[kartikk]

Originally Posted by wild child

Hi Kartikk

Thanks for the details.

In that case, do you know for what reason was Viva launched? Also, what about Peugeot 309? Website says the car was 4050mm in length ( bumper to bumper ). Did it not enjoy the tax rebate?

Also, was the tax benefit for sub 4m cars introduced by our P.Chidambaram only which was then globalised? Was this available in the global market before the minister's announcement was made?

Requesting some clarification please.

My memory on this subject isnt very good, all I remember is that Mr. Chidambaram created this category as reasons mentioned by others in posts above, but it also was a way to make manufacturers who are serious about the Indian Car market create more specific products which would meet customer expectations here. They would not just bring their successful sedans and sell them here, in turn it would create jobs, economic/investment cycle etc...

Peugeot 309 I think was launched much before this rule came into exsitence.

[rohit_dce]

As I was going through the internet, I came across a very interest discussion which i would like to start here too. The Indian Compact Car segment is heating up everyday, be it the Compact SUV segment, or the Compact Sedan Segment. How about we start a disciusiion comparing various compact cars. Let's start by comparing Compact Sedan. I was thinking of comparing the Maruti Dzire CS, the leader of the segment with upcoming cars like the Manza CS, Verito CS and the hotly anticipated the Honda Amaze. Do drop in with your comments folks. I ll be comparing one aspect each day from now on.

[rohit_dce]

Well the 4 metre rule has always been meant to help the car makers produc cars which would come at a poket friendlly rice for consumers. Some companies pass on this rebate, some do not.

[rohit_dce]

Originally Posted by rajeev k

Whosoever in the Government machinery thought of the excise benefits for a car shorter than 4 Mtr has to be complemented as he set the wheel rolling for a slew of activities in the Indian car scene. The Indigo CS broke the ice and Maruti followed and the new Dezire set the sales charts on fire. Now the Logan and mini Xylo are waiting to burst upon the scene. At this juncture it would be interesting to know the think-tank behind the scene.

Rightly said!! The Compact cars are setting the automotive scene on fire in India as majority of the cars sold in India are below 4 metres! So how about we compare Compact Sedans and Compact SUVs??? and let the consumers decide what they want in their garages.

Originally Posted by TaurusAl

But where is the consumer benefiting ? The new Swift Dzire is costing more than bigger Dzire sold earlier. It is only the company benefiting as they are selling a smaller car with almost same pricing.

I completely agree with you. You can get a Etios or a Manza for the same pricing which are way more practical cars than this one. Honda Amaze, Verito CS and the Manza CS are due to be priced well and lesser than the current cars. Inddian car makers apart, Honda will be betting big on the Amaze as the petrol engined cars are doing not so well and they really need to up the ante by bringing a VFM product to the market.

[rohit_dce]

I would like to talk about the real estate the compact cars offer. Verito in my opinion has most airy cabin and so will be the case with its notchback/CS. Swift Dzire is prctically the same as Swift and 5 people get cramped up. The Amaze can proce to be an Amazing wonder because it gets bigger than the Brio and even Brio offered a nice cabin space.

[rohit_dce]

The kilometres to a litre is another important factor in the common Indian family. Dzire would easily give you 14-15 kmpl in petrol ( i ll talk bout petrol here ), we common Indian families cant buy diesels cz dey cost a lakh more..so i ll talk bout diesels another time. Verito CS would have a dismal average in petrol which woud range somewhere around 12-13 kmpl. Manza CS would manage decent numbers by returning 15-16 kmpl but it will be the Amaze which will rule the petrol sedans. It is expected t give 17-18 kmpl which can be a deciding dfactor when you buy a new car

[coolabhi]

I agree that the sub 4 meter category has indeed helpful to bring out value for money products.

But one thing needs to be thought of is the engine capacity restriction.
Government has kept the engine capacity restriction to ensure that these cars that get excise benefit are fuel efficient.

Wont it be better to have a restriction based on fuel efficiency?
Technology is advanced enough and we can surely have an engine which has cubic capacity more than 1.5 but still more fuel efficient than a 1.2 engine.

infact there can be a vehicle in sub 4 meter with 1.2 litre engine but not fuel efficient ,yet it gets the excise duty benefit

keeping a tab on fuel efficiency may be difficult but this makes more sense.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by coolabhi

I agree that the sub 4 meter category has indeed helpful to bring out value for money products.

But one thing needs to be thought of is the engine capacity restriction.
Government has kept the engine capacity restriction to ensure that these cars that get excise benefit are fuel efficient.

Wont it be better to have a restriction based on fuel efficiency?
Technology is advanced enough and we can surely have an engine which has cubic capacity more than 1.5 but still more fuel efficient than a 1.2 engine.

infact there can be a vehicle in sub 4 meter with 1.2 litre engine but not fuel efficient ,yet it gets the excise duty benefit

keeping a tab on fuel efficiency may be difficult but this makes more sense.

These are the definitions for "small car" - one for what is inside and one for what is seen outside. Both these are consistently reproducible measurements and hence no chance of any disputes. Also, a smaller engine would most likely mean lesser emissions too, something the government should be more worried about than fuel efficiency.

I'm not sure if the exact fuel efficiency figure obtained in ARAI or any other test can be reproduced consistently. If not, the borderline cases would always lead to ambiguity and disputes as to which side it should belong. No manufacturer would accept a negative result if there is considerable stake involved like a lower/higher tax slab than competitor.

Considering the way the cities are getting congested, there is every chance that the tax benefits could be reduced or removed in future to control the increase in vehicle population.

[rohit_dce]

Originally Posted by coolabhi

I agree that the sub 4 meter category has indeed helpful to bring out value for money products.

But one thing needs to be thought of is the engine capacity restriction.
Government has kept the engine capacity restriction to ensure that these cars that get excise benefit are fuel efficient.

Wont it be better to have a restriction based on fuel efficiency?
Technology is advanced enough and we can surely have an engine which has cubic capacity more than 1.5 but still more fuel efficient than a 1.2 engine.

infact there can be a vehicle in sub 4 meter with 1.2 litre engine but not fuel efficient ,yet it gets the excise duty benefit

keeping a tab on fuel efficiency may be difficult but this makes more sense.

Mate it would be a bit iificult to give them benefits on the basis of the fuel efficiency because real life efficiency figures vary from the ARAI figures. Umm..for instance, the Swift Dzire comes with 1.2 litre engine and the Etios petrol comes with a 1.5 litre engine but they give a similar fuel efficiency in real life. Another upcoming comparison I can think of is the upcoming Amaze sedan and Dzire CS. The Amaze would come with a 1.5 litre diesel engine and based on reports from Thailand will be more efficient than the 1.3 litre Fiat Multijet. What say?

[KD007]

Bumping an old thread but this time it is not on the sub 4m incentive law debate. For all we know it will stay there for some time.

Going through multiple car launch and the bashing manufacturers get for disproportionate car designs (Dzire, Amaze etc.) in this category and the latest take of members on TUV3oo made me think.

Let’s just think from a manufacturer point of view - just in terms of product design (proportion & inside space) and market dynamics/expectations (no price debate please)

What can the manufacturer do in this category? What are his trade offs?

• Exceeding 4m leads to price increase
• Bringing in right proportions may leads to cramped interior space (correct me if I am wrong?)
• Giving a 5 seater only make them unable to compete with other so called 7 seater UV
• Giving a 7 seater will always/generally have cramped 3rd row

If you were to advice the manufacturers for under 4m product based on all your experiences and expectations what will be 3 advice (which can be executed). Pick any sub 4m – sedan or SUV and make your point

I am not saying/justifying, what we are getting in sub 4m is good or bad, but wouldn’t there be trade off which manufacturer or consumers have to bear due to this rule?

Help me understand.

Mods: Didn't want to start a new thread or ask this question in the existing TUV thread.

[hybridpetrol]

Good time for the revival of an old thread! Its also a nice time for a comprehensive study of where this sub 4m, 1.2/1.5 engines are headed.

In my view, bringing a compact SUV, full with 7/8 seats within this 4 meter is a tough task, leading to cramped space. We are yet to have any proper 3 seater SUV/MPV which is sub 4m. Sub 4m category is best suited for entry level compact sedans & hatchbacks.
Design-wise, haven't anyone thought of rear engines - like the one in Nano? It can lead to a very good space utilization. The Nano was 3.1 metre in length, and it had the advantage of seating 4 people of 6 foot tall in comfort. A proper hatchback / compact sedan at 4 metre length, rear engined, RWD, 4cyl, 1.2L petrol / 1.5L diesel built with a good deal of engineering, and necessary safety features would lead to a neat car that can seat 5 in comfort, while also having fair amount of space for boot. This would also lead to a very neat design.

When we think about compact SUVs - I think the manufacturers should stick to 5 seater monocoque SUVs. Adding an extra row / jumper seats would become a joke and leads to nil boot space.

Apart from all the above - I feel that, the manufacturers are simply taking advantage of the sub 4m rule to gain in excise duty benefits. While the space is less & engines are small, the cars have very little to offer. There are host of features these days on offer, I agree, but all of them are just attractive to customers, and on real they are inexpensive to produce. (e.g - rain sensing wipers, automatic headlamps, parking sensors - these operate just based on inexpensive sensors, with relevant logic hardwired into chips).

Due to this under 4m rule, good engined cars, with comfortable space / length has been pushed > 10L ex-showroom. Manufacturers themselves increase their prices due to the notional increase in value because of the prices of sub 4m cars a segment below, while the 24% / 27% excise duty adds a few more lakhs, and then when it comes on road - it has additional RTO taxes (For Tamil nadu - cars with ex-showroom prices < 10L are charged 10% road tax, while cars > 10L are charged 15% road tax)

So, to sum up, in my view - the sub 4m car introduction, has actually pushed the customers to buy low end cars, and pushing the "normal" sedans out of reach, which the customers would otherwise have bought.
e.g - A Jetta top end petrol would cost me more than 19L - for 4.6m length & 1.4L petrol. However sub 4m / 1.2L petrol Dzire, can be bought at 8L for similar variant, though with less "features". Jetta owners, no offense please - I just want to highlight how high the sub 4m rule has pushed the reasonable cars' prices.