An Most Affordable Car

I seen this most excellent little car in a copy of Car and Driver:

http://tatamotors.com/our_world/press_releases.php?ID=431&action=Pull

It will sell brand new about $2000.00 US. It will be "bare bones" which is ok with me. Four-speed manual transmission, one windshield wiper, NO radio or heater. 2 cylinder engine that will be mounted in the rear. 35 horsepower it will produce. Top speed 65 mph.

Finally a affordable car that people can afford. No more working people like me have to endure old cars. Knute Larson had NO such concerns for people like me. Afterall he lived in total luxury for the last 26 years while at The Chapel, supping only on the finest of steaks, living in THE BEST part of Akron and Fairlawn. Plus he got a new car every three years. I should point out this bloke never worked a day in his life. I do however-and hard I might add. Even me. Knute Larson shewed absolutely no concern for the poor. None. He could care less.

If I save my money I can purchase one when they arrive here in the US about 3 years from now.

I should point out I am referring to the Nano model.

I dont think the Nano will ever make it to the states.Truth is that is not a good thing for our economy. Our banks rely on your dept. Bring in a car that people could save and buy with cash just wont do. Plus I think I read that it gets 64 MPG. Big oil will be gainst it too.

I agree with you miketomorrow. The car is almost a copy of the VW Beetle. The origin of the beetle had a 25HP engine and had top speed of 100km/h, and were stripped of gadgets that could malfunction. It also had a rear mounted engine, aircooled. They only produced some 21 millions of the beetle.

These are some horrible tidings you both bare.

Appears people of lesser incomes will be always trodden underfoot.

Real Sad.

I hope you both are wrong for the common good. :)

The world doesn't need more affordable cars, no matter how many MPG they get. What we need is more affordable and healthier ways to get to where you need to go without a (private) car. Try to imagine a planet with nine billion people EVERY ONE OF WHOM HAS THEIR OWN CAR... think it will work?

BigRed said:

The world doesn't need more affordable cars, no matter how many MPG they get. What we need is more affordable and healthier ways to get to where you need to go without a (private) car. Try to imagine a planet with nine billion people EVERY ONE OF WHOM HAS THEIR OWN CAR... think it will work?

Sure people need affordable cars. Thank God for the automobile and for Mr.Tata and his goodly vision of affordable cars for all. People who preach this nonsense (yes this is true "nonsense" NOT hurricane camping mind you) drive BIG SUV's and live in fancy houses with all the luxuries they can get their hands on yet insist the rest of us don't drive at all or depend on public transportation. I see this great evil here in Madison Wisconsin...yet they preach...

Unreal and highly inconsistent.

In addition to these evils, these same blokes waste food at The Maharaja. I witness this great evil all the time personally. They have no guilt wasting good food whiles other people are starving in the world. These people lack any conscience, in my humble opinion.

I for starters make my dwelling in tabernacles not extravegant houses using all kinds of energy. Yet they preach...who's fooling who? I'm not that stupid. Sorry for the "rant".

Otto, the great thing about the Beetle (the orginal rear engined one) was that anyone with basic hand tools could work on one. I used to have a book called How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive that showed you how to do almost anything to a Beetle. AKA the Idiot's Book. Written by a guy named John Muir of all names.

http://www.amazon.com/Keep-Volkswagen-Alive-Step-Step/dp/156261343X

One of the greatest books ever written for the home mechanic, bar none. No pictures-just hand drawn illustrations.

I took the engine out of one using nothing more than this book, hand tools, a simple sissor jack and a skateboard (put the car on blocks, undo the bolts, connectors, etc. slide the skateboard with the jack on it under the back and voila, a little bit-or a lot-of tugging and out came the engine.

The Tata is a return to those simpler times. I hope it shows up here so people like Ministercreek can have one.

Count me in. If the Nano makes it to the states 2-3 k is in my price line. Just think, me driving a NEW car. Its been 30+ years!

A drive to Canada, a week backpacking and back for under one tank of gas. Now that would be living!

Tom D said:

The Tata is a return to those simpler times. I hope it shows up here so people like Ministercreek can have one.

Thanks Tom for the kind and comforting words. I hope my friend Mike Morrow can get one too. Like him it has been a longgggg.....time since I ever had a new car.

People need cars they can afford. There is no "sin"in owning/drivng a car. I don't mind living in my tent. All I desire is a decent car good on gas and dependable. Plus I desire simplicity in a car. Who needs automatic transmissions and all those other "frills" in today's cars anyhow?

I hope Mr.Tata brings his brand cars to the US Market. Canada too. :)

I am super minimalist when it comes to cars. I have a '02 4 door Hyundai Elantra. No one really ever used my back seats so I just took them out, along with a bunch of useless things to save weight and in return cost less to run. I just drove to wildwood NJ with my brother with the car fully loaded with some 300 lbs of stuff in the trunk, a full tank, and not to mention our own weight and I did some math and calculated an average of 35 mpg. for an '02 car and compared to the market, thats ridiculously good. not to mention that car cost me $4300.

If you ask me, people don't need these ridiculous SUVs with all the bells and whistles of limosines. But yet again, these people can afford it and I guess the environment isn't that important to them. But us being hikers, our priorities are different.

MinisterCreek- I personally can't drive a manual, I get distracted and lost in my thoughts enough! And I know my car and how it shifts to maximize performance. Switching gears here(haha transmission joke) A car with a top speed of 65mph could be a problem on highways, especially the thruway when theres an average speed of 75. Much strain on the engine and in-turn more repairs necessary. But I drive a commuter car by normal standards and I would be happy owning a Nano. Hey with the money I save I can buy a used off roader for when I need something with a towing capacity!

Question - I notice several references to manual transmissions as if there is something else. Does this mean that there are cars that are dumbed down and that people are becoming more and more shiftless? What is this world coming to?

By the way, for those who don't know, Tata Industries is one of the world's largest companies, with manufacturing branches on 6 of the 7 continents. It is mostly family owned (family name is Tata, currently the 5th generation of the family of Parsis heading the company), with the majority of the stock in charitable trusts controlled by the Tata family. They have even gotten a piece of one of the "American" auto manufacturers (reality is that all manufacturers these days are multi-national), and are collecting some of that "Stimulus" money. Their best known auto brands are Jaguar and Land Rover, along with Tata.

Kmarr,

I did own an '99 Hyundai Accent. Great little car-base model. Cost was under $8900.00 back then. This car was a three door hatchback model. 5-speed manual transmission. No frills-a basic car. Great on gas mileage. Enjoyable to drive. I could not be happier. :) Plus I never would suffer any smoker into the same. I desire only a clean car free or such evils as cigarette smoke.

My soul longeth for such a simple car as this Accent.

As for SUV's, my soul hateth the same.

Bill S said:

Question - I notice several references to manual transmissions as if there is something else. Does this mean that there are cars that are dumbed down and that people are becoming more and more shiftless? What is this world coming to?

What I'm getting at Bill is that Americans (it appears) are too lazy to shift gears. Too much effort is my guess (?).

I hate automatic transmissions. I feel they are suited for the lazy. That's why I call them the lazy man's transmission. I have good reasons to think this Bill.

But you should know this by now. I have different ideas about things. I dare to think "outside the box" as it were.

Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V92CspEF5A&NR=1

My Coleman Exponent Phact X3 Tent is on it's way, Praise God.

http://www.outdoorgb.com/p/Coleman_Exponent_Phact_X3_Tent/

I'm sure glad I returned that accursed Kelty Orb tent with those so-called flyboys. So much for BIG name brand tents. Never again. I was right all along.

I would like to point out that the gas mileage obtained by the manufacturer on any vehicle with a manual transmission is obtained by shifting the gears at the optimum time to allow the most efficiency possible.

The chances that your driving habits or needs will match that efficiency is slim. Unless you watch the Tach and know when to shift or you have a little light that comes on like in the VW Rabbit Diesel I used to have (unfortunately you had to do 100 mph downhill at max. RPM to get up the other side). They were very efficient on level ground though.

To some extent the same is true of automatics especially if you keep your foot on the gas.

I prefer automatics for city driving and manuals for off road use.

Manuals are a lot cheaper to fix, and usually the weak link is the clutch which is field repairable, at least on older models.

I do agree that automobile manufacturers seem to be raising the bar each year adding more features and making owning a new car more and more expensive.

My new truck has a tire pressure warning light, if tire pressure drops in any tire, including the spare, a light comes on.

What happened to checking them once a week? I'll tell you, I'm too busy working to pay for a truck that costs 1/3 more than it needs to, thanks to gadgets. Of course I knew that when I bought it.

Sometimes I wish for the days when I had the VW Rabbit, it had a pair of vice grips for a window crank and rattled a lot when cold, but it got close to 50 MPG IF you shifted when the little light came on, unfortunately that only worked in the Kmart parking lot.

Here is something I found on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suE9vjoxvcQ

What a nice little car. Love to have one!

Another Nano video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boyUUo-fWjk&feature=related

I'm saving up for this car. Once it hit's the US market I'm purchasing one. Standard model though. Leave the Luxury model for Knute Larson-if he would even consider driving a Nano. Doubt it though.

Now a drive in the Nano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sZitve3SUw&feature=fvw

I'm with Kmarr,

I think if you would try driving the car @ highway speeds say 55 the strain on the engine (RPM's) would cause excessive fatigue.

But, as a city commuter, as Tata intends (India~ replacing bikes) it would by great !

Move me to the city and sign me up for one.

I'm saving up my money for one now.

They will be great little cars.

Bill S said:

By the way, for those who don't know, Tata Industries is one of the world's largest companies, with manufacturing branches on 6 of the 7 continents. It is mostly family owned (family name is Tata, currently the 5th generation of the family of Parsis heading the company), with the majority of the stock in charitable trusts controlled by the Tata family. They have even gotten a piece of one of the "American" auto manufacturers (reality is that all manufacturers these days are multi-national), and are collecting some of that "Stimulus" money. Their best known auto brands are Jaguar and Land Rover, along with Tata.

Do you have any evidence to back up your statement here Bill?

Is this just hear-say and your own personal opinion speaking?

ministercreek, if you don't use a car every day and only have the occasional need you should check out https://www.ucarshare.com/secure/Home.aspx

All this talk about big SUV's being evil gets under my skin. Give me a better option and I will take it. I bought an '03 Suburban Z71 flex fuel vehicle. great I can get the room I need for my family of 5 and put something besides gasoline in it, right? Wrong, Flex fuel is a huge marketing gimmick, no where within a couple hundred miles can I fill my tank with ethanol. I just drove 6,000 miles across the country, not one station had ethanol. Our next car will be a hybrid, or fully electric if they have a good model when the '98 Honda Accord kicks the bucket. It will be our carbon offset for the big beast. In all honesty, this SUV gets better gas mileage than allot of these high performance cars out on the street today. How about you make them your new poster child for wretched excess? I actually use mine to haul around my wife and kids and the lacrosse team. How many cars do I take off the road when I have the Suburban loaded up heading to a lacrosse game? Am I any more evil than the Hyundai at the pump next to me? I bought American after all. Are they just a little less evil than me because they are putting a little less gas in their tank?

BigSmoke said:

All this talk about big SUV's being evil gets under my skin.

I dislike SUV's due to them being extravagant. Do people really need a BIG SUVs is my question.

I'm personally against all forms of extravagance rather it be BIG fancy houses, air conditioning, BIG screen tv's, Cruises and all other forms of this common evil.

This is why also I am against automatic transmissions.

I would be most content with an Tata Nano. It provideth the nessassary transportation I need. All in a very economic fashion. That is what really counts. No need for fancy vehicles or automatic transmissions in my opinion. Nor BIG disturbing sound systems.

Plus my tent is all the shelter I really need.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/album/573523117vGsjdJ

Unlike many people I desire not to live in a most extravagant fashion. I have NO need for TV or feel the "need" to be "entertained" by the same.

People up here need all these things I made mention of. All such are abomination to my soul.

I supose I could have crammed everyone in the Honda and pulled a trailer for the over 100 hours of driving we did...

Caviar is extravagant, a Cadillac Escalade is extravagant, a Porsche is extravagant. Buying a 6 year old American car with dents and dings and 50,000 miles on the odometer is far from extravagant.

BigSmoke said:

Caviar is extravagant, a Cadillac Escalade is extravagant, a Porsche is extravagant. Buying a 6 year old American car with dents and dings and 50,000 miles on the odometer is far from extravagant.

I purchase Asian cars from autotrader.com. The brands I seek after are South Korean Hyundai, Kia and Daewoo models.

I only purchase base models with manual transmissions. There are really good deals if one takes the time to seek them out.

Plus I pay cash for mine. I desire no car payments.

Take this beautiful car for example: http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=261999826&dealer_id=100022700&car_year=1999&rdm=1247620227935&model=&num_records=25&systime=&make2=&highlightFirstMakeModel=&start_year=1981&keywordsfyc=&keywordsrep=&engine=&certified=&body_code=0&fuel=&awsp=false&search_type=both&distance=200&marketZipError=false&search_lang=en&showZipError=y&make=HYUND&keywords_display=&color=&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&min_price=0&drive=&default_sort=priceDESC&seller_type=b&max_mileage=&style_flag=1&sort_type=priceDESC&address=53717&advanced=&end_year=2010&doors=&transmission=&max_price=1500&cardist=58&standard=false

Pretty nice car if you ask me. Plain and basic. Plus it looks good.

This car looks really good also:

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=264455736&dealer_id=57434210&car_year=2002&rdm=1247620531695&model=LANOS&num_records=25&systime=&make2=&highlightFirstMakeModel=&start_year=1981&keywordsfyc=&keywordsrep=&engine=&certified=&body_code=0&fuel=&awsp=false&search_type=both&distance=200&marketZipError=false&search_lang=en&showZipError=n&make=DAEW&keywords_display=&color=&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&min_price=0&drive=&default_sort=priceDESC&seller_type=b&max_mileage=&style_flag=1&sort_type=priceDESC&address=53717&advanced=&end_year=2010&doors=&transmission=&max_price=1500&cardist=120&standard=false

The only thing I don't care for is the fact it is an automatic. :(

Finally this:

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=263981509&dealer_id=142521&car_year=1995&rdm=1247620779677&model=ASPIRE&num_records=25&systime=&make2=&highlightFirstMakeModel=&start_year=1981&keywordsfyc=&keywordsrep=&engine=&certified=&body_code=0&fuel=&awsp=false&search_type=both&distance=200&marketZipError=false&search_lang=en&showZipError=n&make=FORD&keywords_display=&color=&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&min_price=0&drive=&default_sort=priceDESC&seller_type=b&max_mileage=&style_flag=1&sort_type=priceDESC&address=53717&advanced=&end_year=2010&doors=&transmission=&max_price=1500&cardist=74&standard=false

Bear in mind the Ford Aspire is actually a Kia Avella. Great little car. 40+ mpg hwy. I did own one.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1231540240055403717FUOtUM

I think the big problem I see here is extremism. Why are terrorists bad? because they are extremists and are willing to kill and be killed for their cause. Equally terrible(mind the terror motif) are the environmentalists that will kill and be killed to save the environment. Essentially they are very much the same, with different points of view.

Back to the original point...SUVs are not evil. They were originally invented so they can disobey cafe emissions standards on small trucks(which essentially they are, only with additional cabin space). People genuinely use these vehicles for their intended purpose. Take Bigsmoke for example. Good luck using a Daewoo to haul a lacross team.

Point number two- Ministercreek, I agree with your bare essentials ideology to an extent. But as stated above, no one likes an extremist. If you like cars to have four wheels and a roof...thats it, then fine so be it, but there's no need to despise those who think differently.

Life is about being happy. If buying the biggest land yacht on the lot with the most options added makes you happy, cool. If you buy a tin can with barely as much as a rear view mirror, okay. Either one is extreme so there's really no need to start a fuss about who's right.

A couple of points here. First, the original SUV's were made well before the CAFE standards went into effect. The original Chevrolet Suburban was made, if I recall correctly, around 1938. The International Travel-all, the Dodge Carryall and the early Ford Broncos were introduced well before CAFE went into effect.

In fact, station wagons were the original SUV's; vehicles with a lot of cargo/seating space. They just weren't called SUV's. Most of the original "SUV's" were purchased by individuals or organizations that needed their capability for carrying people and equipment to remote work sites: no evil or anti-environmental intent, just job requirements; stuff that a Nano, or Chevrolet sedan for that matter, just could not do

I used a Dodge Carryall for years when I worked in forestry.

It was not until the 80's that the original utility vehicles started becoming gentrified with leather seats and such and became one of the new suburbanite status symbols.

Second, SUV's are not all the same. There are big ones such as the Suburban or Hummer and small ones such as the RAV. A lot of newer SUV's are built on the same basic platform as 4-door sedans. A lot of SUV's are as economical as are most CAFE standard sedans. So, painting all of them with the same brush is just a display of ignorance. So is condemning someone who purchases something to meet their needs: judging the needs of another person is arrogant at best.

Next, from what I have read about the Nano, it does not have a so-called "standard" transmission. It has a continuously variable, rubber drive-belt transmission and a centrifugal clutch; in effect, an automatic transmission. This is pretty much the same drive-train that is used on all modern motor scooters and is not especially efficient, just cheap. In fact, the Nano is basically a two person motor scooter put on four wheels. I suspect that, driven at highway speeds, the drive line would probably last less than 50,000 miles. Most modern vehicles will last at least three times as long. What are the energy costs of making the three Nano's needed to replace one Toyota Corolla?

Finally, Ministercreek: You are quick to judge others; perhaps you should try the same with yourself. Making a virtue of necessity is generally a consequence of envy, not a pure heart.

Added in edit. I just checked the type of transmission that the Nano will have and it is a 4-speed manual. I had read earlier about the continuously variable belt drive earlier; and about the two seat capacity. Plans obviously have changed. Still, I prefer my 250 cc motorcycle over something like this. It will carry two people and deliver 85 mpg. More fun too! Or is that not permitted?

ministercreek said:

Bill S said:

By the way, for those who don't know, Tata Industries is one of the world's largest companies, with manufacturing branches on 6 of the 7 continents. It is mostly family owned (family name is Tata, currently the 5th generation of the family of Parsis heading the company), with the majority of the stock in charitable trusts controlled by the Tata family. They have even gotten a piece of one of the "American" auto manufacturers (reality is that all manufacturers these days are multi-national), and are collecting some of that "Stimulus" money. Their best known auto brands are Jaguar and Land Rover, along with Tata.

Do you have any evidence to back up your statement here Bill?

Is this just hear-say and your own personal opinion speaking?

Ministercreek,

All you have to do is look at the Tata corporate website. The information I gave came straight from there. Read the website for yourself. The links in the following quotes are live, so you can check easily for yourself.

For example:

Tata companies have operations in every major international market AFRICA ASIA PACIFIC CHINA EUROPE MIDDLE EAST NORTH AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA UNITED KINGDOM

and this:

Our businesses > Tata companies > Jaguar Land Rover Jaguar Land Rover
areas of business | location

Jaguar Land Rover is a business built around two great British car brands with exceptional design and engineering capabilities. Jaguar Land Rover’s manufacturing facilities are in the UK.

Areas of business
Jaguar Cars, founded in 1922, is one of the world’s premier manufacturers of luxury saloons and sports cars. Land Rover has been manufacturing 4x4s since 1948. Its products have defined the segments in which they operate.

Jaguar Land Rover’s manufacturing facilities are in the UK. The Jaguar Land Rover business employs over 16,000 people, predominantly in the UK, including some 3,500 engineers at two product development centres, in Whitley in Coventry and Gaydon in Warwickshire.

The Jaguar XF, XJ and XK models are manufactured at the company's Castle Bromwich plant in Birmingham, UK, while the Jaguar X-TYPE is produced alongside the Land Rover Freelander 2 at the Halewood plant in Liverpool, UK. Land Rover's Defender, Discovery 3, Range Rover Sport and Range Rover models are all built at Solihull, UK.

The business is a major wealth generator for the UK, with 78 per cent of Land Rovers exported to 169 countries and 70 per cent of Jaguars exported to 63 countries. Sales to customers are conducted principally through franchised dealers and importers.

Location
Jaguar Land Rover is based in the UK.

I only post information for which I have definitive information, and only post either direct quotes or a paraphrase that is a digest of the original, or is derived directly from my experimentation and experience or from people with whom I have long experience and know I can trust.

I'm with mistercreek for the most part. I dont need much. And would love the Nano. Being from the midwest I have seen many large SUVs with only one or two people ever being in them. But on the other hand I sometimes saw one with craploads of people and gear.

I think my biggest problem is with the Hummer.

Has anybody ever seen a dirty one? Or one with more than 2 people in it? LOL

Pika said:

It was not until the 80's that the original utility vehicles started becoming gentrified with leather seats and such and became one of the new suburbanite status symbols...Finally, Ministercreek: You are quick to judge others; perhaps you should try the same with yourself. Making a virtue of necessity is generally a consequence of envy, not a pure heart....Added in edit. I just checked the type of transmission that the Nano will have and it is a 4-speed manual. I had read earlier about the continuously variable belt drive earlier; and about the two seat capacity. Plans obviously have changed.

Envy...I think not. My soul hateth SUV's and I would hardly be *envious* of something my soul findeth to be an abomination.

Suffer me to say this: even if I did happen to have the money to purchase such extravagant vehicles I would not. I have absolutely NO desire to own such a vehicle like an SUV.

My philosophy is one of simplicity, not extravagance. I always lived this idea.

See I most correct regarding the Nano. It has an four-speed manual transmission. I lie not. :)

mikemorrow said:

I'm with mistercreek for the most part. I dont need much. And would love the Nano. Being from the midwest I have seen many large SUVs with only one or two people ever being in them. But on the other hand I sometimes saw one with craploads of people and gear.

I think my biggest problem is with the Hummer.

Has anybody ever seen a dirty one? Or one with more than 2 people in it? LOL

Thanks for the understanding. I am persecuting no man by what I stated. No one should be all "puffy" as Trouthunter would say.

I talking about a mindset many people appear to have. One of extravagance.

Personally, I was always most content with the basics of life. I see no need for fancy things like hot tubs, air conditioning, BIG screen TV's, SUV's and all such like things.

NO envy on my part as I was alleged to have...LOL.

ministercreek said:

BigRed said:

The world doesn't need more affordable cars, no matter how many MPG they get. What we need is more affordable and healthier ways to get to where you need to go without a (private) car. Try to imagine a planet with nine billion people EVERY ONE OF WHOM HAS THEIR OWN CAR... think it will work?

Sure people need affordable cars. Thank God for the automobile and for Mr.Tata and his goodly vision of affordable cars for all. People who preach this nonsense (yes this is true "nonsense" NOT hurricane camping mind you) drive BIG SUV's and live in fancy houses with all the luxuries they can get their hands on yet insist the rest of us don't drive at all or depend on public transportation. I see this great evil here in Madison Wisconsin...yet they preach...

Unreal and highly inconsistent.

In addition to these evils, these same blokes waste food at The Maharaja. I witness this great evil all the time personally. They have no guilt wasting good food whiles other people are starving in the world. These people lack any conscience, in my humble opinion.

I for starters make my dwelling in tabernacles not extravegant houses using all kinds of energy. Yet they preach...who's fooling who? I'm not that stupid. Sorry for the "rant".

First of all, I don't preach anything. I would rather persuade, get people to think the issue through for themselves. Second, I don't drive an SUV, never have. Right now, my wife and I are down from two cars, commuting in different directions and so putting 15 - 20,000 miles a year on each, to about 6,000 miles a year on our old 96 Subaru wagon. And we're about to get rid of that and join a car coop -- we won't use a car anymore for day-to-day, but will be able to get one when we need one to get out of town or do some heavy hauling, and we'll be able to choose a car that's the right size for the job. I cycle to and form work every day, in all four seasons, and just got a cycle trailer to do the shopping. I don't preach, I practice! (But as I recall Gary's record is far better than mine...)

I'm not saying anybody shouldn't be able to get to where they want to go at an affordable price, but this idea of a car for every person on the planet is so ... 20th century. Most especially if you love the planet as it is now. Because it will change, the only question is how much? Time to think outside the box!

Speaking of Gary, I haven't seen any of his posts in quite some time...

Hope he didn't get lost hiking Area 51!

Naww he is lurking in the background but he is around.