[JJames]

I am a Petrol-head, but I won't really endorse an SUV too much, in the way it is being used in todays world. I can understand some one who dwells in the Ghats/hill estates to own a 4x4 SUV, Or even an enthusiast owning & using it for his adventures.
BUT, what I have seen is 90% of SUV owners in India doesn't use it as an SUV. They just buy one for its imposing looks / status symbols/ whatever. Yes, perhaps the odd trips over some bad stretches of road (but still r-o-a-d) on their weekend trips, but nothing that can't be overcome by a sedan will a decent GC/power.

I would suggest the Government to impose an additional Surcharge/Tax on SUVs, and Diesel ones in particular. Diesels are subsidized for poor farmers, not for SUVs. The dig is severe when you consider this:
- The difference between diesel & petrol (~15-18 Rs)
- For a use of 1Lac KM=18*1L=18Lac rupees of subsidized money eaten up by a Diesel SUV (This is not counting the lower FE of SUVs, when compared to Sedans/hatches).

If a hefty tax is imposed on SUVs (Petrol& Diesel), only the 90% flock (of the above mentioned) of SUV customers will think twice; the real users / enthusiasts wont mind too much, paying that bit extra for their need/passion (I for one, certainly wont mind paying that bit more for my passion- so I don't have to contrast my conscience while driving).
Same time, I would also recommend a additional surcharge on all Diesel cars- for similar reasons.

[recker_us]

Originally Posted by JJames

- The difference between diesel & petrol (~15-18 Rs)
- For a use of 1Lac KM=18*1L=18Lac rupees of subsidized money eaten up by a Diesel SUV (This is not counting the lower FE of SUVs, when compared to Sedans/hatches).

Umm...Still trying to understand the calculation... Do you mean that there is a loss of Rs. 18 to Govt for every Km of SUV driven??

[ajay0612]

Originally Posted by JJames

I would suggest the Government to impose an additional Surcharge/Tax on SUVs, and Diesel ones in particular. Diesels are subsidized for poor farmers, not for SUVs. The dig is severe when you consider this:
- The difference between diesel & petrol (~15-18 Rs)
- For a use of 1Lac KM=18*1L=18Lac rupees of subsidized money eaten up by a Diesel SUV (This is not counting the lower FE of SUVs, when compared to Sedans/hatches).

If a hefty tax is imposed on SUVs (Petrol& Diesel), only the 90% flock (of the above mentioned) of SUV customers will think twice; the real users / enthusiasts wont mind too much, paying that bit extra for their need/passion (I for one, certainly wont mind paying that bit more for my passion- so I don't have to contrast my conscience while driving).
Same time, I would also recommend a additional surcharge on all Diesel cars- for similar reasons.

The all brouhaha about diesel subsidy for 'poor' farmer is just that and needs a reality check. No poor farmer in INDIA is able to use tractors (I know for sure as I frequent villages quite often). All the diesel is gobbled up by transporters and rich farmers who don't even pay taxes! And still they pay a pittance to farm laborers.
Goverment is still continuing the subsidy for two reasons:
- Politics
- Inflation (transport cost directly related)
The need of hour is to improve roads condition to every village, give unemployment allowance, subsidse education, eradicate corruption from PDS (Public Distribution System) and do away with SUBSIDY on petrol and kerosine. The subsidy has done more harm than good (in the form of adulterated fuel, PDS corruption and profiteering by carmakers).
The extra surcharge on Diesel vehicle will simply lead to more people driving petrol cars which are inherently less efficient/km run. Diesel vehicle (luggability) are need of hour especially in India where road conditions are not so good and people like to travel with family. Why should they be taxed higher and lead to disproportionate losses to a person who does not drive much but needs its luggability?

[ACM]

Ajay agree 100% with all you say, bang on

But but ... if subsidy on diesel is removed (currently petrol is kept free to move with market prices). Then diesel would cost similar (or rather more than) to petrol and people instead of buying diesel cars that as you say are more fuel effecient and the need of the hr, would buy petrol cars and they in general do not understand the dynamic of diesel being more fuel effecient for the same bhp output vs petrols.

James

If the govt were to charge higher taxes for SUV (expecially Diesel as mentioned by you) then people would buy petrol SUV's and today diesel is the way to go as it is more fuel effecient for the same bhp engine (not ltr size) and gives higher torque which is essential for moving and SUV petrol SUV are inherently much less effecient and larger engines are required to provide the torque required to get a heavy suv rolling. This is actually why trucks use diesel ( the reason is not petrol prices or subsidy as many people believe) but the fact that a petrol truck / SUV will be not have a decent lugging capacity

[ajay0612]

Originally Posted by ACM

Ajay agree 100% with all you say, bang on

But but ... if subsidy on diesel is removed (currently petrol is kept free to move with market prices). Then diesel would cost similar (or rather more than) to petrol and people instead of buying diesel cars that as you say are more fuel effecient and the need of the hr, would buy petrol cars and they in general do not understand the dynamic of diesel being more fuel effecient for the same bhp output vs petrols.

Indian National Mantra is - 'Average kya hai' (Also the price difference between diesel and petrol vehicle is likely to come down then).

[shankar.balan]

the fellow barked his mug against the spare wheel which is why he lost his tooth. i think it is possible that the same thing could have happened to him even if I had been driving a car. the impact was quite bad and he was riding quite fast. of course the car would have certainly sustained more damage than the gypsy did.

Originally Posted by Guna

I have a slightly different opinion. If it was a modern sedan, the bumper would have flexed causing no damage to both the cars and the moped and the guy would have retained his tooth .

[freewheelburnin]

Diesel SUV's are more fuel efficient than many petrol sedans.To get the best performance from a petrol engine you need to rev it to glory.But a diesel engine generates peak power and torque at lower RPMs.Agreed that a lot of luxury car owners are opting for diesel.But that accounts for a very low percentage of total number of users.Also the government has not restricted anyone from buying a diesel vehicle AFAIK.I would prefer that people who buy larger vehicles opt for diesel so that they burn a smaller hole in our petroleum reserves.Any vehicle buyer has to do some calculation when he buys a vehicle.

1)What is the size of vehicle needed.
2)Road conditions.
3)Total distance driven per year.
4)Refinement,comforts and reliability expected.
5)Snob value.
6)Budget including initial costs + maintainance costs + fuel costs - Resale value.

If you have done the calculations then there will be no need to fret about later. Also being part of an automotive enthusiast community i would like to see all kinds of vehicles whether petrol or diesel to ply in our country.As for the subsidy enjoy it when you can or what else should i say.Also please do not have hard feelings cos India is a country where there are subsidies,reservations,non-uniform tax system,corruption etc.In contrast something like this is not really unfair if you really think about it.

[dhuli]

Originally Posted by n.devdath

So, for travelling over a long distance, I would prefer a vehicle with sufficient suspension travel and GC.

Missed your comment earlier. I prefer an SUV for exactly these reasons. I am guessing that a "stiffer suspension + longer suspension travel (relative to sedan)" = no nasty side wall tears on tyre. When I read Champion's experience with his Innova (http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post2183214) and a similar one with my Wagon R, I am inclined to believe an SUV is a good choice over a sedan for that peace of mind, albeit somewhat stiffer ride. Of course, the roads I had in mind are mostly interior or state roads, including important highways that seem to be always in disrepair. Correct me here, the assumption is, shorter suspension travel + softer suspension means the tyre gets gashed as it reaches the bottom of a pothole (and therefore that thud). Of course, not all 'thuds' lead to tyre side wall damage, but when there is a tyre side wall tear, there must have been a loud thud. Gurus, any comments?

[JJames]

Originally Posted by recker_us

Umm...Still trying to understand the calculation... Do you mean that there is a loss of Rs. 18 to Govt for every Km of SUV driven??

Ah...the side effects of working late :(
The correct calculation should be:-
Lets take a life time of 2Lac KM for the SUV.
Avg. Mileage of SUV=8-10, lets take 9.
Diesel subsidy per liter=> lets take 15.
Fuel consumed by the SUV=22222 liters
Amount of subsidy money consumed by ONE SUV=3.3Lacs
Subsidy amount consumed by 1Lac SUVs => 3333 Crore Rupees!!!
Think about the # SUVs in India as a whole=> Its a massive amount we are talking about.

Taking into account the mileage difference w.r.t. a Sedan (which 90% of the SUV owners should probably be buying for their practical life), the picture is even grave.

[JJames]

Originally Posted by ACM

James

If the govt were to charge higher taxes for SUV (expecially Diesel as mentioned by you) then people would buy petrol SUV's and today diesel is the way to go as it is more fuel effecient for the same bhp engine (not ltr size) and gives higher torque which is essential for moving and SUV petrol SUV are inherently much less effecient and larger engines are required to provide the torque required to get a heavy suv rolling. This is actually why trucks use diesel ( the reason is not petrol prices or subsidy as many people believe) but the fact that a petrol truck / SUV will be not have a decent lugging capacity

Agreed, that Diesels generally give better FE when compared to Petrols. But that should be no reason to get the fuel on discounted rates (when the purpose of that subsidy is not meant for private car users). The point is, a diesel sedan/hatch would give an even better FE. My point is regarding the subsidy amount:-
1) either the subsidy for Diesel should be limited to transport/agricultural use.
2) Or Since the above option is not practical (& even help create a black market), the better option would be to levy a "Diesel fuel tax" on the private car buyer, so that eventually, the subsidy money (or a portion of it atleast) is evened out.
The exact tax amount could be factored by the vehicle cost, Mileage & stricter emission standards.

And, those who want to enjoy the better FE/lugging capacity of a Diesel engine in a private car, should still be able to opt to do so, but not at the expense of a subsidy meant for agriculture/transport. What the intention should be to stop INDISCREET buying of a Diesel SUV for private use (For eg: buying it only to show-off/ only for the imposing looks)

[ACM]

Originally Posted by JJames

Agreed, that Diesels generally give better FE when compared to Petrols. But that should be no reason to get the fuel on discounted rates (when the purpose of that subsidy is not meant for private car users). The point is, a diesel sedan/hatch would give an even better FE. My other point (& more significant) is regarding the subsidy amount:-
1) either the subsidy for Diesel should be limited to transport/agricultural use.
2) Or Since the above option is not practical (& even help create a black market), the better option would be to levy a "Diesel fuel tax" on the private car buyer, so that eventually, the subsidy money (or a portion of it atleast) is evened out.
The exact tax amount could be factored by the vehicle cost, Mileage & stricter emission standards.

Though I have owned a diesel SUV or two, James I would be the first to state that prices need not be subsidised for any one, let alone for diesel car users. Frankly even if Diesel and petrol prices both are not subsidised yet the impact on cost of goods would only be marginal, A farmer who can pay Rs. 45 can easily pay Rs. 60 as well, and the same holds true for Truck transport. Yes cost of transport goes up by about 25% right way on an ongoing basis but when one adds the other maintenance and cost of equipment the incremental is just about 10% and since cost of transport in most goods is less than 2% we would just see this increase to say 2.2% a basic 0.2% incrimental rise that all of India can affort.

The issue is that this would be politicised and the government that takes this action of freeing up the cost of diesel just as in the case of petrol will go out of power for sure. We can be sure that this act will not happen just for this reason.

The only way a govt. can take such a decision is if there is
1) Good Growth Rate +
2) Low price of diesel and Petrol in the internation market at that time +
3) Moderate to low inflation
4) Election after 4-5 years.

Since its a -ve on all the above parameters we cannot expect the diesel price correction.

The solution you mention of penalizing diesel car owner is not fair in a free democracy and is not even required as all one needs to do is free up the diesel prices for all, but as mentioned above that will not happen today for the above reasons and for those same reasons this would not happen for car owners as well.

My the way consumption of diesel for cars in India is a lot lot smaller component compared to the same for Electricity generation, trucks and tractors and trains. So even carrying out this act would not help the economy unless this is done for all the vehicles.

Lets answer this: Why should a petrol vechicle user benifit from the subsidee that we all get automatically in terms of the effective 0.2 % lesser cost of goods due to this subsidee? The Reasons are more political than economic.

[GTO]

Note from Mod : We have a dedicated thread on diesel subsidies & SUVs (Linky). Please avoid going off-topic here.

Originally Posted by freewheelburnin

Diesel SUV's are more fuel efficient than many petrol sedans.

Everyone knows that. Please compare apples to apples. Fact is, diesel sedans are more FE than diesel SUVs. And the same for their petrol counterparts as well.

Agreed that a lot of luxury car owners are opting for diesel.But that accounts for a very low percentage of total number of users.

A majority of luxury car owners today choose diesel. And for those hatchbacks that offer a diesel option, the ratio is between 30 - 60% diesel (varies from brand to brand).

[Aroy]

I would choose an SUV if
. I had 5+ persons to carry
. I frequent bad roads
. The places I usually visit on day to day basis have ample space

In my case all the above points are negative, hence I got the Alto K10 for my daily need - going to market and friends within a radius of 4 km. My monthly run is 300-500km. For family I still have the Esteem.

I would definitely get an SUV when I start going on long trips especially to remote regions and then I will get a 4x4 one.

[Off Roadie]

Unfortunately i am online for a limited time at the moment and will only be able to recheck after months but i cant resist from adding my 2 bits to this thread.
I would like to apologize if it has already been mentioned in the numerous posts.
Driving is as important as touring to me. I mean i enjoy the rest of the land scape as much as i enjoy the tarmac and the view from a sedan is often blocked due to its lower ride height example when on a bridge an SUV offers a much better view of the river bed and the activities around it. Similarly valleys are more visible over the barricades on the ghats and all that adds to the fun. Plus as GTO pointed out (in the first post) the ability to make better decisions due to the added visibility.
Another high ground advantage is that night driving is a lot less stressful to the eyes when done in an SUV and there is no arguing on that.
Lets also not forget the fact that an SUV (except the endeavour, really unfortunate) offers better under thigh support for tall people, which can make a lot of difference at the end of a long days drive.
Plus it is not only the auto and taxi drivers who stay away but even truckers give a wider berth to a passing SUV. Another point I have noticed is that most road users just don't use their rear view mirrors at all and don't know the concept of giving way to faster moving vehicles and so while a sedan can weave through traffic faster an SUV can push through traffic faster ( I am referring to highway traffic not city traffic) and unfortunately that is what's needed in India.
So while a sedan is the preferred choice for hardcore driving enthusiasts, petrol heads, predominantly city users etc. An SUV is best for people who want the real slice of India and unfortunately, road bullies, coz people tend to shove when they have the ability to push.

[Zappex]

i went through many of the posts here, what i feel is that finally it boils down to what an individual prefers. the point i want to make is that a sedan lover will stay loyal to a sedan be whatever the odds. on the other hand one who prefers an SUV will stick to the same.

but when a sedan owner has a bad experience while scraping his car etc. He tends to cross shop. the same applies to the SUV owners who in order to get better driving pleasure can switch to sedans.

In this scenario our options are limited to crossovers which promise a balance between both. cars like the Yeti, Aria, XC60 etc.

Coming to the real world situation, Indian roads are deteriorating in most metros and an occasional scrape on the belly hurts a lot, of what i derive as a conclusion;

SUV's are seeing a boom in their sales, which seems to be a growing trend. don't get me wrong here sedans sell much more than them still this factor is largely dependent on the day to day road conditions one has to travel trough.

As for me i prefer the SUV/ Crossover breed as i feel that i have had enough of the poor road conditions i face daily.