By on May 12, 2008

tata_nano.jpgThe Detroit News, internationalists that they are, report that Renault/Nissan is entering into a joint venture with India's Bajaj motors to take on the ultra-cheap Tata Nano (a.k.a. the one lahk car). Bajaj will own fifty percent of the joint venture, with Renault and Nissan splitting the rest. Together, they'll build a new factory in Chakan, India, Starting in 2011, the facility should eventually bang-out some 400k entry-level rides per year, heading for both the Indian and Chinese new car markets. No details are available about the powertrain or standard equipment (wheels? side mirrors? doors?). Whether this sudden craze for inexpensive mass market motors becomes a cash cow or a money pit remains to be seen; the challenge represents one of Nissan/Renault's most ambitious international projects. Still, Renault found plenty of karma with their first forray at the bottom of the market with the [formerly Dacia] Logan. The Indian version, built with Mahindra and Mahindra was a big hit for all concerned. The Iranians also build a version, but that's a story for another day.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

12 Comments on “Renault/Nissan/Bajaj to Build Nano-Fighter...”


  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Call me crazy, but I still like that little Nano. Slap some 14-inch wheels on it along with real axles, transmission, and drive shaft that won’t explode at 65 mph, and you’ve got a decent cheap car that gets great gas mileage still for no more than $4k.

  • avatar
    EJ_San_Fran

    This price point requires massive volume and so only few companies can be successful.
    The Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV, Volkswagen Beetle and Ford Model T come to mind.
    Good luck, Renault/Nissan.

  • avatar
    Juniper

    I still can’t get past the teeny tiny wheels and tires.

  • avatar
    powerglide

    Then there was that ‘Th!nk’ car Ford bought into, back in Jac Nasser days:

    http://media.ford.com/images/large/Th!nk_ringdal.jpg

    Restyled to look like this:

    http://www.evworld.com/press/th!nk_fcev.jpg

    More here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%21nk

  • avatar
    Alex Dykes

    I would think the easy way to hedge the rising steel costs is to try and make it mostly out of plastic. Crash worthiness? Who cares for $2500.

  • avatar
    Juniper

    drifter
    No argument from me. They both are equally strange. My point is, how does that size wheel function on third world roads?

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    The real issue for me is how those tiny wheels and the inferior bearing design limit the car to 45 mph (I believe). Slap some real wheels (14″ rims) and use materials that won’t quickly desintigrate at typical speeds in the developed world and that thing is a good alternative for commuting to work, getting the groceries, etc. I mean really, how much more does a robust drivetrain and 14″ wheels cost? It couldn’t add more than $1,500 and probably not nearly that much to the cost of the vehicle.

    By the way, Badonkadonk – I hope I got that spelling right ;-) – vehicles look even dumber to me.

  • avatar
    blowfish

    A real good set of wheel bearing wont cost $10 more.

    If gas prce persist to go up, we’ll be driving these here soon.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    Business Week has an interesting article on the Nano:

    Inside the Tata Nano Factory

    http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2008/id2008059_312111.htm?campaign_id=yhoo

  • avatar
    NickR

    My point is, how does that size wheel function on third world roads?

    There’s a joke in there about Toronto somewhere. But seriously, the potholes here in Toronto would engulf those little donuts. My Toyota has 16 inches and I’ve dropped into potholes so deep I’ve landed on the air dam.

  • avatar
    dean

    @Alex Dykes: with oil as the major source chemical for plastics, I’m not sure plastic is going to be a cost effective replacement for steel.

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    A real good set of wheel bearing wont cost $10 more.

    I’m assuming that the bearings aren’t the only substandard part that would need upgrading when I estimate no more than $1,500 more for substantially the same car, but one that will have a slightly higher top speed.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
  • theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
  • A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
  • Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
  • Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber