The Tata Nano. Cost £1800 or around $2700 brand new (about 1/3 the cost of a Fiat Panda or Fiat 500 )and gets around 50mpg. Strickly urban driving though, well in the UK that is.

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

I'd drive that in a city.

Seems kind of pointless, I could carry more on a bicycle.

At that price it might be worthwhile just for commuting within an urban area.

My guess is the price would double or triple by the time it was ready for the US market though.

The way people drive? No way.

I've been in two collisions that totaled the car. Not insurance company "totaled out the car". The car was truly destroyed, both times. I and my passenger escaped serious injury in one, and and the driver and I literally escaped instant death in the other, solely due to their construction.

No matter how good a driver you are, other people's actions make it impossible for you to avoid a collision. I want some armor around me if it ever happens again, and that thing looks about as strong as a soda can. An empty soda can.

The Tata Nano has apparently passed the current European front and side impact standard crash tests at the MIRA test facility.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/241500/

But you are right I wouldn't want to take the Nano out myself on the motorway, but would be purely for urban driving where speeds are less than 45mph. The Nano is really just a modern incarnation of a vehicle such as the classic Citroen 2CV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvJp1X3qiog

The communists built some pretty tough automobiles, they just didn't go to well or stop to well (or steer to well).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLW4tVGgz9o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SBavZ9YVc

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news...-austerity.html

If EVERYBODY were driving one of these or a scooter, then heck yeah I'd get one.

However, a motorcycle seems safer than this thing. It's basically a go-cart with shelter to keep the rain off. For safety, I'd be better off riding a decent motorcycle, which would give me more control.

More importantly, I can get laid riding a motorcycle. This thing communicates to everybody that I'd rather not get laid.



No disrespect to you personally, the thing is basically a go-cart, and at $2700 I wouldn't expect much more. I don't buy that test. I doubt this thing is an exception to the laws of Physics. I don't want to be the first injured person to hear about how there were 200 exceptions to that test. For example, "The publicly available fine print clearly states that the test crashes were performed with cars of the same weight," or some other nonsense like that.

I just hope no one who says they wouldn't risk death in this rides a motorcycle...

Better yet, I hope no one who says they wouldn't risk death in a motorcycle rides this go-cart. At least motorcyclists in California are required to wear a helmet. Many riders go further with padded leather and spine protection.

A driver of this go-cart would be delusional and driving around with shorts, flip-flops and a tank top. Seriously, the thing would be a health hazard in California. I have had the opportunity to buy a Smart Car. However, I have not heard a believable argument of how a Smart Car without a helmet is safer than a motorcycle with a helmet. So, I'm getting my motorcycle license soon.

Yes it does look somewhat like a Suppository. Weird but Tata also now owns Jaguar who once made the Shaguar.

See this article for photographs of a Smart Car that a friend of mine was driving when he was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle. The roof was removed by firefighters during my friend's extrication from the Smart Car, prior to his helicopter evacuation to a trauma center.

LI Herald: Crash at Atlantic Beach Bridge

I know the folks who responded to this accident, and they tell me they were amazed at how well the little car protected its occupant. I submit that had he been riding a motorcycle, he would have been in MUCH worse shape.

(I have nothing against motorcycles - indeed I enjoy riding them. Nor will I speculate as to whether he could have avoided the accident in a more maneuverable vehicle - though I doubt it.)

I hear you. That's your experience and knowledge. In my experience, I'm personally aware of cases with dire outcomes in Smart Cars, where there likely would have been minor injuries in regular sized cars.

I think it's six of this or half a dozen of the other, when we're comparing safety of this thing and safety of a motorcycle. If I want a reasonable amount of safety, I'm not going to be delusional and think that this go-cart will protect me. The same goes with a motorcycle. However, a motorcycle is at least fun and sexy.

If you want REALLY cheap transport, a bicycle with a small two stroke engine bolted on (or maybe a tricycle or quadrocycle if you wanted to carry more stuff)would seem to be the best bet from what little I'm seen on the net.

I haev no science to back this up, and I really don't care who agres and who disagrees, but I'll take a ride in a smart car over a motocycle with a helmet any day of the week in terms of saftey.

The problem I have with all these car safety tests telling us how safe these vehicles are is that these tests are single vehicle into stationary barrier. The only energy the vehicle has to absorb is its own energy of motion. Which is fine if you screw up and hit something. However, if somebody in a normal sized vehicle hits you, now the vehicle has to absorb FAR more energy than it had to for the safety tests, and as we all know, the bigger car usually takes less damage. The reason I don't want a small vehicle is in case someone else hits me.

On another note, I don't ever see this thing getting over here with that kind of price tag, especially with the government owning GM.

Absolutely agree. I rode motorcycles for many years and IMO there's no way a motorcycle is safer, in any type of crash, than a smart car. Having said that, even though I'm not crazy about tiny cars, they are the future. That is, until SUV's with carbon fiber frames come out.

Sure, I'd drive that around town. And rent or borrow a car for long distance on the highways. Bikes and motorcycles are certainly less crash-worthy. If you get T-boned by a runaway truck loaded with bridge parts it doesn't matter what you drive. Relative weakness also means you're more aware of your vulnerability and you drive defensively, like they are out to get you.

I used to drive a tiny little car that of bought for $250. It was ugly as sin but that was something of an advantage. People in expensive cars, fearing the ugly might rub off, got out of my way.

As for the birth control aspect; it has to be noted that India, where they have a lot of these units, doesn't seem to have suffered hazardous levels depopulation, yet. And there are a lot of ladies out there who might think a Tata was 'cute'. Cute works for me. I'm getting to an age where an expensive car looks like either overcompensation or a midlife crisis.

I like small midlife crisis cars. Have even driven a lightweight street legal go cart. But i'm still not sure that i would drive a Nano. Might change my mind if it had a larger engine and fat tires though.

I am holding out for the Magnum Tatas. I heard that they excelled in the front end collision test.

I'll stick with my jeep. Problem is, I dont see these cars until they are part of my bumper. Which is, essentially, an I-beam.

I drive an Aveo, which is about as small and cheap as I want to get into. And I wouldn't have it if it weren't for the high gas prices of a couple of years ago that coincided with losing my long term employer. Now I have to do everything on the cheap. I put lots of freeway miles in driving a very small car.
Just like riding a motorcycle, you have to drive paranoid because a hummer would eat my car for lunch.

Did anyone else read this and instantly have to get their mind out of the gutter?

No I wouldn't drive it. Cute or not.

India... nothing I can say on the internet that won't sound jaded, racist, or elitist - sense of humor sure doesn't carry well. And I have nothing useful to say that isn't a joke.

Any estimate on the speeds involved in that collision?

I'm not familiar with that car but from that pic I'd say that was *very* close to unsurvivable - the crumple area is completely gone and everything significantly pushed back into the passenger area. I hope he can walk again.

Cars have made huge improvements in the last 25 years but crumple zones still need space to crumple into, space the passengers do not occupy. A motorcycle is basically a vehicle where your jacket is the crumple zone - uh oh.


It sure took a lot of damage aft of the firewall and in one pic partially collapsed on the front passenger. It may have passed but it's not impressive. To put it another way: if that's a pass, what does it take for a car in 2010 to fail?

From the side-impact pic it appears there is no intrusion protection in the door?

Rather than asking "would you drive one?" a more interesting question might be "would you buy one for your wife to drive the kids to school etc?"

I don't think I can even fit in that thing, and I'm not a particularly big guy either.

If I go with a small car it's either a mini cooper S or Mazdaspeed miata.

I rode in a Ferrari last week...that was dangerous.

Ha. Also - I ride ATVs, totally dangerous compared to a car, but, hey, we all take risks, right?