TATA NANO sell it in MY COUNTRY already

[paulbee]

The Indians have made the world's smallest car, called the NANO (as you recall). It is priced about $2500:

"The four-door Nano is a little over 10 feet long and nearly 5 feet wide. It is powered by a 623cc two-cylinder engine at the back of the car. With 33 horsepower, the Nano is capable of 65 miles an hour. Its four small wheels are at the absolute corners of the car to improve handling. There is a small trunk, big enough for a duffel bag."

Read More: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/10/w...nano-unveiled/

The car does 54 mpg (US), and is claimed to pass Euro crash worthiness.

Question:

1) Do you want this car sold in your country NOW? Tell us why.

2) Would you buy one if it were availlable?

3) What do you see as the real reason for keeping the Nano from the market where you live?

[paulbee]

I'll go first.

I really want the Tata Nano sold here in the USA. Some of the reasons offered against it are Emmissions and Crash Safety. In my mind that is all Rubbish.

First of all, this car's engine is about the size of that of some larger motorcycles, yet these Motorbykes are allowed to run the streets without the stringent emissions being required. If we consider the crash worthiness arguement, that does not wash either. In my State (ND, USA), people are allowed to drive golf carts on city streets. These carts have no crash worthiness to speak of. Why then can't I import a Nano or two?

When I consider the amount of money flushed down the drain by the US govt. used to prop up General Motors and Chrysler, I can begin to see why importing the Nano makes no sense to the Government.

Why would they spend 10 Billion dollars propping up GM, only to see GM disappear because people prefer smaller efficient cars like the Nano in these hard economic times?

The Nano would be a welcome work car for me. It would enable me to replace my aging Buick, and makes more sense than the "Cash for Clunkers" money flush we just had. On top of that I could by an extra one for my teenage kids. Now thats a car they can afford to drive.

[Woofcat]

It has some up sides and some down sides.

If you want a high mileage car why not get a 1987 Honda Civic. It got 54MPG in city and 58 Highway.

Would I want it sold here? Why not, we sell the tiny smart cars already.

[kuroihikari]

Tata already sells here, so the poll is kinda irrelevant to me.

Anyway, the kind of people I expect to buy a Nano aren't exactly the ones who should be worried about road safety anyway . Besides the locally assembled vehicles here have worse safety.

Your auto execs should seriously reconsider their perversion towards muscle cars, by the way.

[paulbee]

It has some up sides and some down sides.

If you want a high mileage car why not get a 1987 Honda Civic. It got 54MPG in city and 58 Highway.

Would I want it sold here? Why not, we sell the tiny smart cars already.

Tata already sells here, so the poll is kinda irrelevant to me.

Anyway, the kind of people I expect to buy a Nano aren't exactly the ones who should be worried about road safety anyway . Besides the locally assembled vehicles here have worse safety.

Your auto execs should seriously reconsider their perversion towards muscle cars, by the way.

I ran a quick google check on the 1987 civic.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/auto...c_hf/index.htm

By today's standards, the '87 civic would have been rated at 51 mpg (still great). Problem is price and availability. The Nano is cheaper and will be available for a long time to come.

What's really annoying me is that there is no good reason to block thiss car. Even if some people want the muscle cars, a lot more people will choose the cheaper, more fuel efficient Nano.


@Korouhikari

What are folks saying about the Nano in your country..Philippines?