Thread: India's Tata unveils world's cheapest car

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080110/lf_afp/indiaeconomyauto_080110172817

I thought this comment was hilarious:

The businessman argued the new car -- less than half the price of its nearest budget car rival on Indian roads -- would be better and safer than most motorcycles.

So it's not better than all motorcycles?
Which motorcycle is SAFER than this car?
Begs the question, How safe is this car?

Yea...and already the "Enviornmental Clergy" is condeming it because it uses Fossil Fuels. Another under-developed nation tries to industrialize for the betterment of it's own economy and people... and they get criticized for it. They never bothered to point out the thing is economical and highly fuel efficient in there attack of it either.

People in Sub-Saharan Africa would kill for this mode of transportation. They gripe about livestock pollution (Methane) destroying the Ozone layer yet won't let people drive a car instead of riding a mule/horse/etc.

Speaks volumes about the real agenda of the so called "Enviornment Movement"

Cheers!

"Frostbite" wrote:

Yea...and already the "Enviornmental Clergy" is condeming it because it uses Fossil Fuels. Another under-developed nation tries to industrialize for the betterment of it's own economy and people... and they get criticized for it. They never bothered to point out the thing is economical and highly fuel efficient in there attack of it either.

People in Sub-Saharan Africa would kill for this mode of transportation. They gripe about livestock pollution (Methane) destroying the Ozone layer yet won't let people drive a car instead of riding a mule/horse/etc.

Speaks volumes about the real agenda of the so called "Enviornment Movement"

Cheers!

Damn, couldn't have said it better myself.

"Frostbite" wrote:

Yea...and already the "Enviornmental Clergy" is condeming it because it uses Fossil Fuels. Another under-developed nation tries to industrialize for the betterment of it's own economy and people... and they get criticized for it. They never bothered to point out the thing is economical and highly fuel efficient in there attack of it either.

People in Sub-Saharan Africa would kill for this mode of transportation. They gripe about livestock pollution (Methane) destroying the Ozone layer yet won't let people drive a car instead of riding a mule/horse/etc.

Speaks volumes about the real agenda of the so called "Enviornment Movement"

Cheers!

I think there will be real problems in the future if the entire world has automobiles in the future, we already have a lot of problems with pollution and only a small portion of the world is industrialized. Still it seems wrong to blame people in another country for driving a vehicle that gets 50mpg while people in this country drive vehicles that get 10mpg everyday.

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

I thought this comment was hilarious:

The businessman argued the new car -- less than half the price of its nearest budget car rival on Indian roads -- would be better and safer than most motorcycles.

So it's not better than all motorcycles?
Which motorcycle is SAFER than this car?
Begs the question, How safe is this car?

I doubt it would be safe in this country...if a truck or suv hit it, it would feel like it hit a bump in the road.

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"Frostbite" wrote:

Yea...and already the "Enviornmental Clergy" is condeming it because it uses Fossil Fuels. Another under-developed nation tries to industrialize for the betterment of it's own economy and people... and they get criticized for it. They never bothered to point out the thing is economical and highly fuel efficient in there attack of it either.

People in Sub-Saharan Africa would kill for this mode of transportation. They gripe about livestock pollution (Methane) destroying the Ozone layer yet won't let people drive a car instead of riding a mule/horse/etc.

Speaks volumes about the real agenda of the so called "Enviornment Movement"

Cheers!

I think there will be real problems in the future if the entire world has automobiles in the future, we already have a lot of problems with pollution and only a small portion of the world is industrialized. Still it seems wrong to blame people in another country for driving a vehicle that gets 50mpg while people in this country drive vehicles that get 10mpg everyday.

Which vehicles get 10 miles per gallon?
Most SUVs and trucks now days get closer to 17-20 miles per gallon than 10.


The bigger cause of roadside pollution comes from the 100's of thousands of semi-trucks that haul all of our consumable goods and fuel from one side of the country to the other...not from the posh businessman in his fancy Chevy Tahoe.

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"Frostbite" wrote:

Yea...and already the "Enviornmental Clergy" is condeming it because it uses Fossil Fuels. Another under-developed nation tries to industrialize for the betterment of it's own economy and people... and they get criticized for it. They never bothered to point out the thing is economical and highly fuel efficient in there attack of it either.

People in Sub-Saharan Africa would kill for this mode of transportation. They gripe about livestock pollution (Methane) destroying the Ozone layer yet won't let people drive a car instead of riding a mule/horse/etc.

Speaks volumes about the real agenda of the so called "Enviornment Movement"

Cheers!

I think there will be real problems in the future if the entire world has automobiles in the future, we already have a lot of problems with pollution and only a small portion of the world is industrialized. Still it seems wrong to blame people in another country for driving a vehicle that gets 50mpg while people in this country drive vehicles that get 10mpg everyday.

Which vehicles get 10 miles per gallon?
Most SUVs and trucks now days get closer to 17-20 miles per gallon than 10.


The bigger cause of roadside pollution comes from the 100's of thousands of semi-trucks that haul all of our consumable goods and fuel from one side of the country to the other...not from the posh businessman in his fancy Chevy Tahoe.

The mileage really doesn't change my point. But I guess 17-20 is more accurate. Although semi-trucks may be a bigger cause of polution, they are also much more efficient, ie...they carry thousands of pounds of food, as appose to the SUV which typically carries one adult. I am not saying that anyone should feel guilty about driving an suv, just that it causes pollution.

UGLY!

"BloodyHorns82" wrote:

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"Frostbite" wrote:

Yea...and already the "Enviornmental Clergy" is condeming it because it uses Fossil Fuels. Another under-developed nation tries to industrialize for the betterment of it's own economy and people... and they get criticized for it. They never bothered to point out the thing is economical and highly fuel efficient in there attack of it either.

People in Sub-Saharan Africa would kill for this mode of transportation. They gripe about livestock pollution (Methane) destroying the Ozone layer yet won't let people drive a car instead of riding a mule/horse/etc.

Speaks volumes about the real agenda of the so called "Enviornment Movement"

Cheers!

I think there will be real problems in the future if the entire world has automobiles in the future, we already have a lot of problems with pollution and only a small portion of the world is industrialized. Still it seems wrong to blame people in another country for driving a vehicle that gets 50mpg while people in this country drive vehicles that get 10mpg everyday.

Which vehicles get 10 miles per gallon?
Most SUVs and trucks now days get closer to 17-20 miles per gallon than 10.


The bigger cause of roadside pollution comes from the 100's of thousands of semi-trucks that haul all of our consumable goods and fuel from one side of the country to the other...not from the posh businessman in his fancy Chevy Tahoe.

Ask yourself how much of the environmental issues we have today was caused by less developed countries?