project. Since country's resources were made available by mother to her son's pet project. A delegation of Indian technocrats was assigned to hunt a [COLOR=#0645ad]collaborator[/COLOR] for the project. Initial rounds of discussion were held with the giants of the [COLOR=#0645ad]automobile[/COLOR] industry in [COLOR=#0645ad]Japan[/COLOR] including [COLOR=#0645ad]Toyota[/COLOR], [COLOR=#0645ad]Nissan[/COLOR] and [COLOR=#0645ad]Honda[/COLOR]. [COLOR=#0645ad]Suzuki[/COLOR] Motor Corporation was at that time a small player in the four wheeler automobile sector and had major share in the two wheeler segment. Suzuki's bid was considered negligible.

Suzuki in return received a lot of help from the government in such matters as import clearances for manufacturing equipment (against the wishes of the Indian machine tool industry then and its own socialistic ideology), land purchase at government prices for setting up the factory [COLOR=#0645ad]Gurgaon[/COLOR] and reduced or removal of excise tariffs. This helped Suzuki conscientiously nurse Maruti Suzuki through its infancy to become one of its flagship ventures.

Apart from the companies above other companies like VK, Ford, Citreon wanted to enter india. But government did not allow them the same benefits. As mentioned above, Suzuki(only suzuki) was allowed to import machinery without any custom duty. There is so much info on the web on this. All these happened when indians cannot themselves start a company. I do not believe you do not know these facts. Suzuki was neither among the best then nor now. Why did the government choose them? Corruption any one.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Boss, either you are in the past (Govt subsidy for MUL) or in the future (Nano's future version will do this or that). Can we for a moment talk in the present? No one denies that Govt policy was skewed towards MUL initially, but it has been a fair market for a decade and more now. Hyundai has thrived, Honda is doing good, GM is catching up, Tata themselves are not doing bad - so what relevance is this subsidy thing today ?

Boss, i am neither in past nor in future. You need to read my posts in perspective. The subsidy thing I was only answering Longhorn not in connection to M800VsNano. As you said it's been a fair market for a decade and maruti's share has come down from 80 to 40%. Talking about assumptions for Nano variants I only talked about them to show the comparision is apples to oranges. One a product of 3 decades and another just launched.

[airbender]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Just because some vehicles sell only in India, does this make them bad ? Strange logic. In the US, an M800 or Alto or Nano or Spark or Santro or Indica or hell even a Safari would be out of place due to the roads, speeds, safety considerations etc. But does that mean we should also chuck these vehicles out ? Hey, they do perfectly fine for us and we really dont need to look at the US as a guideline for what vehicle to keep or chuck.

I am not saying those vehicles mentioned by you are bad. I am only saying this to answer the proper car comment. When I and my close friend bought our first cars, my friend got a 2 door 4/5 seater hatch. But I thought it might not be practical as we mostly travel more than 2 and it would be hard to get in and get out/space. So went for a four door sedan. It makes sense if I say it's not practical for me(every customer is unique) but it's injustice to my friend if I say it's not a proper car. That's the perspective I want to bring here.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I don't know if you had a Chetak and a Honda and did a comparo. I did - we had a 1972 Bajaj-150 with us till 1995 when I bought my HH CD100. There was just no comparison - more like apples and jackfruit.

Thank you, boss. M800 Vs Nano is apples to jack fruit compo.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Unconvetional, yes. But is using adhesives better than welding? Again no expert here, but to me it looks like welding is a better, safer and more lasting option.

You were already answered on this one.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I dont doubt that a diesel Nano will get lots of buyers. But is that something in favour of the car ? Its more about our obsession with cheap fuel. On the same lines, imagine what would happen if an MJD-engine is cut into 2 and plonked into the M800 ? Not just the Nano, even Alto would be history.

No one is stoping Maruti from doing that. If only they could(it took them so many decades to have their own deisel engines). Bring it on maruti.

Originally Posted by vc.vinay

NANO an illusion on papers backed by baseless claims from TATA, Maruti 800 a reality that changed the indian automotive seen

I am not a typer. I rarely chat or email. I read a lot of discussions but rarely reply. But posts like these get me to start typing. For some reason this only happens on Tata/Mahindra threads. I would like to meet these people in person to know more about them. What kind of people post like this?

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

@Amartya, if the Nano was launched without any price-promise, you could call it unrealistic when people expect it to cost less than what it does.

But the Nano was to be a 1-lakh car. So, is it unrealistic to expect it to be in the whereabouts of 1lakh ? And is it wrong to be disappointed when it ends up costing more than 2 times the promised price ?

It's a standard practice worldwide to advertise the base version price. That's what Nano is doing too. Even the base version at 1 lakh is not a joke. There will be more variants of Nano which will be priced more than 2 lakhs. It's just additional options for buyers. You cannot find fault with the company for doing that. Every company does that so does Tata.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

I dont know what an auto-rick costs, and it does not really matter here unless the Nano was planned as an alternative to the rick. And if you know that a car cant be made at the price of a rick, why go about proclaiming that we will make a 1-lakh car ?

How would you decide if Nano or any other product is under or priced. You compare it with a similar product designed and manufactured at the same time. But you have any to compare it with nano. None. So what do you do? Compare with the nearest available product in the market. It can be M800(not really a fair compo) on the upper side or auto rick on lower side.

An Bajaj RE 2s costs 80K(I may be wrong as I never shoped for one, correct me if I am) before taxes. Nano gives you a hard top roof, extra wheel, much more powerful engine, robust body, better seats/seatbelts(Ok I will stop here, that's already too much to the list) for just 20K. How can you call it overpriced. I actually call it under priced.

Comparing M800 prices with that of Nano is again apples to jack fruit compo if you want to do it fairly. What was the salary of an engineer when M800 was designed? What was the construction cost when those plants were built? Add to that those taxes Maruti did not pay to that Government for importing the equipment. They are a fraction of what it costs right now. Thanks to what happened in 1982, when a M800 is sold it pinches holes in every taxpayers pockets.

India has seen so much inflation, prices of almost everything has gone up. In most cases they have multiplied. But for an entry level car, they have gone down. Yet you complain.

OT: At the end of the day, Tata wants to make money from what they are doing. Can't find fault with that as they are a business house. But they also are doing a lot of charity. Money Tata motors made from passenger market is a fraction of what maruti made from here. Can any one tell me what charity Maruti did in India.

[praveen_n]

Originally Posted by airbender

Comparing M800 prices with that of Nano is again apples to jack fruit compo if you want to do it fairly. What was the salary of an engineer when M800 was designed? What was the construction cost when those plants were built? Add to that those taxes Maruti did not pay to that Government for importing the equipment. They are a fraction of what it costs right now. Thanks to what happened in 1982, when a M800 is sold it pinches holes in every taxpayers pockets.

India has seen so much inflation, prices of almost everything has gone up. In most cases they have multiplied. But for an entry level car, they have gone down. Yet you complain.

OT: At the end of the day, Tata wants to make money from what they are doing. Can't find fault with that as they are a business house. But they also are doing a lot of charity. Money Tata motors made from passenger market is a fraction of what maruti made from here. Can any one tell me what charity Maruti did in India.

Very well said.M800 was a prduct that was designed in 80's and they will not be able to bring out a new design for the price that TATA is offering nano (a truth even SUZUKI has acknowledged).

Also I had read about the saftey aspects on a M 800 and on Tata nano and there was a mention about tata nano passing the crash test since it had an Airbag.The truth is arbag does not determine if the car is safer or not.
The structure of the car , the way its desgned, The crumple zones and a lot of other factors decide if the car is safe and a tata nano is much safer than a m800 simply because tata nano is a car that is built with the current saftey regulations in mind.

[longhorn]

Originally Posted by airbender

Apart from the companies above other companies like VK, Ford, Citreon wanted to enter india. But government did not allow them the same benefits. As mentioned above, Suzuki(only suzuki) was allowed to import machinery without any custom duty. There is so much info on the web on this. All these happened when indians cannot themselves start a company. I do not believe you do not know these facts. Suzuki was neither among the best then nor now. Why did the government choose them? Corruption any one.

If Suzuki was allowed to import capital goods without paying import duty, they have exported enough number of Maruti 800's to meet their export obligations. I think that's fair enough.

While you have brought up the subject, you should have also mentioned what the Tatas got for setting up their plant in Gujarat. While Suzuki got land at govt rates, the Gujarat govt acquired land and provided it to them at below market rates ie they got land at subsidised rates. Not the mention the tax breaks the govt has provided to the Nano plant. So let's keep a level playing field here. The TN govt is a very industry friendly one. If they selected Gujarat over and above TN, one can only imagine the benefits they would have received.

PS: I am not against Gujarat or for TN. Just mentioning the facts here. I don't come from either of these states.

[longhorn]

Originally Posted by praveen_n

Very well said.M800 was a prduct that was designed in 80's and they will not be able to bring out a new design for the price that TATA is offering nano (a truth even SUZUKI has acknowledged).

Accepted. This is a fact that has been acknowledged by Suzuki.

Originally Posted by praveen_n

Also I had read about the saftey aspects on a M 800 and on Tata nano and there was a mention about tata nano passing the crash test since it had an Airbag.The truth is arbag does not determine if the car is safer or not.

Nothing can be further from the truth. An airbag can drastically improve the survival chances in case of a head on collision. The very same car would get better passenger safety ratings with airbags than without them.

Originally Posted by praveen_n

The structure of the car , the way its desgned, The crumple zones and a lot of other factors decide if the car is safe and a tata nano is much safer than a m800 simply because tata nano is a car that is built with the current saftey regulations in mind.

If an M 800 is as crash worthy as a Nano without airbags (as both cars are sold without airbags here) the Nano's brand new design is only as good as the 30 year old M 800 at least as far as India is concerned. No use of going into ifs when the ifs are not available. For those who are not aware, the M 800 comes with crumple zones in the bonnet area and side impact protection beams.

[praveen_n]

Originally Posted by longhorn

Nothing can be further from the truth. An airbag can drastically improve the survival chances in case of a head on collision. The very same car would get better passenger safety ratings with airbags than without them.



If an M 800 is as crash worthy as a Nano without airbags (as both cars are sold without airbags here) the Nano's brand new design is only as good as the 30 year old M 800 at least as far as India is concerned. No use of going into ifs when the ifs are not available. For those who are not aware, the M 800 comes with crumple zones in the bonnet area and side impact protection beams.

I agree about the Airbag fact but what I was trying to explain is the criteria used for crash testing.Most of the chinese cars have arbags and only a very few of them pass the euro crash regulations.
What I was trying to mention if that if you plonk an airbag into the current maruti (like tat have done with nano) then that car will never get a 4 start rating that TATA has recieved.I have seen some M800 in Europe (with a different name though) and the last one that was released in europe was somewhere in 90's the reason being the body shell of M800 was not suited for new safety regulations that was introduced in eurpoe in late 90's.Suzuki had to then bring a new alto in europe due to this.But in india they still use the old shell.Yes it has crumple zones but the basic structure is still the same.

Also to make things more clear .. The latest Alto from Suzuki (astar) recievd only a 3 start rating where as the nano recievd 4 star.
The passanger and pedestran saftey rating was very high on tata nano ( if I remember thsi correctly near to 80%) compared to a mere 45 to 55 % on astar.


Astar whcih is about 3.80 INR less safer than tata nano 1.80 INR.
How can we expect 2nd gen alto (m800) to be as safe as a nano?

[Amartya]

Originally Posted by praveen_n

Yes it has crumple zones but the basic structure is still the same.

For the 800, the whole body is the crumple zone .

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by shortbread

Its funny to note how you calculate your OTR price, but it also goes to show that your knowledge of how cars are taxed is negligible.

Instead of typing out a long para from which I could not make anything out, you could have simply corrected my calculation, if you though it was erroneous - would have been much more helpful.

See, the way I put that calculation is how it would be if I were to buy a car. The invoice I get here shows an ex-showroom price, on which VAT @4% or so is added. Then there is roadtax (10% in TN today) + regn charges (few hundreds for Nano/M800) and also insurance (3.5% or so). Plus some miscellaneous stuff like handling etc.

So, when Tata says the car will cost 1lakh, I take that as ex-showroom cost and work from there. VAT would be 5K max. Tax would be 10K. Insurance would be 4K. Comes to 19K. Add another 6K to cover handling, regn charges & even transportation to dealer if you want and we still are at 25K. Do you still think I am too off with my calculation ?

Also, when I go to buy a car (Tata or Maruti or MB), I don't really know or even care if their factory was dismantled or whether steel prices shot up or banks increased the interest or they do charity. These are all least of my concerns. I go by the ex-showroom price - as simple as that.

Originally Posted by airbender

Just for information, Suzuki stands nowhere in global sales. In almost every developed country they stand in the bottom pile even after being in the industry for decades.

We are discussing 2 cars in the Indian scenario - what relevance does Suzuki Global have here ? They are No.1 in the country I reside in and where I buy cars - more than enough for me.

Originally Posted by airbender

You were already answered on this one.

Yeah. But I also did some googling and even the glue-manufacturers acknowledge that it still will be years before we can have an automobile that stays together with just glue. Plus loads of other trade-offs linked to using glue. And all this is from the blog of the glue-manufacturer. I am not even looking at other viewpoints.

I did not really want to have the thread go OT - hence desisted from posting that. While we can discuss for ages as to whether glue is good or better than weld/rivets, we atleast know for a fact that all the cars running on our roads sans glue are anyway not falling apart - good enough for me.

Originally Posted by airbender

It's a standard practice worldwide to advertise the base version price. Every company does that so does Tata..

AFAIK, in India, manufacturers give out prices along with the launch of the car. Nano was the first instance when price came even while the whole thing was just a concept, thereby creating expectations, which finally remained just that.

Originally Posted by airbender

It can be M800(not really a fair compo) on the upper side or auto rick on lower side...

I would compare the Nano against the M800, the rick-like exhaust note not withstanding. But if you think the Nano is to be compared against a rick, well what can I say. Go ahead. Maybe you must be right.

Originally Posted by airbender

But they also are doing a lot of charity. Money Tata motors made from passenger market is a fraction of what maruti made from here. Can any one tell me what charity Maruti did in India.

As I said before I dont think anyone here cares whether Tata does charity or doles out money to the needy. And whether Maruti does that or not is also least of our concerns.

Why do you have to bring in irrelevant things into a discussion involving comparison of 2 cars ? Does this mean that the car in question does not have strengths of its own and needs to lean on charity done by Tata ? Please focus on the car - not on the US or developed countries, what they drive there or charity or the 80s story. If you want to discuss charity done by car-cos, please create a separate thread.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by praveen_n

The truth is arbag does not determine if the car is safer or not. The structure of the car , the way its desgned, The crumple zones and a lot of other factors decide if the car is safe .

Wow, that really is news. So all those car-cos giving dual airbags and even 6 airbags must be duffers. They could just concentrate on the structure and however severe the accident, no one is even injured. Super.

Originally Posted by praveen_n

a tata nano is much safer than a m800 simply because tata nano is a car that is built with the current saftey regulations in mind.

Hmm. Current regulations would also include adding airbags, I would think. But hey thats only for US/UK, right ? Why would the poor sod driving a Nano in India need to live after an accident ? As it is, Tata is doing them a big favour by moving them from the risky bike to a car.

Originally Posted by praveen_n

What I was trying to mention if that if you plonk an airbag into the current maruti (like tat have done with nano) then that car will never get a 4 start rating that TATA has recieved.

From the authoritative way you say as to which car will get certified and which will not, looks like you work for a certifying authority. No ifs and buts here - lets just talk about what is currently available. Unless you have personally crash-tested an M800 and Nano and the latter came a winner.

Originally Posted by Amartya

For the 800, the whole body is the crumple zone.

And the Nano ? It takes any accident and comes out unscathed ? Please spare us the sarcasm because given their reputation for quality (lack of it, actually) the easiest brand to diss is Tata.

[Amartya]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

And the Nano ? It takes any accident and comes out unscathed ? Please spare us the sarcasm because given their reputation for quality (lack of it, actually) the easiest brand to diss is Tata.

Yes, they are the easiest brand to diss, and you haven't exactly refrained from doing so. Anyway, maybe you thought that I was trivializing a serious discussion, in that case, apologies.

[praveen_n]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Wow, that really is news. So all those car-cos giving dual airbags and even 6 airbags must be duffers. They could just concentrate on the structure and however severe the accident, no one is even injured. Super.

Hmm. Current regulations would also include adding airbags, I would think. But hey thats only for US/UK, right ? Why would the poor sod driving a Nano in India need to live after an accident ? As it is, Tata is doing them a big favour by moving them from the risky bike to a car. .

I was mentioning Airbag is NOT the only criteria for safty.The idea of saying tata passed the test because it had an airbag is wrong.Airbag is one of the factors but there are other factors also.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

From the authoritative way you say as to which car will get certified and which will not, looks like you work for a certifying authority. No ifs and buts here - lets just talk about what is currently available. Unless you have personally crash-tested an M800 and Nano and the latter came a winner. .

Yes lets talk about what is currently available.The new m800 (astar for us Indians) cannot get a good rating as nano and this is no if's and but's? People are speculating that a m800 will be safer with out having a test result of 800 and we are saying nano is safe based on test results.So who is mentioning if's and but's? (please dont bring up the European version and indian version thingy...).If somone wants to prove M800 is good show me the results.I am saying nano is better only based on the facts that we have as of now.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

And the Nano ? It takes any accident and comes out unscathed ? Please spare us the sarcasm because given their reputation for quality (lack of it, actually) the easiest brand to diss is Tata.

No one is saying about it.All I am trying to mention is that you will a bit more safer in a nano than 800. That being said no vehcile can guarantee that you live in case of a serious accident.You can only mention about your chances of survival .

[longhorn]

Originally Posted by praveen_n

I agree about the Airbag fact but what I was trying to explain is the criteria used for crash testing.Most of the chinese cars have arbags and only a very few of them pass the euro crash regulations.
What I was trying to mention if that if you plonk an airbag into the current maruti (like tat have done with nano) then that car will never get a 4 start rating that TATA has recieved.I have seen some M800 in Europe (with a different name though) and the last one that was released in europe was somewhere in 90's the reason being the body shell of M800 was not suited for new safety regulations that was introduced in eurpoe in late 90's.Suzuki had to then bring a new alto in europe due to this.But in india they still use the old shell.Yes it has crumple zones but the basic structure is still the same.

Also to make things more clear .. The latest Alto from Suzuki (astar) recievd only a 3 start rating where as the nano recievd 4 star.
The passanger and pedestran saftey rating was very high on tata nano ( if I remember thsi correctly near to 80%) compared to a mere 45 to 55 % on astar.


Astar whcih is about 3.80 INR less safer than tata nano 1.80 INR.
How can we expect 2nd gen alto (m800) to be as safe as a nano?

While the Tata Nano with airbags tested abroad might have got 4 star rating, that is not relevant to the topic under discussion for as long as the Nano is sold in India without airbags. As things stand today, the 30 year old M 800 is as safe as a Nano or vice versa. I would not rate one over the other unless someone crash tested both under similar circumstances and came back with the results.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Amartya

Yes, they are the easiest brand to diss, and you haven't exactly refrained from doing so. Anyway, maybe you thought that I was trivializing a serious discussion, in that case, apologies.

I dont think I dissed the brand in this thread. Was just comparing the 2 cars in question and pretty objectively IMO. Anyway, yeah, your last comment was kinda out of place.