[Ravi Parwan]

I voted no as we as a family have moved out of the sub4m category into the larger vehicles. The only sub4m car left in my garage is the honda amaze which my dad prefers to drive due to the good visibility and small dimensions (not just the length)

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

...IMHO the sub 4-metre rule remains completely relevant to India and shall become more so as our car numbers increase. In order to accommodate a larger number of cars for our growing middle and lower middle class we need the 4-metre rule and I dare say a sub 3.6 metre rule too...
...
The sub- 4 metre car and associated tax benefits will remain a part of our landscape for several reasons - ...
...(iii) smaller cars = smaller engines = lesser fuel burn = lower oil imports. ....

I realize my pro-Govt views on sub- 4 metre cars flies against the winds of opinion that blow at Team BHP.

Sir, usually I can wholeheartedly agree with your points, but have to disagree here.

I believe that this sub 4 m rule has only harmed the Indian auto industry to the benefit of a single player. I agree that it will remain a part and parcel of our auto industry for some time to come, but it does not lead to better fuel efficiency as most of these engines are compromises made by lopping off one cylinder or changing some other parameter to reduce the volume to below 1.2 liters.

In fact, what I have observed is that the 1.5 Liter engines can give you as good a mileage in the city as the 1.2 while getting better mileage on the highways. (I know this is not backed by any scientific research, but I am sure honda city users can back me up on this)

Infact, I would agree with Hayek's point (which has been made by other members too) absolutely.

Originally Posted by Hayek

The sub 4 meter rule was a function of lobbying by a certain leading automaker, which wanted to retain its leadership position in India in the face of new foreign entrants and sought to obtain a tax advantage to do so. The only other country which has a similar rule is Japan, with its regulation on Kei cars. ...

Also concur with Asit

Originally Posted by asit.kulkarni93

I think this one rule alone took our market back by 20 years. We could have gotten global products but today most mass market cars are tailored for india(Read- compromised for India). The brands who are unwilling to make such compromises are left with no business. They either sell outdated cars or leave our market. We are a huge population and a growing market but not that big a car market that we needed exclusive rules like these. Today our ancillary industry would have been working at higher standards and at a much larger scale. These rules have only been beneficial to specific players.

While parallel parking, the length of the vehicle does make a difference, but in all other situations, it is the width of the vehicle that plays a role. Again something Hayek pointed out much better than me.

Originally Posted by Hayek

...Everywhere else, people have realised that differential taxation rates based on size of the vehicle is meaningless. People argue about parking space, but most parking slots are of a standard size and width, and a 3995 mm long car which is 1795 mm wide occupies the slot as much as a 4710 mm car which is 1850 mm wide (comparing a Brezza and a Allspace). Even on roads, we are more often constrained for width, not length.....

This sub 4m rule has given us ugly cars which will require substantial reengineering, or even development of newer platforms to accommodate the hopefully soon to be mandatory safety features.

This rule has actually allowed a skewing of the industry towards vehicles of a single manufacturer with every one else resorting to shaving off bumpers or hacking out the boot.

Why not include other factors into the mix as well, such as width, turning radius(to alleviate the parking woes), FE, etc. I think Ron has the start of a very good list

Originally Posted by ron178

...

The engine size requirement is irrelevant today because those small turbos aren't much cleaner or more efficient in practice. ...

To really get the advantages of small cars there are a number of more realistic factors to consider than length and engine size, like:
-fuel economy
-emissions
-occupant safety
-pedestrian protection - ....

A very telling feature is the evolution in the size of commercial vehicles. While we debate about sub4m and longer cars, commercial vehicles are growing longer and larger as a whole.

• How many single axle trucks do you see on the highways?
• How many Ashok Leyland and Tata buses (old design) do you see in comparison to Volvo types (I know it has become a category in itself)?
• How many short wheelbase buses do you see on the hill stations?

Originally Posted by Dsan

Travel to any hill station or any market in any big city and you'll realise that smaller the car the better...

I can't but agree with Dsan, yet I see Volvo type buses merrily making their way to all hill stations in the North at least.

Originally Posted by Small Bot

...In Bangalore, all I can say is try driving an Innova around in all the bylanes and then try a Brezza or a Venue.

This is why sub-4m cars are a massive hit in India, not because of the government taxes or anything. They are a perfect balance between features, pseudo-macho looks, ground clearance for our increasingly horrible roads, half decent performance and ergonomic comfort.

My first choice to take out inside the city will always be the smaller car, and I know several others who do the same.

While I agree with the first and the last points Small Bot made, I can't agree with the conclusion in the middle. It is a mixture of affordability and the incremental marginal utility consumers see in larger (read more expensive cars) Back in 2016, I failed to convince my wife to go for the zeta version of the baleno over the delta, coz the zeta went into the higher tax bracket which led to the price difference of 60K being magnified to over a lakh, due to the different taxation brackets on the two variants, based on the pricing only.

[SeniorC]

Let the market decide which length and engine capacity of cars people want to buy. I am alright with people deciding to buy smaller cars for say, ease of driving, parking or even the cost. But it is entirely unfortunate that the government is giving tax breaks for "smaller" cars, ostensibly at the behest of a car manufacturer. With this the manufacturers chop off the fenders, perhaps compromising on safety. We don't get all the standard cars that are available in other countries. Time to get rid of the artificial tax breaks.

[Earthroamer]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

An excellent and controversial subject for a healthy debate.

IMHO the sub 4-metre rule remains completely relevant to India and shall become more so as our car numbers increase. In order to accommodate a larger number of cars for our growing middle and lower middle class we need the 4-metre rule and I dare say a sub 3.6 metre rule t.oo.

I always thought that given our historical narrow city roads and dearth of parking maybe we should have had 4 tax segments – (i) below 3.6m, (ii) 3.6 to 4.0, (iii) above 4.0m and a ban above 4.5m. Cars above 4.5 metres in length ought to be not allowed in India. Plus a punitive rate on engine size above 1.5 litres. We have lost perspective on what engine bhp is needed to lug a family of four around at between 20 to 80 kmph - that's the speed range most cars stay in for over 90% of their running time I guess - a few long run enthusiasts may differ.

Look at cars in the 1950s to 1970s in Europe and you'll find engine outputs of between 40 bhp to 70 bhp region. We now think we need 1500cc, 2000cc and 2500cc engines which mainly appeal to the ego and the sense of power. I think what GoI did is right. I only regret they didn't do more.

The sub- 4 metre car and associated tax benefits will remain a part of our landscape for several reasons - (i) the market needs more affordable small cars to address the aspirations of the lower middle class moving up. (ii) our road infrastructure in our crowded old city areas cannot cope with 5-metre cars or even 4.5-metre cars; same for our parking availability. And given that we are the most densely populated large country this fact isn’t changing for another century though better roads and planning will help but cannot alleviate the issue.(iii) smaller cars = smaller engines = lesser fuel burn = lower oil imports. The delta that a few million small cars contribute to Forex savings might be limited but every step counts.

I realize my pro-Govt views on sub- 4 metre cars flies against the winds of opinion that blow at Team BHP.

D-BHPian @pqr who writes some of the best and most indepth threads has one on this subject.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...les-india.html (Genesis and the journey of sub-4-meter passenger vehicles in India)

See, this is the fundamental problem with us Indians. Instead of addressing the actual problem or trying to find a reasonable solution for the said problem, we actively try to "accommodate" and penalise the tax payers for wanting more. With this kind of attitude we would never be a developed country.

The problem :

The core of the problem (not just for the cars but inflationary prices across the spectrum), objectively speaking, is our cities are intentionally being gentrified and forced to be congested. All the so called "development" and "investments" are happening at confined spaces (our cities) because money laundering through real estate and returns it fetches. This is making our cities narrower and overly congested. We cannot have
A. Wider roads , because real estate value
B. Parking spaces, because real estate value
C. Green spaces, because real estate value
D. Walkable spaces, because real estate value
E. Nice peaceful suburbs for our families, because real estate value.

All we have is :
A. Tighter narrower roads with no lane markings
B. Extremely, closely built businesses units and houses with no parking spaces
C. Overly congested and extremely dense cities with lots of traffic, noise, pollution, and continuous inflation on everything.
D. Reduction in natural habitat and other natural resources including water.

No one addresses this issue, because the political will actively suppresses it. Anyone who has control over our overly congested cities will have control over the entire region. For example :

Have power in Bangalore ? Will have power over entire Karnataka.

Have power in Hyderabad? Will have power over entire Telangana.

Have power in Delhi? Will have power over entire North India.

Instead of demanding the policy makers to develop several cities across the country, and decongest existing cities, we accommodate ourselves by

A. Taking huge loans and buy overly inflated tiny spaces which we call our homes , where we have to pay extra to get parking space.
B. After taking homes , cry about pollution, noise, water problems and blame festivals or the low hanging fruit , the cars.
C. Penalise the people for wanting to have a comfortable, safe private transport with enough leg room and blame them for traffic and pollution.

India's population density is 473/sq.km
England's population density is 434/sq.km
London's population density is 5.83k/sq.km
Delhi's population density is 11.5k/sq.km
Mumbai's population density is 20.7k/sq.km

Longer wheelbase and longer length cars are not the problem, we, as Indians are facing in our traffic or larger issues in our cities. It's just a symptom. Penalising car buyers is never going to solve the issue without addressing the actual problem.

Cheers.

[Quicksilver85]

Whoever in the government enforced this sub4m rule on us, has done real injustice to both us the customers and the companies.

Companies could have launched their >4m vehicles without having to go through the hassle of modifying their existing platforms/vehicles (Ex: Mahindra 300) thus reduce the cost of Indianization of the platform to sub4m to obtain tax cuts.

I remember the contraption called the Swift Dzire from the 1st generation. It was nothing to Dzire for!!

Customers also paid for the sub4m rule dearly by not having a good 2nd row kneeroom or compromised boot based on which car you are looking at.

[handsofsteel]

Interesting discussion this.
1. Most posters here seem to have taken for granted that a sub 4m car will inherently be more unsafe than a longer/ bigger car.
Why? Brezza, Punch and Jazz are proof to the contrary. What stops the OEM from giving a safer car within this slab and make safety a selling point? Nothing. The public/ govts can definitely nudge the OEMs towards safety.

2. Price is, and will remain, a USP of buyers in India.
So what? Let those who still want to buy bigger cars buy them. Isn't that happening in the two-wheeler market?

3. Longer cars do not practically occupy more space.
Try making a 3-point turn/ U-turn in any city please. A fleet of nanos will definitely ease the road pressure compared to a fleet of Honda Citys (I'm not even talking SUVs here).

4. Smaller cars are not necessarily cleaner.
True. However, do not compare a camry hybrid with an alto (for obvious reasons). Compare similarly propelled cars.

5. The increased taxation on bigger cars is not allowing world-class products to come to India.
Please define world class. 0-100 timelines alone may not define a World class product. Frugal engineering could also be a parameter.

6. Desirable products are not hitting our shores.
Is this 4m rule the primary reason? If so, by a corollary, the Euro-spec Smart and Japanese Kei cars should've run over our market.

7. I desire/ can afford luxury. Why can't I buy what I want?
Please do, who's stopping you? If, however, the silent question here is why can't what I want be made more affordable? Then welcome to the world of superbike owners (we pay up exorbitant amounts of money to buy, what can best be described as intermediate bikes in the western world and still face discrimination from all sections of rule makers and public in the country). Get used to it when someone says that you were racing (just because you own a 1.5L and not the govt encouraged 1L variant) and therefore, are at fault for everything from rains to accidents to my bad mood.

8. Emissions should be a factor.
By all means. As could be a host of other factors. But these do not mean that the 4m/1.2 rule should not/ cannot be a factor.

Kindly remember, the OEMs will not act to develop cleaner, safer cars of their own free will. They will have to be coerced by market forces and regulations. So, if the need of the hour is de-congestion and cleaning up of the cities, this rule is still very much relevant. I remember reading somewhere on the forum that the EU is also planning to regulate the size of vehicles on road considering the ever-increasing size of the SUVs.

My personal opinion - Kei cars and public transport only in the city centre/ CBD. Speed limit of 40-50.
Ring roads and beyond (still within city limits) - Sedans and intermediates.Speed limit of 80.
Beyond city limits - SUVs / trucks and whathaveyou. Speed limit - 100
Highways/expressways - 120
Fenced/ cattle-free roads/ dedicated corridors - No speed limit

[youknowitbetter]

I think sub-four meter rule should be done away with and government should rather give incentives for the following:

1. Percentage of localisation.
2. New technology and innovation (these can include Hybrids, dual fuel, EVs and even auto ancillary companies working on the components). Case in being even if a car like Innova can have lower emission than a sub-4 meter car, isn't that better for everyone
3. Safety (should include body strength, awareness campaigns provided there is tangible evidence of effective campaigns)
4. R&D spent
5. Emission

Idea for each of the points is development and progress of the car industry instead of limiting the products based on size, engine capacity etc. There will be knee jerk reaction as well since quite a few cars may become expensive or worst there can be misuse of interpretation etc. (which can lead to differential pricing all across the segments). I will further add that one can consider limiting these incentives for high end cars which are say above 50-60 lacs bracket by excluding them from the purview of the benefits.

[bnkmp]

I am totally in favour of higher tax on a larger vehicle but my only problem is the arbitrary 4m length or 1.5L engine that defines whether a car will attract 1% or 17% cess. As others have mentioned a progressive tax based on multiple parameters such as length, engine capacity, mileage etc would be extremely beneficial to the ecosystem. A reduced hybrid taxation would have done wonders to the overall fuel consumed, just look at the Hycross hybrid sales at current taxation to see their popularity.

As a first car buyer in the past few months, the sub 4m and similarly idiotic rules essentially forced me to spend a few lakhs higher than I wanted to. I had first looked at a TATA altroz top end with leather seats only to realise the ex-showroom prices were above 10L and KA govt charges extra road tax for cars above 10L. There was absolutely no reason for me to pay this sudden jump in cost (I could have gotten them fixed aftermarket but still its the arbitrariness of a 10L that irkes me ). Then I decided if I am paying above 10L, might as well get one that takes advantage of this jump and arrived at Brezza among the sub 4m cars only to realise that a 1.5L engine means a higher GST of 45% vs a Nexon at 29% even though the mileage of Brezza is higher! I had assumed the poor interiors were due to Maruti's greed but it can be attributed to the higher tax they have to pay with other cars in the same segment.

My primary gripe is, does the extra 300cc engine capacity and 300mm size justify a 16% increase in cost while its just a incremental 5% jump for cars above 1.5L which have 3L engines and 5m in length (hypothetical car). A progressive tax rate ensures that manufacturers have more flexibility in designing a car at a price point than be limited with a random length/volume rule picked out of a hat.

On a separate note, looking at the Brezza sales, either the average buyer is unaware that he is paying a higher tax for the 1.5L engine or the 4m manoeuvrability is much more useful than the extra boot space of the Grand Vitara. If price is really a constraint, no one would want to pay extra tax

[Kln]

My controversial take is that we should tighten this rule even more. Make it so that the cars have to be even smaller to enjoy taxation benefits. Our roads are bad, our accidents number are insane, our fascination with SUVs is only increasing. The only solutions to this madness is to price large cars out of a majority's pockets. Noone in a city needs a Fortuner to go from their home to their urban office and back home.

[Wageabond]

Instead of providing excise cuts purely based on the length of the car, I have wished that the rule is amended to triggers which either ensure safety (number of airbags, NCAP safety ratings, TCS, rollover mitigation, etc.), or efficiency (ICE / hybrids returning in excess of XX Kmpl, etc.).

The current rule should be revisited in 2024 as the car market in India has matured a lot over the last decade. Success of SUVs in 4+ m segment has shown that the India customer is ready to plonk their money where they see real value.

The government can also look to incentivize the Electric Car segment further by channeling excise cuts to that part of the world.

[Voodooblaster]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I always thought that given our historical narrow city roads and dearth of parking maybe we should have had 4 tax segments – (i) below 3.6m, (ii) 3.6 to 4.0, (iii) above 4.0m and a ban above 4.5m. Cars above 4.5 metres in length ought to be not allowed in India. Plus a punitive rate on engine size above 1.5 litres

Further length based differential taxation is to be welcomed by each and everyone of us who doesn’t enjoy being stuck in traffic and finds it difficult to find a parking spot

Lesser tax doesn’t mean subsidy by any stretch of imagination.

In addition to length , engine / motor output should also be a factor for taxation. Also width of cars can be considered as an additional factor.

1) 3 metres , 750cc , 25 KW (Eg: Reva EV)
2) 3.5 metres 1000cc, 50 KW (Eg: MG Comet)
3) 4 metres, 1500cc , 75 KW (Eg: Swift / Dzire / Aura / Amaze )
4) 4.5 metres, 2000 cc 100KW (Eg: City, Verna , Creta)
5) 5 metres , 2500cc, 125 KW (Eg: Innova / Safari )
6) More than 5 metres or 2500cc or 125 KW

The cars mentioned as examples might have slightly different dimensions/ power output as they are meant to be illustrative only

Also engine capacity should be replaced/complemented with Hp / KW to properly measure up how potent a car is and taxed accordingly

This will entail additional R&D and developing made for india platforms

Better that than suffering from continuous traffic blocks

[Noctis]

Personally fine with dimension based taxation, but would like to see some improvements to the current system like:

1. Dynamic tax rate modifier based on the dimensions instead of a single arbitrary cut off at 4m. This would provide an incentive to make compact cars while still not necessarily forcing the manufactures to create compromised designs.

2. Incorporate width into the equation, as this often matters more in available parking space than length.

But I don't see a point in taxation based on the capacity of an engine as this does not always directly correlate with the power and mileage of a vehicle

[vvs29]

The original intent is still relevant, but the rules for enforcing that intent (sub 4m, 1.5L engine, etc.) are not good measures IMO.

The constraints for any govt. that come to my mind are:
1. Available real estate - We are still a developing nation with a big population density. Comparing with US or Europe makes no sense, they have much more land that they can use for building roads. - This is directly correlated to the area a car occupies (length x width).

2. Infra maintenance - heavier vehicles need stronger roads or more frequent relaying of roads.

3. Resource cost - We need to import oil, battery cells, chips, etc. which increase our foreign dependence and trade deficit. The more efficiently we use them, the better. Efficiency could be measured at a test track which takes into account a typical city and highway acceleration and braking pattern. For ICE, the efficiency will be the driving efficiency (km/L). For EV, it should take into account both charging efficiency (consumed units/stored units) and driving efficiency (wh/km).

4. Revenue - We still have socialist roots and generally prefer to tax the relatively rich to distribute to relatively poor people.

So a good taxation measure would be a formula like a*area + b*weight + c*efficiency + d*price. a, b, c and d need to be decided based on the cost of each constraint. And to nudge the market and purchase decisions, discounts can be given on one or more of these constraints or on the total tax as a whole.

With this system, instead of a 15 year period, road tax should probably be levied every 4 years (similar to BH registration), so that the parameters can be adjusted based on the current situation and motives.

Of course, this is of the top of my head. A researcher/analyst who knows more about these constraints and their 2nd or 3rd order effects can come up with a better formula.

[Burgman_tales]

Just remember that we are seeing whatever traffic at just 7% of people having cars (albeit it will be higher in cities where we are seeing traffic).
Imagine the situation when the number will reach 40-50% or higher. Then do you all want the majority of that to be smaller cars or bigger cars?

[Formula1]

Whenever this topic comes up, my mind for some reason immediately wanders towards the Golf.

4.2m
Is it the sweetspot?

[RunGaDa]

Originally Posted by 1.2TSI7DSG

1. Keeps the Indian Manufacturers competitive as most of the global platforms are now 4.2 m (eg Polo/Ecosport etc)

Ecosport is 4 meter. The length is measured excluding the spare wheel in the back. I think Ford was smart to capitalise on this provision / loop hole.