Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Tata Nano, India's $2,500 Car
133 messages, Last post on Sep 08, 2009 at 8:20 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
2009 Tata Nano First Drive - First Impressions: Not ready for life in America, but a real car nonetheless.(more)
|
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 03, 2009 6:32 am) As far as comparisons with the Ford F150 pick-up is concerned, European crash tests show you are safer in a Tata Nano. The European version of the Ford F150, called the Ford Ranger got a 2 star EuroNCAP rating. A link to the crash test is shown below: 2008 Ford Ranger EuroNCAP crash test 2008 Ford Ranger recieves 2 Star EuroNCAP rating The US test is not much different: Ford F150 US Test The first stage of the Tata Nano the video crash tests which the Nano passed with flying colours were done at 35mph, for certification for sale in Europe. Nano initial crash test video Photos of the crashed vehicle show the passenger compartment intact, doors open, passengers protected, and even the windscreen is intact. Nano initial crash test photos The star rating tests for the EuroNCAP rating will be done at 40mph to assign a safety star rating. If the Nano gets a 4 star EuroNCAP rating, then it is safer than the Ford F150 at any speed. Lots of people in the US think driving around in a big truck or SUV is safer. That is not the case. SUVs in particular tend to provide poor passenger safety in crashes because they are based on a frame chassis and lack a monocque cage to protect the occupants, and the passenger compartment folds up as in the Ford F150/Ranger crash test, trapping or injuring the passengers. As far as crashing into other vehicles is concerned, that is a lot safer in the Nano than crashing into the concrete block in the test. This is because in a very small car like the Nano or the Smart, the main problem is the small crumple depth. It takes very careful engineering to stop the car in the crash without subjecting the occupants to decelerations that would cause internal organ damage as monitored by the test dummy sensors. This is difficult with a concrete block, but easily achieved when crashing into the crumple zone of another car. Crashing into a Ford F150 would be safer than crashing into a concrete block at the same speed, and you would be safer in the Nano than the Ford F150. Here is a video of a crash between a Smart car and a Mercedes to illustrate this. Smart vs Mercedes OK the Smart car toppled over because it is so light and tall, but both sets of occupants would have survived, and the Mercedes' crumple zone adds to the Smart's crumple zone, protecting the Smart's occupants as well. The Mercedes is of course a very safe car with a monocoque safety cage and a deep well designed crumple zone, so although a lot of metal twisting goes on, its passengers are very safe. In the case of the Nano vs Ford F150, the Nano's occupants would be well protected by the Nano's safety cage and additionally the Ford's crumple zone, but the Nano may penetrate into the Ford F150's cab and kill or injure the Ford's occupants. |
|
|
The interesting thing about the Nano is that next cheapest car the Suzuki/Maruti 800 with a similar performance but with slightly less interior space and lower crash test rating, and also built in India is double the price. I think there is a lot of inertia and unwillingness among auto companies worldwide to spend R&D on cost reduction because they want to charge us more. |
|
|
Replying to: spm4 (Sep 04, 2009 9:18 am) Comparisons to large trucks are irrelevant. You have to compare to other entry-level cars or alternatives at the same price. And then we go back to the safer-than-a-bicycle argument.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 04, 2009 9:53 am) As far as the safer than bike argument goes, I think the crash safety culture is completely illogical. We don't ban bikes or motorbikes, which are inherently unsafe, from the roads, but the moment you step into a car you have to have to add anti-skid brakes, air bags etc. when the car you are in is already vastly safer than a bike or motorbike. There is no logic to that, and just air bags and anti-skid braking will double the cost of a car like the Nano. I have the feeling that the safety requirements are being pushed up every so often under pressure from the auto industry in order to give us a reason buy a new model, rather than because of any rational safety need.
|
|
|
Replying to: spm4 (Sep 04, 2009 12:09 pm) I completely agree with you on that subject. To me it was sad the only EV sold for the masses today is a 3 wheeler. That was the only way they could get around the absurd safety regulations required for a passenger car. Having 3 wheels got it past the regulators as a motorcycle. I think you would find that the Ford F150 sold in the USA is a quite a bit more than just a car sized PU. They are over 231 inches long and 5100 lbs. They have all 5 star rating except for rollover which is a 4 star. I don't think any of the top selling compacts can match the F150 for safety. The very dated Ford Ranger is not in a league with the F150. |
|
|
Replying to: spm4 (Sep 04, 2009 12:09 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views The Tata Nano, India's $2,500 Car
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
