Steel prices may bump up Nano’s cost
July 7, 2008 by George Skentzos
India’s Tata Motors is rapidly making a name for itself in other parts of the world following its purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover as well as introducing the ultra-budget Nano car.
However the Nano’s claim to fame may have been tarnished following a 50 percent rise in the price of steel over the past year, potentially increasing the nominal cost of the car.
The bare-bones Nano which runs a two-cylinder engine and weighs in at just 580kg has a planned wholesale price of around $2,500.
However the company is now asking its suppliers to share the cost increases, introducing a pricing model which would reduce rates as volume grows.
Parts suppliers for the Nano are also feeling the pinch following a rise of almost 40 percent for the cost of furnace oils used to forge parts.
Fortunately for Tata it shouldn’t be too hard to negotiate a discount – especially when the Tata Group also owns India’s largest steel producer, Tata Steel Ltd.
No tags for this post.
I can see more cars like this being produced in the near future due to ever increasing fuel prices.
Cheers !
I suppose they could make the bodywork from dried cow pats.
Lightbulb,
well what is the fuel economy of this thing?
dont be too fooled into thinking small car = massive fuel savings.
Lightbulb can see into the future, check out the latest news article!
If this is the future I don’t want any part of it. Stop the world I want to get off.
Well they could save money by leaving the motor out and selling it as BYO donkey.
“Lightbulb,
well what is the fuel economy of this thing?
dont be too fooled into thinking small car = massive fuel savings.”
Andrew M, I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
I get heaps of people saying “Go buy a small car, to help save fuel costs rising” and that totally p1sses me off!
A small car does not mean better fuel economy results as a larger car sometimes.
Cheaper than a decent ride on lawn mower!
10 times more energy goes into moving the car than moving the driver. A smaller car is usually lighter and therefore uses less energy to move it. So yes, usually a small car is more economical, except say a long straight, flat road. It’s getting off the mark that hurts the bigger cars.
I won’t be rushing out to buy one yet, but the nano is all I “need” to get to the office – so it’s great innovation.
Won’t affect the pricing of Nano..since Tata themselves have one of the largest steel manufacturing plants in India..
Massive fuel saving = Massive life saving ????
It’s not worth…
@ Quiet 1,
So tata steel manufactures steel.
But the increase in the cost of steel is due to the increase in the price of inputs:
Iron Ore pricing: + 85%
Coking Coal: + 200%
Costs must be passed onto the end product.
One word…
RUBBISH!!
Duck, “A small car does not mean better fuel economy results as a larger car sometimes. “?????
I’m confused as to what you mean by this? Are you saying a Corolla, a Mazda 2 and a Falcon have the same fuel economy? What about a Fiat 500 Diesel?
Perhaps CA should put these cars to the test on the normal one person in the car commute to work over the period of a week.
No wait they won’t because your theory is idiotic. The Falcon or any other large car does not compete in fuel economy in any circumstances even on a long flat strait highway. Yes on the freeway they may go a little further but people like you seem to forget that the larger cars are carrying 20, 30, 35 etc more litres of fuel.
If only my car had a 70L fuel tank. The 207 could go 1100km+ an a single tank of petrol on an average run. Could any large car do that? People who think like you do totally p**s me off.
Jimbo, look at the XJ6 Jaguar with its 2.7L diesel, but thats like extreme comparing an awesome vehicle to mere consumer product small cars.
Yes in the city small cars will use less fuel because they are lighter make less power, but out on the open road the difference between a Corrola and a Falcon would be minimal.
Jimbo,
I have a 2001 5 speed xr6 that can get 970km to a tank when on the freeway travelling at 110km. I have driven to sydney on one tank a few times.
The tank holds 68litres. That equals 7l/100km. I have got it down to 6.8 before an could probably do better if I drove a bit slower.
Oh – Now I cant afford one. :)
Alec, good work. The furthest I have got out of the 207 is 800km. That was 6.25L/100km.
This is exactly my point though. Yes your XR6 comes into its own on the Hume and is great on fuel. Even then it doesn’t quite reach my 207s figure.(6.25L/100km was done Melbourne to Mount Gambier and back. That’s allot of stop start and slowing down in towns).
What happens when you get to Sydney and you are in city traffic? Plus If my 207 had the extra 18L capacity that your XR6 does that would push it up to a 1088km range.
I know they are totally different cars this is an exercise that points out the flaws in Duck’s and people of the same mind stand point on fuel economy when it come to car and engine size.
This is just petrol cars, imagine the huge gap in economy between say your XR6 and a Golf 1.9L Diesel, or a 1.6L Diesel 308.
A Ford Fiesta XR4 does
100km using 9.3L of petrol, when a Mazda 6 Limited can do 100km using 8.3L and a Toyota Camry Altise using 8.9L for 100km. The Mazda and the Toyota are both classified as large cars and get better fuel economy (but in this case they both are heavier) and the Ford Fiesta XR4 is a small car and gets worse fuel economy then the two, mainly because the Ford Fiesta XR4 has a turbo on it which increases kW’s but decreases fuel economy.
Jimbo my fact is not wrong, here’s another one…………………a Mazda 6 can use 8.4L of petrol for 100km and a Suzuki SX4 Sedan can use 8.4L of petrol for 100km. So size is not all the time better. Will also depend what drivetrain it is to and the weight of the vehicle. Also if the smaller car has a turbo on it for example, it decreases fuel economy and the larger car can be moe fuel efficient.
LOL………well done you managed to find two low volume small cars with poor fuel economy (one a sports hatch and one a cross over 4WD) and paired them against two “Medium” sized cars that have excellent fuel economy.
And the new 308/207 1.6L Turbo has great fuel economy, so does the 1.4L Turbo Fiat Ritmo. But in most cases you are right though. However the turbos on small cars are designed to maximise performance not economy because the basic engine already does that for you.