2.0 Exterior | 4.0 Comfort | 3.0 Performance |
3.0 Fuel Economy | 2.0 Value for Money |
Exterior Very Very Bad Front View Design looks very Snuby design change to b needed ,But Rear View is Good,Engine Silencer performance is Bad.
Interior (Features, Space & Comfort) Very Good Space... This is major Plus to NANO.
Engine Performance, Fuel Economy and Gearbox 650CC Engine Not Enough to Car. Engine Power not Good, Need Engine CC and Cooling System to Improve. Fuel Economy is Good, Gear BoX need some Changes in its Position.
Ride Quality & Handling Ride Quality is Not Bad and Handling is good. Maintanence will be surely good n Cheap, since named to TATA Brand.
Final Words Eventhough NanO is very Cheap Car. People expectation is need car not only for local transport but for also for to travel long Distance. Camparing with 800 n Alto. Nano is Standing only for is Cheap Cost. Cant b able to Compare with Other Cars. Cars Front Very Bad Design feels NANO as TOY CAR. On Running Silencer is Making Noise n Dancing(Vibrating More). Need Design Change, Improvement in its Specifications. Two Weeler is Different with Four Weelers.
Areas of improvement Front Design,Silencer,Engine CC Power.
R.Bala (Mechanical Engineer)
Good fuel economy, interior space,ground clearanceVery Bad Front View Design,Silencer is Poor,Engine CC not enough to Car