MUMBAI - Some of the secrecy surrounding the Tatas’ "1-Lakh" small car has been shed, with a company executive disclosing that the vehicle will get 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) per liter and in performance terms will match the Maruti 800, one of the most popular cars in the budget segment of the Indian market.

“It’s an eco-car with a 25 kilometer-per-liter mileage on petrol, meets every international standard and specification, including Euro-4 norms. Acceleration wise, it’s the same as a Maruti 800,” R. A. Mashelkar, a nonexecutive director on Tata Motors’ board, told reporters in Calcutta.
.....

source: http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/12/19/tata-budget-car-markets-equity-cx_rd_1219markets03.html?feed=rss_popstories

It sounds great.  Got a pic of this economical vehicle? It's got to be pretty high quality, costing around $2,500 as it will.

50 MPG is very good.

I believe many modern diesels get that , or thereabouts.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 9:53pm:

50 MPG is very good. I believe many modern diesels get that , or thereabouts.

Seriously?!?

Yeh, apparently these are not all that uncommon figures for mpg.

It looks like the consumer does have appropriate options, so it would seem the consumer culture probably has alot to answer for.

Maybe SUVs should be outlawed and vehicle weights brought down. This may/will effect safety so I suppose speed limits will have to come down aswell.

It would be better to just increase the tax on petrol. Just because a vehicle is a gas guzzler doesn't mean it emits a lot of GHGs.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 8:15am:

It would be better to just increase the tax on petrol. Just because a vehicle is a gas guzzler doesn't mean it emits a lot of GHGs.

Well, potentially.

I agree, petrol should go up or even be outlawed.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 3:11pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2007 at 8:15am: It would be better to just increase the tax on petrol. Just because a vehicle is a gas guzzler doesn't mean it emits a lot of GHGs. Well, potentially. I agree, petrol should go up or even be outlawed.

I assume you do not own a vehicle.  Do you really ride a horse?

dt - does he really ride a horse ??
naaahhh, that's just his reputation    ;)

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 7:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31st, 2007 at 3:11pm: freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2007 at 8:15am: It would be better to just increase the tax on petrol. Just because a vehicle is a gas guzzler doesn't mean it emits a lot of GHGs. Well, potentially. I agree, petrol should go up or even be outlawed. I assume you do not own a vehicle.  Do you really ride a horse?

Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:06pm:

Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle?

Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself.

Do you own a vehicle?

I do....one, or two or three, or many more.

What's your point, DT?

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:06pm: Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle? Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself. Do you own a vehicle?

No, that is not reasonable.

You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential.

Yes, I own a vehicle.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:23pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:06pm: Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle? Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself. Do you own a vehicle? No, that is not reasonable. You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential. Yes, I own a vehicle.

No you advocate it.  You suggested the banning of fuel.  

But to use fossil fuel while advocating its banning seems somewhat hypocritical what?

Aussie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:23pm:

I do....one, or two or three, or many more. What's your point, DT?

My point is that you should read the thread for the first time old friend.  It would be unnecessary to ask the question you just asked.

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:30pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 9:23pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:06pm: Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle? Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself. Do you own a vehicle? No, that is not reasonable. You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential. Yes, I own a vehicle. No you advocate it.  You suggested the banning of fuel.   But to use fossil fuel while advocating its banning seems somewhat hypocritical what?

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:30pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 9:23pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:06pm: Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle? Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself. Do you own a vehicle? No, that is not reasonable. You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential. Yes, I own a vehicle. No you advocate it.  You suggested the banning of fuel.   But to use fossil fuel while advocating its banning seems somewhat hypocritical what?

I don't have much of a choice while the law is the way it is.

The law is hypocritical.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 8:38pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 9:30pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 9:23pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:06pm: Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle? Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself. Do you own a vehicle? No, that is not reasonable. You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential. Yes, I own a vehicle. No you advocate it.  You suggested the banning of fuel.   But to use fossil fuel while advocating its banning seems somewhat hypocritical what? I don't have much of a choice while the law is the way it is. The law is hypocritical.

You can't do your bit unless the law makes you?

deepthought wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 9:23pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 8:38pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 9:30pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 9:23pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2008 at 7:06pm: Why would you assume I do not own a vehicle? Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself. Do you own a vehicle? No, that is not reasonable. You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential. Yes, I own a vehicle. No you advocate it.  You suggested the banning of fuel.   But to use fossil fuel while advocating its banning seems somewhat hypocritical what? I don't have much of a choice while the law is the way it is. The law is hypocritical. You can't do your bit unless the law makes you?

How do you propose I do my bit?

duh....walk, ride, take a bus?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 2:01pm:

How do you propose I do my bit?

How would you get around if fuel was outlawed?

Do that now.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 4:22pm:

duh....walk, ride, take a bus?

I'm a plasterer.

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:07pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 2:01pm: How do you propose I do my bit? How would you get around if fuel was outlawed? Do that now.

No, I am forced to compete for food and shelter in a world that requires in a lot of, if not most, cases independant transport to get to work.

I am a plasterer and need a vehicle to carry my gear and allow me to switch from job to job as the need arises.

Don't tell me to suffer whilst the rest can sit back and pretend nothing is wrong.

Something either is or isn't wrong and decisive action must be taken if it is needed.

I'm a plasterer.

Really? I though you might have been a physicist or a highly skilled intellectual.

You want to ban fossil fuels, yet don't want to 'suffer' yourself. Yet you contend that the whole world should suffer along with you and that would be ok?

Let me know how long it takes the ambucyclists to get you when you fall off your ladder while plastering your no longer existent houses

Global warming is an example of an economic failure where the people who are adversely affected cannot enter into the transactions which harm them in any meaningful way. Failing that, expecting people to put up with other people's emissions while making none of their own is simply naive. Not only from an economic perspective (you need a solution that harnesses the power of self interest in the same way the free market does) but also from a more practical perspective because much of the solution will involve infrastructural changes that are outside the sphere of influence of one person.

Also, remember that it is electricity not transport that is responsible for most of our emissions and where it is cheapest to reduce our emissions.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 1:42pm:

I'm a plasterer. Really? I though you might have been a physicist or a highly skilled intellectual. You want to ban fossil fuels, yet don't want to 'suffer' yourself. Yet you contend that the whole world should suffer along with you and that would be ok? Let me know how long it takes the ambucyclists to get you when you fall off your ladder while plastering your no longer existent houses

What are you tripping on about now?!?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 1:59pm:

Global warming is an example of an economic failure where the people who are adversely affected cannot enter into the transactions which harm them in any meaningful way. Failing that, expecting people to put up with other people's emissions while making none of their own is simply naive. Not only from an economic perspective (you need a solution that harnesses the power of self interest in the same way the free market does) but also from a more practical perspective because much of the solution will involve infrastructural changes that are outside the sphere of influence of one person. Also, remember that it is electricity not transport that is responsible for most of our emissions and where it is cheapest to reduce our emissions.

Fair enough electricity generation is where most of the emissions come from but in calling for electric cars we also call for a greener grid at the same time.

It kills two birds with one stone, sort of.

We need to 'pick the low hanging fruit', ie make the cheapest changes first. That means cleaner electricity first, then electric cars.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 12:07pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 6:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 2:01pm: How do you propose I do my bit? How would you get around if fuel was outlawed? Do that now. No, I am forced to compete for food and shelter in a world that requires in a lot of, if not most, cases independant transport to get to work. I am a plasterer and need a vehicle to carry my gear and allow me to switch from job to job as the need arises. Don't tell me to suffer whilst the rest can sit back and pretend nothing is wrong. Something either is or isn't wrong and decisive action must be taken if it is needed.

I'm not suggesting you suffer - I'm just asking why you advocate everyone do without fuel while you are not willing to do it.  Why is that?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 3:06pm:

We need to 'pick the low hanging fruit', ie make the cheapest changes first. That means cleaner electricity first, then electric cars.

True.

Surely we can feign ignorance, though, if it helps us achieve exactly that!?!

We have to start thinking on our toes!

 :D

deepthought wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:22pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 12:07pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 6:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 2:01pm: How do you propose I do my bit? How would you get around if fuel was outlawed? Do that now. No, I am forced to compete for food and shelter in a world that requires in a lot of, if not most, cases independant transport to get to work. I am a plasterer and need a vehicle to carry my gear and allow me to switch from job to job as the need arises. Don't tell me to suffer whilst the rest can sit back and pretend nothing is wrong. Something either is or isn't wrong and decisive action must be taken if it is needed. I'm not suggesting you suffer - I'm just asking why you advocate everyone do without fuel while you are not willing to do it.  Why is that?

I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it?

Nothing, so get real.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:36pm:

I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it? Nothing, so get real.

I understand.  You need to be forced to be green.  You won't do it yourself.

deepthought wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:36pm: I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it? Nothing, so get real. I understand.  You need to be forced to be green.  You won't do it yourself.

You understand nil!

You don't understand what has already been said, do you?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:44pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:38pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:36pm: I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it? Nothing, so get real. I understand.  You need to be forced to be green.  You won't do it yourself. You understand nil! You don't understand what has already been said, do you?

I do.  You said that fuel should be banned.  But as it isn't you will still keep using it because everyone else is.  You have no interest in being the one to stop unless you are forced to along with everyone else.

deepthought wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 6:07pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:44pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:38pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:36pm: I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it? Nothing, so get real. I understand.  You need to be forced to be green.  You won't do it yourself. You understand nil! You don't understand what has already been said, do you? I do.  You said that fuel should be banned.  But as it isn't you will still keep using it because everyone else is.  You have no interest in being the one to stop unless you are forced to along with everyone else.

Oh yeh, that was a great synopsis of the conversation!

Get a brain!

Oh yeh, that was a great synopsis of the conversation!

I thought so too...thank god you could recognise it this time

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 1:58am:

Oh yeh, that was a great synopsis of the conversation! I thought so too...thank god you could recognise it this time

Do you even know what IQ means!?!

 :-?

 :D

 ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 1:09am:

deepthought wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 6:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:44pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:38pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:36pm: I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it? Nothing, so get real. I understand.  You need to be forced to be green.  You won't do it yourself. You understand nil! You don't understand what has already been said, do you? I do.  You said that fuel should be banned.  But as it isn't you will still keep using it because everyone else is.  You have no interest in being the one to stop unless you are forced to along with everyone else. Oh yeh, that was a great synopsis of the conversation! Get a brain!

Get a brain?  Oh I say.

See I do not understand your kind of thinking.  It's the same kind of thinking which stops you riding the bus because others drive, getting a water tank because others don't have one and leaving your plasma TV on 24 hours a day because others do.  Tell me do you still emit methane because others are?

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 7:21am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2008 at 1:09am: deepthought wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 6:07pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:44pm: deepthought wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:38pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2008 at 5:36pm: I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it? Nothing, so get real. I understand.  You need to be forced to be green.  You won't do it yourself. You understand nil! You don't understand what has already been said, do you? I do.  You said that fuel should be banned.  But as it isn't you will still keep using it because everyone else is.  You have no interest in being the one to stop unless you are forced to along with everyone else. Oh yeh, that was a great synopsis of the conversation! Get a brain! Get a brain?  Oh I say. See I do not understand your kind of thinking.  It's the same kind of thinking which stops you riding the bus because others drive, getting a water tank because others don't have one and leaving your plasma TV on 24 hours a day because others do.  Tell me do you still emit methane because others are?

Come on DT- getting a bit petty arent we? Reaching ever decreasing/increasing low/high  points  in  cerebral capacity here.

Death posts well.

wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 8:24am:

Come on DT- getting a bit petty arent we? Reaching ever decreasing/increasing low/high  points  in  cerebral capacity here. Death posts well.

You agree then that the usage of fossil fuesl should be banned oceans?

Is it fair to assume you do not use any?

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 10:16am:

wrote on Jan 5th, 2008 at 8:24am: Come on DT- getting a bit petty arent we? Reaching ever decreasing/increasing low/high  points  in  cerebral capacity here. Death posts well. You agree then that the usage of fossil fuesl should be banned oceans? Is it fair to assume you do not use any?

Fossil fuesl ? No never touch the stuff!

wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 8:55am:

deepthought wrote on Jan 5th, 2008 at 10:16am: wrote on Jan 5th, 2008 at 8:24am: Come on DT- getting a bit petty arent we? Reaching ever decreasing/increasing low/high  points  in  cerebral capacity here. Death posts well. You agree then that the usage of fossil fuesl should be banned oceans? Is it fair to assume you do not use any? Fossil fuesl ? No never touch the stuff!

Good.  The excess usage of fuesl is disadvantageous.

Tell me though, how about the closely related fuels?  Use any fossil fuels?