Tata Motors, a major automaker in India, recently announced
plans to bring its Nano mini-car to the United States within three
years. The Nano is smaller than a BMW Mini Cooper coupe but being
laid out as a four-door — with a short but very tall profile —
can realistically accommodate four adults, which cars like the
two-door, four seat Mini (and Fiat 500 and Scion iQ) can only do
unrealistically — and two seaters like the Smart car can’t do
under any circumstances.
The Nano would thus be the first micro-sedan sold in
the U.S. And thus, the first potentially family-viable/primary car
micro car sold in the U.S.
In India, the Nano sells new for the equivalent of $2,500 U.S.
dollars — a fraction of the cost of the least expensive new car
you can currently purchase in America, the Nissan Versa 1.6 sedan
— which lists for $10,990.
But, there’s a catch.
The Nano as currently constituted for sale in India will never
pass muster with Uncle — whose demands that new cars be
made “safe” (according to its Rube Goldberg definitions) as well as
“emissions-compliant” (even though the emissions output of any car
equipped with a catalytic converter and fuel injection system —
which means almost every vehicle built since the late 1980s,
including the Tata — is negligible) will make it impossible to get
the $2,500 Nano here.
Instead, we’ll get a Nano that’s priced closer to the Versa’s
$10k MSRP.
If we’re lucky.
Tata’s founder Ratan Tata told Automotive News as much,
hinting at a production car MSRP of around $8,000 or so.
Which is probably optimistic given not just Uncle but also
inflation. The purchasing power of Fed Funny Money is
depreciating at a rate of about 6 percent per annum, if you run the
numbers honestly (something neither the Fed nor Uncle ever does).
That means in three years’ time, a Nano that might sell for $8,000
in Fed Funny Money today will require at least $1,440 more (that’s
not compounded — and assumes inflation remains “stable” at 6
percent annually).
That puts us right close to $10k — before Tata tallies
the tab of complying with Uncle’s demands.
The Nano will probably require at least four air bags — and
probably six, given it is a very small car and therefore inherently
less crashworthy than a larger, more substantial car. (The Scion iQ
— reviewed by me here —
has no less than 11 air bags.) The car’s body itself will
likely have to be changed up in order to comply with the various
bumper impact, side impact and roof crush/rollover requirements set
forth by Uncle. Plus back-up cameras and probably auto-start, too.
All these things will make the U.S.-spec Nano heavier, less
efficient and more expensive. It will be nothing less than a
miracle if the car can even be made to comply with the sheaves of
ukases without Tata having to design and build an entirely new
car.
That goes for “emissions,” double-plus good.
I’ve written before about the diminishing returns on that front.
Most people outside the car business have no idea how little
progress has been made since the late 1980s — because most of the
progress was made around that time and since then, the automakers
have been chasing literally fractional decreases in tailpipe
emissions. When you hear or read about a proposed “10 percent”
reduction in the emissions output of new cars, you ought to read
the fine print — which of course is never published. The fine
print is that the reduction won’t be 10 percent of 100 percent.
It will be 10 percent of the 3-5 percent of the exhaust stream
that isn’t either carbon dioxide or water vapor. Everything
else has already been chemically scrubbed by the catalytic
converter. An ideal air-fuel ratio is perpetually maintained by a
modern car’s fuel injection system. Genuinely harmful pollutants —
the stuff that forms smog — are virtually nil. Have been nil for
decades.
But Uncle can’t admit this — because to do that would mean no
more justification for new ukases.
So, even if the Nano is — like any modern car fitted with a
catalytic converter, 02 sensor, and fuel injection — already 90-95
percent “clean” at the tailpipe, that will not be sufficient. It
will have to be 96-98 percent clean, as is required of current (and
soon to be here) cars — no matter the cost (to consumers).
Just the other day, I was over at my friend Graves’ place. He
has a ‘63 Buick Special sedan. In its day, this was a modestly
priced, middle-of-the-road car. But it had a V-8 engine and a
spacious, open-feeling cabin. And even though it only had a two
speed automatic, it still could return 20-something MPGs on the
highway — because it only weighed about 2,800 lbs (a current
mid-sized car typically weighs closer to 3,800 lbs.) And it only
weighed about 2,800 lbs. because it did not have to comply with the
“safety” ukases in effect today.
And it only cost $2,600 (base price) back in 1963
because it didn’t have to have air bags, or back-up cameras, or
auto-stop. $2,600 is equivalent, in today’s Fed Funny Money, to
about $19,662 (see here if you
don’t believe me). To put a finer point on it, back in ‘63, an
American could buy a V-8, rear-drive sedan for about the same money
you’d have to spend today to get into a decently equipped
four-cylinder powered FWD compact.
Because the Buick did not have “value added” by Uncle.
Just wait till he gets through with the Nano… or anyone else
who dares to produce a basic, affordable new car.
END
