It’s the car that will mobilise the masses and get people who previously could not afford one into a car. At a price of around A$4000, it’s something of a four-wheeled bargain. Pretty significant, then, you could say. A genuine milestone.
The other side of this coin is the Bugatti Veyron. We’ve driven it, filmed it, photographed it and loved it. It’s an engineering masterpiece that set new records and broke barriers which people never thought possible. Also a significant car.
Which is the better car? Of course, it’s entirely subjective, because both will get you from A to B. It’s just that one will help you to arrive a whole lot sooner. So here’s the dilemma. At A$4000, the Nano represents outstanding value. At A$2.7 million, the Bugatti doesn’t seem quite so value-packed.
As motoring journalists, we have to take into account value for money when testing cars. It's why Aussie publications always throw in an HSV or an FPV when testing the latest European product. The Tata Nano has got them all backed into a corner, though, with the dollar for movement equation.
The Bugatti has eight times as many cylinders. It has four more turbochargers. It’s top speed is four times the Nano’s. It has nearly 30 times more power. It has two less seats, and goes from 0-100km/h 12 times quicker. Yet, and here’s the kicker, it’s 675 times more expensive than the Tata Nano. Yes, 675 times.
So for all that money, is it 675 times more competent at its job as a car? Has it changed the automotive world 675 times more than the Nano? Is it 675 times better in any respect at all?
That would make the Tata a better car, then, wouldn’t it?
What I'm getting at, and it's a long bow to draw, is does value-for-money outweigh every other deficiency, when a car is that much cheaper?