Want a cheaper car? Be careful what you wish for
You may remember that Tata’s Nano caused something of a media sensation some five short years ago. Little wonder. Though its specifications read like that of a Briggs & Stratton-powered golf kart — its 624-cc two-cylinder engine was mated to a four-speed manual transmission with 12-inch tires better suited to a 50-cc scooter than a car — its bargain-basement price guaranteed sensationalistic headlines.
At 100,000 rupees ($2,200 U.S.), the Nano was so ridiculously inexpensive (less, in fact, than many of the aforementioned 50-cc scooters sold here in Canada) that media and industry were equally agog.
How could they possibly build a functioning automobile so cheaply? What had Indian engineers discovered that the best and brightest of technical minds from auto design houses around the world had somehow missed? More importantly, could they make a car so cheap that would be fun and safe to drive?
As it turns out, they couldn’t.
That the Nano wasn’t fun to drive could hardly be considered a surprise. Initial media reports confirmed that the 35-horsepower Nano accelerated with rickshawlike speed (one Canadian test recorded a zero-to-100kilometre-an-hour acceleration time of more than 40 seconds) and handled with equal verve. But its desultory performance was easily forgiven. Again, any car costing less than a four-burner Weber backyard grill engenders all kinds of good karma.
But what about its safety, asked the skeptics, Yours Truly included? Surely, driving something so small, so seemingly fragile would be like entering a Pinto in a demolition derby, the first enthusiastic nudge from a Buick Roadmaster Wagon ending in tears.
Nonsense, said the protagonists. Just slap a couple of airbags, a heftier bumper and some child safety anchors on the little bugger and Bob’syour-uncle; the diminutive little Nano would be ready to play among the Navigators, Escalades and all the other Neanderthals roaming North American streets.
Unfortunately — especially for those poor souls on the subcontinent who actually own Nanos — it’s also ixnay on the afetysay.
Safety tests in India recently revealed that the Nano failed a frontal impact test so badly that it received no stars out of five from the Global New Car Assessment Program. More importantly, says Global NCAP, though the Nano tested had no airbags, “the extent of the structural weaknesses in these models were such that fitting airbags would not be effective in reducing the risk of serious injury.”
Indeed, a number of small cars sold in the Indian market suffered the same pathetic drubbing. Maruti Suzuki’s Alto 800, Ford’s Figo and even Volkswagen’s Polo received the same goose egg in front-crash testing, though this last’s crumple zone was strong enough that, when optioned up with duel front airbags, it passed with flying colours (Volkswagen has since decided to equip all Indian Polos with airbags).
So, what’s the lesson in all of this for North Americans? Well, for starters, the obvious was confirmed, namely that airbags are an absolutely essential part of any modern automobile safety system. More importantly, the radical difference in performance between the Volkswagen and Tata proves that, without the basic structural integrity to secure the inner passenger cage, airbags offer no panacea.
What makes this all the more scandalous, however, is that, according to newspress.co.uk, these were the first independent crash tests conducted on these models in India.
Contrast this with the fact that testing organizations in our neck of the woods have recently had to invent ever more diabolical crash-test methods.