Talk:Tata Nano/Archive 1

Classification
Since the Nano is a four seater and measures well under 3,50 meters long, I think it's correct to classify it as a city car, and not a microcar (less seats) or a supermini car (bigger size). -- NaBUru38 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Curb weight?
There's no information here regarding the car's weight. Someone please find this out? Antimatter--talk-- 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Cooled Or Water Cooled
Is the engine air or water cooled Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.149.44 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I wondered too! And presumably a parallel (side-by-side) twin like the 500cc Fiat Bambina of a few years ago (unlikely to be a horizontally-opposed or flat twin) Hugo999 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

mpfi or not?
currently the page describes the fuel system is "mpfi (single injector)". mpfi stands for multi point fuel injection... so which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.224.24 (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Social/environmental consequences?
As this story develops I hope the article will add commentary on what effect the car is predicted to have on Indian society. After all, cheap cars like the Model A were pivotal in the U.S. Will these mean a greatly increased mobility for people in India? If they actually replace mopeds and bicycles, will it lead to widespread traffic congestion? They're described as "city cars", but if they become common enough will they influence speed limits and driving practices elsewhere? While they may pass Indian standards, what is the net influence on noise and smog? Are the commodities markets reacting to the potential future demand for metals in their production? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that the indian streets are already clogged with Tuk-tuks (awful 2-stroke motor-rickshaws) and a variety of poorly maintained and ageing cars made to even older designs - the maruti, the ambassador, etc. Compared to these dirty, thirsty, and really quite unsafe dinosaurs, the nano is something of a revolution. It's not all ox carts and mopeds (themselves dirty and probably not all that efficient 2-strokes; some bikes struggle to match the nano's efficiency), despite what your prejudices may tell you, and the fact of this car being made to replace the latter. The effect on congestion may be a slight increase; on air quality and fuel consumption perhaps a slight improvement, as you've got every chance of getting across town more efficiently carrying four people in one nano than on two mopeds. Though the agriculture minister may need to look towards further improvements in crop production to compensate for the lower death rates... (not meaning to sound like an advertisement for the thing, but the economy/emissions they claim really are quite good, nearing/matching/beating the figures of much more expensive and developed european & japanese models - if they're true - and you sometimes have to take a step back and look at the reality of the current situation and the potential future one after the car's release, rather than getting all sensational. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How much similar to Smart?
How much is Nano similar to Smart (automobile) from Benz? 65.166.51.6 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smart is much more expensive. Even golf carts are more expensive than Nano. So I think a comparison would not be fair. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all similar, except that it's small. The Smart is a very truncated 2-seat car designed for commuting, and as a bit of a fashion statement, with quite good performance. It costs considerably more than I'd warrant paying for such a vehicle, even when I look at second-hand ones. The Nano is a 4 (or more) seat kei-class type of car, designed to be utilitarian and fairly imageless transport for the lowest possible price with the minimum acceptable performance and specification. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why marked for speedy image deletion?
Why was the picture of Nano marked for speedy (less than 7 day) deletion? It seems to be of substantial interest and relevance.Plskmn (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the the policy on non-free content, section 1. The image should be deleted because it can be easily replaced with a freely-licensed version.  This has nothing to do with whether or not the image is relevant.  &mdash;dgies tc 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
The first paragraph gives the milage at 62 mpg highway, 52 mpg city. The specs below list it at 47 mpg. Also, the ground clearance is 7.1 inch?? I find that hard to believe, that would be decent clearance for a 4x4. --Karuna8 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very believable, I've seen sports cars with factory ground clearance of close to 6"; I wouldn't want to try taking a 4x4 with only 7.1" very far offroad... 203.132.65.42 (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that this car is intended to be used in heavily damaged roads, where a good ground clearance is useful. Other low cost cars like the Logan and Palio also have more ground clearance than regular European and North American cars. -- NaBUru38 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe even my relatively low slung (as in, enough to cause grounding problems on high kerbs, though still not really "sporty" or purposefully dropped from stock - merely a typically 90s euro low-body) Vauxhall Astra offers at least that much. The chassis line runs slightly below the centre line of the wheels (in my case, 15 inches, plus at least another 2 inches for the tyres), so 7 inches isnt too big an ask, and I believe my old polo (on 13"s) rode slightly higher. The nano has eeny 12" wheels with not the highest profile tyres ever, and the chassis line is slightly above the centreline of the wheels. 7" is probably just about spot-on, and as much as you could get away with, without needing bigger wheels or some kind of trick unimog-style rear driveshafts. A 4x4 with the same or less? Was it some kind of abhorrent image-led crossover SUV garbage? Or a rally-derived model/marque like Subaru (maybe a Justy)? Certainly wouldn't have been a Land/Range Rover, or a LandCruiser/Hilux, which all have about a foot of clearance. Even a Vitara (Escudo) probably has more. Also the mileage discrepancy could be explained away by careless conversions into local units - it would probably make more sense to put it in terms of L/100km, or km/litre, as those are a/ universal, b/ typically more common in official measurements of economy, c/ might even be the local measurement (?). However having said that, 47mpg US only upconverts to 58.8mpg UK - maybe they were using the "combined cycle" (typical enough european style measurement, seeing as it has the euro NCAP rating and all...) instead of a seperate figure? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Disadvantages" section states "As it is made with the inexpensive parts, the car is not designed to be driven over 45mph as it quickly wear the wheel bearing out." None of the citations support this! Mohit kandhari (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and have removed that sentence. I then removed the whole section as it was also not supported, see below.-Wikianon (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

controversies
I felt that this section has got quite a bit of lime light as it has been cited in three different places, times of india, economic times and cnet news. Please feel free to edit it. Mugunth ( ping me!!!, contribs ) 04:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas on cost cutting design features and manufacturing practices to be deployed for Nano?
Rkhattar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Any ideas on cost cutting design features and manufacturing practices to be deployed for Nano?

NPOV
The history section of the car reads like a press release. "This changed when Tata decided that a contemporary car not unlike its costlier models could be made at a low cost" and "It also had to bring in innovative product design " have a great bias to them in favor of the car. This section needs to be fixed.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but between trying not to bring original research, and trying not to copy items off websites, some goofs occured. I would urge you to correct this section.-- PremKudva Talk  04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you going to do something about it? Or are you just leaving the NPOV label and moving on?-- PremKudva Talk  10:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job on the NPOV rewrite SilkTork-- PremKudva Talk  03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction neutrality
It seems that the car has only been "dubbed" "the people's car" in promotional material. Also, it's a promotional claim to say the car "is the most inexpensive car in the world." since it isn't for sale yet. Let's stay away from this kind of non-neutral hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Correcting Bodystyle...
The body is not a 5 door hatchback. U cannot open the "rear" of the car. It is just a four door supermini / kei car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.4.12 (talk • contribs) 00:13, February 4, 2008
 * Correct. The rear door is welded shut.-- PremKudva Talk  06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How odd. Must be an unobvious cost cutting measure, such as replacing it by a single sheet of (opening) glass in the Toyota/PSA B-Zero platform. Still, it makes it similar to the old 2CV, which IIRC wasn't actually a hatchback, just looked like one, and should improve the structural rigidity (originally lost by having 4 doors on such a small frame). I assume you get to whatever tiny storage space may be behind the rear seats by temporarily folding them down, the same as getting in the back seat of a 2-door? (A more obvious cost cutter would have been to make it 2- or 3-door, surely?). BTW I assume you really mean "it has no rear door", rather than saying it's welded shut? It would be strangest of all to engineer the car with a hatch, then specifically weld it to the rest of the frame... 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the reason its not a hatchback is because the engine is at the back.(86.31.188.11 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Nonsense. Have you seen the Mitsubishi "i", or indeed the Smart car? Don't confuse it with the large-capacity, stoneage lump you'd find in the back of a VW Beetle or the complex performance-oriented item in the back of a typical sportscar (particularly Porsches), or even the otherwise comparable power unit of a Fiat 500. Modern citycar engines are incredibly compact, motorcycle-engine sized items that comfortably take up the position that a larger-diameter spare wheel otherwise would have (a Nano's tiny spare could easily fit somewhere else instead), maybe shifting the fuel tank forwards a little too, and still leave a nice flat and fairly low-floored cargo area. Both the "i" and the Smart manage it, there's no reason to believe the Nano can't either, particularly as they are respectively 4- and 3-cylinder engines, and the Nano only has 2 (which will make it a bit "fatter", thanks to the larger bores, but much shorter). Still, I could be wrong. Maybe there IS no storage area behind the rear seats, and there's instead a Beetle-style one where the engine would be on a more "traditional" layout car... There is that odd choice of making it an i2 rather than a boxer twin, after all, which could affect how it's packaged. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The seats apear to be very far back so the engine presumably sits in the angled space behind. Having not explored a nano myself I can't say for certain but it appears to just have a small parcel shelf of space behind the rear seats and the only picture I can find with the bonnet (http://motorbeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tata-nano-launch.jpg) up apears to show just the spare wheel in there and some electricals (though I can't see the battery). they could have fitted opening glass like on a hillman imp but I get the impression there is little space there, lining the area under the bonnet would make more sense.(Morcus (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * This Autocar video blog has Steve Cropley indicating the engine is under the back seat, at one minute 25 seconds in. It's hard to tell, it looks like the engine is fully under the seat floor panel, ie very low. The video at 2 minutes shows the rear seats normally and then folded forward to expose the small, low-floored, angled luggage space, but no engine is visible there. 84user (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tara Tiny not needed
Why are some people including info about some Tara Tiny cars? This article is only about nano. Moreover the Tara car isn't even released yet and is only speculated. --218.208.246.156 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This could go either way. Newsweek has an article this week Small. It's the New Big about the automotive world moving toward small cars. The Tata is mentioned as a part of a large trend affecting the future of the largest auto companies in the world.  This info could certainly "frame" the Nano introduction and give an important context to the article's intro.


 * But the Tara is even more conjecture at this point than the Nano, and wouldn't be the best supporting example, if there were to be a supporting example, in the intro. 842U (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tara Tiny is priced as Rs 99,000/-. So either remove the tag of world's cheapest car or add the price of Tara Tiny. Wikion (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just did :) Wikion (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tara Tiny doesn't compare with this Nano because it is an electric car. The Nano is still the cheapest internal combustion gasoline car in the world. S3000  ☎  11:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even more so than that, it's only got 4 horsepower and a top speed of 30mph. Compared to even the nano (or an auto-rickshaw, or the reva/g-wiz, or the very first citroen 2cv), it's a joke car. The performance is so lacking as to be impractical in all but the least demanding situations. Certainly it would be rubbish in a typical european city and I can't imagine it cutting much mustard in the insane cut and thrust of an indian one. Whereas the Nano should be able to hold its own quite happily in the same circumstances. Whereas an electric car along the lines of, say, a 4-seater modification of the Th!nk City would have Nano-level performance and actually be a rival... if it were about 1/10th the current price! 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section-
A large part of the controversy section, if not all, seems to be reproduced on the pro-nano website http://www.tata-nano.info. Who wrote which first? The quotes from the German Tageszeitung newspaper are also not representative of the article in which the Nano was discussed. I suppose someone is betting that few people who read this section can speak German. Nina 137.111.47.29 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

engine capacity
engine bhp is only 33 bhp why dont you increase bhp for 624cc engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.31.59 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Please explain. Do you mean in the article (which would likely make it inaccurate) or that the manufacturer should increase it (their choice?). I think 53hp/litre is perfectly respectable for something that's also quite economical but made with explicitly cheap-as-possible technology, don't you? My old 1.1 litre VW only chucked out 45hp all told, and it was using a much more expensively produced, heavy, 4-cylinder motor. Older 600-ish cc designs from e.g. Fiat, Citroen only made 22~30 hp themselves. Smart (ie Mercedes), and various Japanese manufacturers are a different story, squeezing out 40-66hp from a 660cc lump, but they're more motorcycle-derived designs meant more for outright performance, high revs, very exacting manufacturing tolerances and something of a well-maintained yet short service life. Tata I would reckon are after something moderately strong, but long lasting, dependable and undemanding. It's not really going to be overworked in its current form anyway - it's more of a city and country-road car than a long distance motorway cruiser, and between the insane congestion of an Indian city, low speed limits, and the poor state of a typical non-motorway country road (even a long distance one), 75mph and opportunities to use the full extent of it's acceleration (which will be modest but still respectable, as it's a lightweight and probably low-geared car) will both be distant dreams. Think of it more as a 2CV motor perhaps. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Can we keep the introduction as just that, an introduction, and move the specific discussions about the car to the appropriate article sections? 842U (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent reorganization
Why all the subcategories... with so LITTLE in each subcategory, they don't need to exist.842U (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: the blatant use of quotations from various sources, without vetting those quotes to see whether they actually belong in the article is gratitous. 842U (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-quest for Re-consideration: Although I appreciate your concern, yet the article doesn't need deletion of info. or quotes; it just needs rewriting them in our own words, especially the sections about the electric-version and compressed-air engine — innovations that Tata is considering (well-referenced) and which are making headlines all over. Moreover, the rear-mounted engine should be under technical-specifications, not as a separate section. Thus, I'd sincerely appreciate if you devote some more time towards the rewriting of those sections, rather than simply deleting them because that's simply over-simplification and under-information for Wikipedia users. As such, I've reverted the article back to the original-version. If you need any help in the rewording, please write here for help by me as well as other users, including which particular section/quote you need help in. I hope you'll understand and support well. Thanks.--Pubserv (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pubserv. The article needs serious rewriting and time, and not merely deletion of quotes because that would amount to hiding latest information from Wikipedians whereas Wikipedia is a "free encyclopaedia". If you're concerned, kindly devote some more time towards re-writing the article rather than deleting. Also: some sub-categories need to remain for easy navigation through index throughout the article, though not all are needed. Regards --Contribut (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For initiation and your help, I've removed some quotes and reworded some sections. Please keep up the good work. Regards--Contribut (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work everybody. There seems to be a concerted effort to "glamorize" the article -- I just removed a small graphic banner from the Singur section. This isn't a blog and it is not a news site. It's a reference article.842U (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear 842U: Kindly help improve the article rather than simply commenting. It's very easy to comment rather than to do actual work (not talking about you here, just a general saying). Regards--Contribut (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is important to discuss problems with the article and resolve them, rather than simply establishing dominance in an editing war. The article as revised has serious problems in that it now has had a host of quotations "dumped" into the article, without giving the quotations context.  Please see Recentism. Just because you feel the quotations are pertinant does not make them pertiant.  Please work to establish a consensus rather than simply inviting others to challenge you in an potential edit war.  842U (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The article nolonger has an introduction. 842U (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fork the article.
With Tata Motors moving out of Singur after 2 years at the site, it is time to move the Singur Section to its own page. "Singur Controversy"

Anmol.2k4 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Corporate rivalry
Is this section necessary? I added two references for the quote by Rahul bajaj. but is there any prominent source also suggesting the same? I think there was a quote by Mr Tata about the same. Otherwise this sounds like original research! Trakesht (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Article out of control?
The article seems to have lost control of itself... a section called "Benevolent opportunities for local-entrepreneurs?"

What is going on with this article? 842U (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Mini
"The use of a rear mounted engine to help maximise interior space makes the Nano similar to the original British Mini, another technically innovative 'people's car'." The Mini was front engine. A better comparison would be to the Volkswagen Type 1 (Beetle), would it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.82.50 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting the engine near the drive wheels saves space, whether this is front or rear. Friday (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its still misleading. The Fiat 500 would be a better comparison, as it was a small, similarly innovatively packaged, 4-seat RR mini car. The BMC Mini's main innovations were the ergonomic packaging of the interior space, hydrolastic suspension (great space-saver), and using a transverse engine with in-sump gearbox (another ingenious saving, and half "era spawning" (transverse), half "hardly ever used anywhere else as it was unreliable, a pain to maintain, and quickly outdated by modern FF transaxles" (the gearbox)). *goes off to see if this has actually been corrected in the article as it's been so long since i was on the main page*
 * (Nevermind, it's been changed by someone else :) 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I drive a Mini.... no way is there any comparison to fine German engineering. Mini Fit and finish is outstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.248.16 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini's aren't German, you probably drive a MINI which is a completely different car to the one being discussed in this section and a car which has little or no technical advances. the mini had alsorts of space saving new technology which is what was being compared, please read things before making stupid coments in future.(82.3.40.49 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Logistics of American Ownership- or New hippie bug?
I think when people hear of a $2,500 car in the U.S. ,and/or are poor - they would like to know about import/servicing in the U.S.A. Maybe just a link to import costs into America of foreign cars/goods for individuals- if this page exists? haven't looked yet. And...Can you "Bradley GT" it? i.e. put a new body frame on it easily? This would be a nostalgia humorous note for Americans. 4.153.8.122 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) oh yes and is saying you're going to ""Bradley GT" it" the same as saying you are going to "Xerox" it when you mean "Photocopy"...i.e. are you required by law to say ""I'm going to "RB -replacement body- that thing" if i just had the new Saudi "Septahex" tools." I made up the Saudi tools reference. I am now announcing a copyright/trademark for the term "ReBox", the announcement is in the commons of course. As well as some of my dashing wordplay. Announcement is innocent of prior announcements as my memory is not so good. A.W.L. I just realized ...I am quite a Balderdashing fellow!


 * What in all the hell are you two talking about? Have you gone loopy? Could you try english next time? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what would have to be added/changed to meet USA safety standards? Roll bar, braking system, bumpers, emission control? Not much help from the press release info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.248.16 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know any of the specifics but I'd guess it would likely cost more like $10-15k with all the importing and other stuff than the $2500 it costs in india. You first have to buy a car then pay to ship it then you have to pay various taxes and registration fees, then to comply with Americas weird car laws you'd have to remove alot of parts and replace them with custom one off parts, in the process invalidating any warranties. I work with someone who imported a cadillac from Dubia and it cost him £7000 (not counting the cost of the car) for a car that needed very few modifications, so the cost to do a car that requires more modification into a country with tighter laws in this area and a car that will require custom parts (all the mod parts for his caddy were of the shelf parts for UK spec cars). it would only be worth doing if you were a proper importer and brought in hundreds or if Tata built one that was compliant to US law. Spend $4000 on a used car and make a saving.(82.3.40.49 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)) Also India drives on the left so it would most likely be RHD, which is aukward in a daily driver.(86.25.248.224 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Performance Stats
Does it really do 0 to 70km/h in 4 sec??

From 0-100km/h, it takes 21 sec!!


 * It must be 14 seconds. Its physically impossible give the power of the engine and its weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite impressed by it taking only (!) 21 seconds to 100kmh... my last car was a "real" early 90s euro hatchback and it did the 0-100 run in 19.5 seconds, which isn't a huge improvement. On that basis, as the nano's already running out of puff at that point (with the claimed 105kmh top speed), the performance lower down the speed range might actually be comparable or better to the old lump. So, though I have nothing to compare the 0-70 time with (since when did that become a standard performance test? I've even seen 0-80 and 0-50 more often than that), 14 seconds is probably quite acceptable for a 4-seat city car with such a dinky engine. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Its RWD??
 * Yes, rear engined RWD 203.132.65.42 (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to know how it can develop 33bhp but only reach 65mph (105km/h) with those slick-looking lines. For a comparitive example, a 34bhp Fiat Panda from the 80s, shaped like a couple of boxes glued together, can reach about 78mph (125km/h). Surely the Tata should be competitive with that? I know it has a 4-speed box, but so did the Panda, and it's not necessarily a sign that it's under-driven (4th gear was mild overdrive on my old 4sp, 45hp VW). It would have to be massively under or overdriven to lose 20kmh, so is it electronically limited or something? 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RIGHT. I think we are going to HAVE to sort out some kind of official figures for this somehow, and soon, so it can be properly encyclopaedic. I have seen at least three different claims for this vehicle's top speed, its economy, etc so far. The BBC reports 70km/h (!... I think they misread something?) which is plainly silly, the old version of this page and some other online reports 105km/h, and the current page 120km/h. The latter I am most inclined to believe, as it is a good match for the engine power, the car's shape and it's likely city-and-hillclimb-friendly (slight underdrive) gearing, and makes it enough of a "real car" without necessarily demanding massive improvements in crash safety, brakes and suspension... (basically it, along with various other specs and features, makes it a latter day 2CV, which is a neat enough fact) --- but the other reports do throw it into question. Also the accuracy of the acceleration figures (wierd target speeds, makes it difficult to compare with others) and economy (no real indication given of how they're calculated, what standard they're running to - the highway test, is that a particular constant speed (which?), or a series of highway-style exercises? similarly the in-town and "mix" ones?). And .... there doesn't seem to be any info on its actual weight! This would both be a handy thing to sanity-check the other numbers against, interesting to know if it's particularly light, and show how successful Ratan and his merry team of designers and bean-counters have been in their quest to "simplify, lighten and economise" the car. Gah... (I mean, I'm currently looking at it as a "good enough" little runabout, especially as it's a new car for the price you'd normally pay for something almost-the-same (just with a *little* more power and a *little* more luggage space - not necessarily higher spec!) that's 5+ years old ... but who knows if that's all based on misinformation?) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety
one of the great critisms of the previous indian cars - G-wiz and the Cityrover for example - has been poor safety features, of which this article has no mention. Do we have an NCAP rating or similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthulhu Dreams (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As Mr. Ratan Tata have said in presentation, this car have already passed Euro 4 and Euro NCAP (front impact, offset front impact and side impact).


 * Please explain how it is possible to pass NCAP test without Airbags? And if the car would have passed the NCAP test, why isn't it listed on the NCAP site? And since when does EuroNCAP keep itself busy whit cars that don't enter the European market? --Snelleeddy (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this car is scheduled to enter the European market sometime in late 2009. 2008 will be spent in ramping up the production facilities and setting up the supply chain. About the airbags I am not sure. Doesn't take much to put in airbags though: only impact sensing electronics and a CO2 fired bag in the steering. Correct me if I am wrong. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As airbags were introduced to prevent facial injury to dumbasses (mainly, it must sadly be noted, americans) who didn't wear their seatbelts even where it's a legal requirement, you can get away with not including them if your belts are strong enough and you have a relatively small but chunky and soft steering wheel. In fact a poor combination of belt and bag can even be dangerous. They're not the uber panacea for crash protection many people think. Good design is more the key. I'm personally incredibly impressed they could get any NCAP rating given the the car looks to have no crumple zones at all - it's got less of a nose than the Smart, and only marginally more than my dad's old Hijet van (where your toes kick against the radiator as you drive along). A lot of simulator time and in-house crash tests must have gone into shaping and strengthening it just-so (like the Smart, whose passenger cage is apparently strong enough to offer good survivability even in a 70mph smash), then finding ways to maintain this passenger cell rigidity and energy absorbption in a cost-effective way ... though Tata's already massive manufacturing base probably helped spread out some of the development costs and offered ways to cut the precision-production costs.


 * BTW that's only a "pass", as in it was cleared for sale in those areas. It's not an indication that it got a high safety rating, any more than "one star", just it reached the bare minimum currently considered acceptable. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree. One of the greatest criticims of the Nano might turn out to be safety. Indeed, in my country (Paraguay) people praise the Maruti 800 sold here for being economical to run but critizes it for being just marginally safer than a motorcycle. Aldo L (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

compressed air engine
Is this even worth mentioning so much? It may be an idea to drop the "environmentally friendly" kiss-up for now anyway, as compressing air isn't exactly the fastest or least energy-intensive/wasteful process in the world itself (needs some kind of motor to be running already in the compressor and generates a LOT of heat and noise ... and that's if you're just filling up some 12-litre dive tanks that hold about as much stored energy as you'd get in a coke can of gasoline). It appears for all intents and purposes as the ultimate in vapourwear, the same as flying cars and fusion power. People keep talking the talk and it's a hot idea to buddy up to if you're trying to appear environmentally friendly ("all that comes out of the tailpipe is chilled air!"), but it's both as environmentally friendly as running an electric car purely off coal- or oil-generated current (while disabling the regenerative braking, and employing a secondary motor to make some decorative helicopter blades spin around on the roof to symbolise the energy lost in the intermediate compression stage), as practical as a lead balloon (you need 300 litres of airtank at 300 bar to equal 1.7 litres of gasoline, allegedly? Have you any idea how heavy that tank will have to be? Or even how much what is effectively 90000 litres of uncompressed air ITSELF weighs?* The amount of lead-acid batteries to achieve similar in a battery electric, never mind lithium-ion-polymer, will be less) and as likely to make market even with Tata behind it as the Moller Aircar... powered by a Mr Fusion. Seen a compressed-air car on the road yet despite apparently 50 years of development and hype? You've got a reasonable chance of seeing a battery-electric or hydrogen-cell one, however. Gaaaah. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(* answer: 108kg. ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT KILOGRAMMES for the equivalent of less than 2 kilos of fuel (sorry ... maybe 8 kilos ... I can't actually remember if it was 1.7 litres or 1.7 gallons ... it's piffling, either way - I use almost a gallon just getting to and from work each day), and that's not including the wrapping. The tesla's batteries apparently weigh about 400 IIRC, for a ~2 gallon equivalent? It probably works out about the same all-in. Compressed air tanks are HEAVY. If you're lucky, then this just about breaks even when you consider removing the engine, gearbox etc. If not, it'll be like carrying at least an extra passenger everywhere.)

What does this mean?
There's a section called "Benevolent opportunities for local-entrepreneurs". I'm not Indian, so am reluctant to edit something that might make perfect sense in Indian English, but to my British eyes it looks like an advertising slogan, not an encyclopedia heading. 86.163.217.5 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Didn't get it!
Just curious at what temperature range this car can run? I mean i don't think you will be able to start the engine somewhere in Siberia. Is it like only for India climate where you don't need to use heating/air conditioning or you can use it somewhere else? If yes then where? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.181.15 (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wellll... India does have cold mountain areas and different seasons including monsoons. I doubt they'll have engineered it only to run in warm-hot summers with moderate to low humidity. Once running a petrol motor works better with low air temperatures anyway, so as long as it's moisture insulation and cold-start systems are up to snuff, and you have a suitable grade of coolant/oil in it, there's no reason it shouldn't run perfectly fine in, say, a Scottish or Danish winter. Not sure what you mean about not needing to use the heating or aircon though - the higher spec version is going to be pretty much the smallest and cheapest car in the world to have aircon, and though I've never been to Delhi, it sure looks like that'd be a very popular option there.... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok to be more specific, will it start at -38 C? I guess we should just wait and see the exact characteristics. I think they'll be producing it in different versions for different regions and the price will be higher for more severe climate zones. We'll see.


 * I used to drive an 87 Chevy Sprint, which doesn't have a much larger engine. I drove it up in northern Minnesota a lot during some awfully cold winters, and it started up just fine.--RLent (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

cost savings section
Section says boot doesn't open....that's cause it's a rear engine... the 'boot' as you people call it......is in the front... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True, there is no opening boot, but not because of the engine. The "boot" storage space is still there, behind the rear seats. See Talk:Tata Nano and this [[Autocar] video blog] for more information. The front has the spare tyre and other equipment. 84user (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tata using Wikipedia for advertising?
This article stinks of Tata corporate public relations contributions. It reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopaedia entry.

63.169.191.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

I have to agree; this article sounds like a US manufacturers puff piece. Solid REPORTING is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.7.194 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wholly agree. It doesn't look like scientific article at any rate Bestsss (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Singur factory saga
The whole Singur factory saga has very little to do with the Tata Nano as an automobile -- it should probably be merged with the stuff in Singur and shunted out into a separate article (Tata Singur factory controversy or something). I've also toned down coverage of it in the "Overview" section. Jpatokal (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had condensed the article, because earlier that section had approximately 1500 words in a 6000 word article. while the relocation is indeed important, I also suggest that a summary is given in the main page and a separate article maintained for the singur controversy. Also the earlier article was mostly a haphazard collection of quotes and news in no particular order, with multiple issues. However my change has been reverted back by Joshua Issac :-)   trakesht (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted it because I saw that two sources had been removed. Please put them back in. I have restored your version. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
Numbers are written in the format ...XX,XX,XX,XXX in the Indian numeral system, not ...XXX,XXX,XXX. E.g. 1,00,000 instead of 100,000. Shouldn't the numbers in the article be changes to the ...XX,XX,XXX format?Joshua Issac (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should-- PremKudva Talk  04:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

um, now that the numbers are changed, they look very odd to the rest of the planet ! Why would one do this? the groupings with three orders of magnitude correspond to words in western languages (thousands, millions, billions, trillions) It's very idiosyncratic... but i guess its harmless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.174.159 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how they write the numbers in their culture but I do know that on the website price list they write the numbers 100,000 rather than 1,00,000. http://tatanano.inservices.tatamotors.com/tatamotors/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanna1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The XX,XX,XXX format corresponds to thousands, lakhs, crores, etc.. This system has been in use for thousands of years. Per National varieties of English, the numbers should be in this format as the subject has strong ties with India. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving readers and editors in the dark in the article is not a good solution. The hidden edit text threatening editors planning to change the number format is not appropriate either. I have added a disambiguation header which should solve the problem:




 * DMahalko (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tata Nano derives from..
The first part of the article shows that The Nano's formal name derives from the extremely small unit of measure, the nanometre. From what I've read, the name derives from Nano (Nanu) in Gujarati, which means small. Gujarati is the native language of Ratan Tata. S3000 ☎  05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In actuality, none of the references so far cited actually attribute the name of the car to anything specific. So the best it can be said is that Nano may derive from "nanometre" or the Gujarati for "small." Would you like to edit the article accordingly? 842U (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thats how I put it earlier, i.e. As it so happens, nano also means small in Gujarati, the native language of the Tatas. I never specified that the name of the car is directly attributed to it. It just coincides; being small in both Greek and Gujarati. By the way lets just continue this discussion here so others can chip in with their opinions. S3000  ☎  16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be so hard to credit the clever folks who came up with the idea of the nano and all the smart stuff required to make it work at that price, with the requisite small amount of smarts to a/ speak gujarati (possibly as a first language), b/ have enough of a scientific education to come across the use of "nano" as a diminutive term, c/ spot the faintly amusing coincidence between the two and go "aha! a perfect name!" (... in gujarati) ??? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gujarati origin sentence smacks of original research. There is nothing in the cited article that says this is relevant to the origin of the name. Infact even the fact that it derives from the Greek nano is dubious. --ti 04:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It origin could be Gujarati, so you cannot say the the name being derived from Greek is a fact. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be a possibility if Ratan Tata had not said that he named the car Nano because of its small size and its advanced technological status. So the Gujarati origin cannot be taken into account. Avs_Dps 09:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs dps (talk • contribs)


 * Same applies to the Greek origin. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Transmission (Variomatic or Standard)?
From what I've read in other sources, as in here and here, the nano comes with a variomatic transmission. The article however shows it would be available with a 4-speed standard transmission. Which is correct? S3000 ☎  05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a choice? Maybe an oldskool (but simple, lightweight, and entirely appropriate) manual 4-speed, and an optional 3/4sp or CVT automatic, making it technically similar (if worlds apart) to the Mitsubishi "i". 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

its made by Sandeep Birajdar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.66.178 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, he's going to be a very busy man if it sells in anything like the numbers Tata expect... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian English
Article currently contains the sentence:
 * The new Nano Plant could have randeep a capacity of 5,00,000 units, compared to 3,00,000 for Singur. Gujarat has also agreed to match all the incentives offered by West Bengal government.

Writing numbers as "5,00,000" or "3,00,000", is perfectly correct Indian English, but unusual for British English or American English or so on. As an Australian English speaker, I feel awfully tempted to change that to "500,000" and "300,000". Now, WP:ENGVAR suggests that "The English Wikipedia has no preference for any major national variety of the language." and "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.". Applying those principles, should we conclude that this article, being about an Indian motor vehicle, ought to be written in Indian English, and that therefore it should indeed read "3,00,000" rather than "300,000"??? --SJK (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As far as the article concerns Indian entity, or object or person, it should use India English and Indian numerals. Example are lengths of roads in India, et all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked here how best to display numbers at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. 84user (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I Have replied there. I see no reason to wait for a broad concensus, as people have been doing that to revert to the american number system, at the same time, WP:ENGVAR gives a reason for the figures to be in Indian format, and ......

Q: This article pertains to a car made by a company of ___ origin...

A: INDIAN.

Q: The car's primary market is.....

A: INDIA

What more do you want me to tell you?

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While I kind of agree with the above arguments I had a look at the Indian press and two out of three papers I looked at used the western convention (300,000 rather than 3,00,000). I think if the Indian press do this Wikipedia should too as it should try to be comprehensible to most of its readers.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/%5Cwillnano-change-indias-auto-industry%5C/352825/

http://www.hinduonnet.com/holnus/006200903240331.htm

Tim333 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be more appropriate if it linked to Indian numbering system --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Indian press uses 1,00,000 instead of 100,000 as the former is used by the government as well as the people. The press uses it as the target is Indians not Americans. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (dupe of comment from above "Talk:Tata_Nano" section.)


 * Leaving readers and editors in the dark in the article is not a good solution. The hidden edit text threatening editors planning to change the number format is not appropriate either. I have added a disambiguation header which should solve the problem:




 * DMahalko (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done (~ R Srikanth).--Joshua Issac (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence: "Coincidentally, it also means 'small' in Gujarati, the location of the factory" doesn't make sense. Gujarati is a language; the area where the factory (place) is located in Gujarat. It's not correct and be equivalent to: "...in French, the location of the factory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.29 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Number formatting
This issue has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. The style in which large numbers are displayed is discussed in WP:MOSNUM, which clearly states that digits should be grouped in threes. This also makes it unnecessary to explain the Indian convention to readers unfamiliar with it. On a side note, I found the comment in the wikitext at the head of the article bizarre. The convention of placing commas every two places cannot predate the current place-value base-10 numeration system. Spacepotato (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I would suggest keeping both, eg. 1,000,000 (10,00,000). Just as an Australian or an American mentally tries to convert a lakh into hundred thousands while reading, an Indian is doing the other way round. Keeping both would increase readability, which should be the goal. Just as articles have miles and km in brackets.--Srath12345 (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has no one added in the wheel bearings issue?
The wheel bearings in the nano will quickly wear out if the car is driven above 60 kilometres per hour. Also, the wheel bearings are engineered to withstand speeds of only up to 72 km/h. This is a serious design issue that will obviously cause problems for nano owners.

http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C5B4916B6BE34AE9B2564F2211C74BF0

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.22.208 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia, “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. That means you.  Feel free to add this information (and appropriate references) to the article.  DES (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Emissions
Does anyone have emission numbers for the Nano—specifically, grams of CO2 per kilometer in mixed driving conditions? My back-of-the-envelope calculations give 92.6 g·km-1, based on certain assumptions and approximations (specific density of gasoline: 720 g·kg-1; composition equivalent to octane; molecular weight of carbon atoms in gasoline: 12 g·mol-1; molecular weight of oxygen atoms in gasoline: 16 g·mol-1; average fuel consumption 24 l·km-1). CO2 emissions affect import duties on motor vehicles in some European countries. DES (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Top Speed Required
Someone please add info on cruising and top speeds. Markus451 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Some mention of the marginal benefits of airbags and ABS
The Nano's selection of safety features shouldn't be presented as blind and dangerous cost-cutting. In fairness to Tata, is should be mentioned that airbags are of only marginal benefit over seatbelts, and their added cost isn't entirely justified. Steven Levitt (the Freakonomics guy) did a paper in 2001 called "Sample Selection in the Estimation of Air Bag and Seat Belt Effectiveness," teasing out the relative effectiveness of airbags over seatbelts more realistically than the earlier pro-airbag analyses. He concludes that seatbelts are about 67% effective in saving lives in frontal crashes and that airbags are only 15% effective in frontal crashes. (This is the best-case comparison for airbags, since only front airbags were widely available in the year he considered, 1997.) In terms of the costs of lives saved in the U.S., a life saved by a seatbelt cost the car-buying public $30,000 vs. $1.8 million for a life saved by an airbag. ($1.8 million was a conservative estimate, since he used a figure of only $200 per car as the added cost of airbags.) The benefits of ABS are even more marginal, especially for competent drivers, and in some cases, lengthen stopping distances. (See the Wikipedia article, but the limitations of ABS are quite well known anyway.) Safety legislation involves politics, and a failure to meet all of the safety standards of a political entity doesn't necessarily mean that a vehicle is substantially unsafe. Bo8ob (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing used in last paragraph
"dropped by 20% and used models by 30% immediately prior to the Nano's introduction"

Prior means before. Shouldn't the correct phrasing be "following Nano's introduction" instead? It doesn't make sense that the sales dropped before Nano's introduction. If it did, then it has no business in this part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.225 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The small engine is in the back under the trunk.... pretty much like the BMW issetta from the 50's the radiator is also there under.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.206.39 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On Board Diagnostics ( OBD) port
Where is the OBD port on the Tata Nano located? Pictures would be welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.249.32 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speculation
There's a fair bit of speculation in this article. Even though it is sourced I'm inclined to say it is non encyclopedic and should be removed. Greglocock (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Stigmatized?
The Nano has been stigmatized as the "poor man's car." Perhaps a discussion about that sobriquet should be incorporated into the article. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

reception part of the article
It says that the car was not well received because Nano seats less than a motorcycle!!! This car seats 4 people and a motorcycle can only seat 2. I propose to make changes to that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.147.174 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Price conversion
It seems quite misleading that original 100000 INR price is converted to $1500 USD. Not only has the price in INR increased since the debut, the exchange rate of USD and INR have changed considerably. Was the car ever sold for $1500 USD? Actually the conversion is not even accurate, 100000 rupees is currently, per Google, $1627.90 USD. Dforest (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So change it. Or don't. Or explain that that was the original price, which is probably the most elegant solution. If anyone cares. Greglocock (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree
Completely agree here that the price mentioned is, firstly outdated (which TATA too acknowledges on their website at http://www.tatanano.com/faqs-pricing.html) and with the conversion rate of USD to INR changing on a daily (if not hourly basis), it would make more sense to define a range rather than an exact amount.

Moreover, with TATA now focusing more on their expensive variants of Nano, calling it the cheapest car too would be misleading. Gaurav.jhala88 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

recent whitewashing
Please discuss the disputed claims here. The section on zero stars NCAP (for example) is entirely supported by the reference given. "Tata claimed to be confident of a four-star rating in the Global New Car Assessment Programme (Ncap).But the results of the Ncap test, conducted last month at ADAC, the German equivalent of the AAA, in Landsberg, Bavaria, raised serious questions about the risks posed by Tata's so-called frugal engineering approach to car safety. The Tata Nano received a zero-star adult protection rating and failed to meet even the most basic UN safety requirements."

Equally it is common knowledge in the industry that Indian consumers are buying secondhand upmarket cars rather than nanos, because of image. Buying a a Nano says that you can only afford the cheapest car.

This makes me doubt the good faith of the deletion. Greglocock (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

COPYVIOL
this part is a COPYVIOL

“The Nano’s death was confirmed by production numbers: Tata Motors Ltd. produced 1 unit in June 2018, down from 275 in the same month 2017. Exports were zero in June 2018, versus 25 in June 2017. The company acknowledged that the car in its “present form cannot continue beyond 2019.” “ delete from text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.122.79 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)