1 2
Wally
Wally SuperDork
7/2/09 1:00 a.m.
Lesley wrote:
Wally wrote: Can i get one in that awful pink the Ford Contours came in?
Is that anything like the Pinkly Taurus?

Thanks

pinchvalve
pinchvalve SuperDork
7/2/09 10:32 a.m.

I think Tata should sell a model with ABS and Airbags to meet safety regs here for $3000 or so. Anything else would be a dealer-installed option. That way you could go really cheap, or option up A/C, carpeting, cupholders and such to your hearts delight. Like Scion and Mini, add in neon and stereo packages, cool colors, and graphics. Offer hose-out interiors with GPS and shopping bag hooks for the soccer mom. Offer a 2-seater with carpeted rear shelf and on-board water jug for the dog owner. Imagine buying a second car, tailored specifically to your individual needs and lifestyle, for under $4000. Dude, put me on their marketing team. In fact, if they come here, I am going to become the Yenko of Tata.

mel_horn
mel_horn HalfDork
7/2/09 7:56 p.m.

Yenko Tatas? That'd hurt, wouldn't it?

Tom Heath
Tom Heath Production Editor
7/2/09 9:36 p.m.
pinchvalve wrote: I think Tata should sell a model with ABS and Airbags to meet safety regs here for $3000 or so.

I'd agree, but I think it would take a lot more than ABS and airbags to pass Federal standards. I haven't been able to find any crash test video, but no amount of engineering that would protect occupants against an errant Escalade or Excursion.

Wally
Wally SuperDork
7/3/09 12:54 a.m.

I would think that the TATAs would have to be quite as bit larger to satisfy American buyers

wherethefmi
wherethefmi Dork
7/3/09 1:00 a.m.
Wally wrote: I would think that the TATAs would have to be quite as bit larger to satisfy American buyers

I see what you did there

oldopelguy
oldopelguy Dork
7/3/09 8:04 a.m.
Tom Heath wrote: I'd agree, but I think it would take a lot more than ABS and airbags to pass Federal standards. I haven't been able to find any crash test video, but no amount of engineering that would protect occupants against an errant Escalade or Excursion.

This is always the argument given against smaller cars, and I'd argue that the Tata can't be less safe than an MG Midget and Escalades aren't much more massive than a '74 Impala. For the last 40 years there's always someone arguing that small cars aren't safe and someone else driving the small car arguing that big cars waste too much fuel.

There's nothing wrong with a little choice. Personally I'd pit my empirical MPG and initial cost against someone elses perceived risk anyday.

Wally
Wally SuperDork
7/3/09 8:31 a.m.

It looks a lot more puntable than an MG so maybe you could happily disipate energy into a corn field or something if you got hit instead of just coming to a stop.

Tom Heath
Tom Heath Production Editor
7/3/09 7:41 p.m.

It's not that I think it should be that way. I'd like to see safety requirements rolled back to say, 1974 standards. If you want 16 airbags and all the newest stuff, it's available on most models. If you want a 3000 dollar car, it should be available too.

My .02, YMMV.

Wally
Wally SuperDork
7/4/09 1:03 a.m.

What if the car was offered with some kind of padded cover if the buyer wanted the safety of a bigger model.

MitchellC
MitchellC HalfDork
7/4/09 11:37 a.m.

Like a giant helmet for your car? I think you're on to something.

96DXCivic
96DXCivic Reader
7/4/09 2:08 p.m.
MitchellC wrote: Like a giant helmet for your car? I think you're on to something.

Or a bra for your Tata's

porksboy
porksboy Dork
7/5/09 11:36 a.m.
mel_horn wrote: Yenko Tatas? That'd hurt, wouldn't it?

I get that one.

carzan
carzan Reader
7/5/09 9:06 p.m.
Tom Heath wrote: It's not that I think it should be that way. I'd like to see safety requirements rolled back to say, 1974 standards. If you want 16 airbags and all the newest stuff, it's available on most models. If you want a 3000 dollar car, it should be available too. My .02, YMMV.

I agree 100%. I can legally drive around in a relic that didn't originally come with so much as seats belts or energy absorbing steering column, but I can't buy a new one that does because it doesn't meet ALL the "standards" that have been mandated? BUT, I can buy a brand new motorcycle that can out-accelerate darn near any car bringing it to fatal speeds in just a couple of seconds, has virtually none of the safety requirements that are forced on four wheeled vehicles, can carry as many passengers as a Smart Fortwo etc...etc. Why the double standard?

suprf1y
suprf1y Reader
7/5/09 9:45 p.m.
carzan wrote:
Tom Heath wrote: It's not that I think it should be that way. I'd like to see safety requirements rolled back to say, 1974 standards. If you want 16 airbags and all the newest stuff, it's available on most models. If you want a 3000 dollar car, it should be available too. My .02, YMMV.
I agree 100%. I can legally drive around in a relic that didn't originally come with so much as seats belts or energy absorbing steering column, but I can't buy a new one that does because it doesn't meet ALL the "standards" that have been mandated? BUT, I can buy a brand new motorcycle that can out-accelerate darn near any car bringing it to fatal speeds in just a couple of seconds, has virtually none of the safety requirements that are forced on four wheeled vehicles, can carry as many passengers as a Smart Fortwo etc...etc. Why the double standard?

admc58
admc58 New Reader
7/6/09 4:50 p.m.

"What if the car was offered with some kind of padded cover if the buyer wanted the safety of a bigger model. "

Augmented Tata's

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
fqqoql8INROnaiBuZ9Sg5hRwsZ17jzPOhMjCNvbDTCbBGV9qkohNhkpCPUQaCXzE