It’s probably difficult to bugger up a perfectly good car but not, I suspect, if you’re the one legislating rules. That’s what our government has done, taken perfectly good cars and thrust upon them legislation that quite frankly ruin them.
Small cars, that’s what I’m talking about.
I can understand excise breaks for cars under four metres in length but what’s the idea behind an engine capacity stipulation? I’ll try and speculate on the reasoning:
1) Fuel efficiency 2) Emissions 3) Cost
But the underlying logic has to be that engines above the afore mentioned stipulation can’t meet those norms. And there’s no logic to that one.
While a small engine is inherently more efficient I’m positive a larger engine can be tuned to deliver as much fuel efficiency; in fact on the highways it’ll cruise at lower revs and consequently sip less fuel. By the same yardstick her tailpipe emissions will be cleaner.
Why should the government be concerned with costs of making an engine? Let the manufacturers worry about that one, and in any case a manufacturing facility for a 1.2 isn’t any cheaper than a 1.6. As it is manufacturers don’t seem to be passing over all those excise cuts to us customers; why then would the Palio 1.1 be so cheap and not the UV-A 1.2? Would the Getz 1.1 cost as much as the outgoing 1.3 (which sported a 35-grand discount)? Surely those excise rebates are partially livening up the balance sheets.
In fact if the government is really intent upon India becoming a small car manufacturing hub this really isn’t helping the cause. Sure more small cars will be built here but nobody’s going to set up an engine facility because elsewhere in the world only the cheapest variants of the forthcoming Skoda Fabia will use a weedy 1.2-litre engine. If what we’re seeing is anything to go by these 1.2s are dated, slow and unrefined units that, because they’ve been in production for decades and churned out in large volumes, are extremely cheap. Simple isn’t it, to import engines from a cheap source, Brazil for instance like in the Palio Stile’s case, than make them here?
Or does the government want us all to drive diesels and add to the petroleum subsidy bill? Diesels can displace up to a litre and a half and still qualify for those excise rebates. The 1.5-litre engines these days can comfortably churn out in excess of 100 horses but even today common-rail diesels don’t - so if curbing speeds is the criteria these norms definitely aren’t doing their job. And common-rail diesels are far more expensive than petrols if costs is the issue.
Allow me then, in all humility, to submit my road map for small cars.
1) Size restrictions to stay. In fact an additional tax rebate should be offered to cars under three metres in length enabling micro cars like the Reva can become cheaper. With cities getting more and more congested aren’t smaller cars the need of the hour?
2) Have in place a CO2 emission limit to qualify for the rebate. In fact have five tax brackets with increasing tax breaks, the toughest emulating California super strict emission regulations. And back it with significant tax breaks to make it worthwhile for manufacturers to do something about the environment.
3) Big breaks for alternative propulsion - electrics, hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells. Again the environment is what I’m concerned about.
4) A fuel efficiency stipulation. But before than implement a fuel efficiency test cycle that’ll accurately represent our unique driving conditions, and not the ridiculous ‘standard test conditions’ that sees bikes do over 100kmpl.
Let the manufacturers worry about the rest - whether to have two cylinders or six, whether to turbo charge, super charge or strangle their engines, whether it’s diesel or petrol, whether 10PS or 101PS. Strike a right balance and the car will sell, screw up and nobody will bother your dealers - the government needn’t worry either way; for the last time I checked the government didn’t own a car company and was exiting whatever stake they held.
Hopefully this will mean manufacturers won’t bother with tiny little powerplants and that will make our roads safer. A 101PS car is far safer than a 61PS car, chiefly because you don’t have to pull any deadly stunts to overtake on our highways. Indians don’t like shifting gears which is why you’ll see Indicas taking miles to overtake Volvo buses but refusing to come down from fifth. What’s needed is more power so that cars can overtake without running into or driving cyclists, bikers and other cars off the road.
In a car with only 61PS you’re forever operating at the absolute limit of everything - of the powerband, brakes, of the minimal handling offered by skinny tyres. More power invariably comes with better brakes, better safety features, better tyres and better handling - all making our cars and roads safer.
Why then this 1.2-litre cap on petrol engines? Do you suspect it has anything to do with major lobbying by big manufacturers sporting a plethora of small cars, almost all powered by under 1.2-litre engines? And a lack of lobbying might by the rest of the bunch who are now seen busily scurrying around to re-engineer existing engines or search high and low for undersized engines? I think you have your answer there.
