The world’s supposedly cheapest car ($2,500 apiece) will cost $220,000 when Mumbai-based D.C. Design is through with it. They will keep the car’s snub-nosed shape, everything else has to go.

The standard two-cylinder 624cc, 33-horsepower engine will be replaced by a 1600cc engine. To make room for the motor, the back seats will be removed. The car will get new brakes, new suspension, and bigger 20-inch wheels to allow for the top speed of 200 kilometers per hour (124 mph).

The news coming out of India has been dominated by talk of the booming small car market, there’s another development which deserves some attention. The Economic Times of India reports that after two years of testing, India’s government is about to roll out a star rating system for (get this) fuel efficiency. The star rating system is voluntary for the first year, but starting next year the system becomes mandatory. The ET explains:

The proposed label will not only suggest the new car’s ideal mileage but also tell the buyer how the car performs compared to other models in the same category. The categories would be created on the basis of the vehicle’s weight. The best performer would be given 5 stars and the others would get fewer stars depending on their mileage. At the moment, sources in the government suggest not many cars are able to hit the top category.

Quick, someone bring me the forms I need to fill out to register my displeasure!

We also recognize there is a market (for the Nano) not only in developing countries, but possibly in the developed countries. For the United States we need a car which has a larger engine and we need additional crash test modifications and we are in the process of doing it.

Ratan Tata at today’s India Auto Expo [via Automotive News [sub]], suggesting that the world’s cheapest car could eventually be sold in the US. Fiat is already partnering with Tata to jointly sell the Nano in Latin American markets, so there’s a chance that the Indian city car could eventually show up at Chrysler dealerships.

Business Week reports that Toyota are planning to capture 10% of the Indian market. “India will play a pivotal role in Toyota’s global expansion plans,” Vice Chairman Kazuo Okamoto said today at the Delhi Auto Show. “The time has come for us to strategically accelerate our growth here.” Toyota is using the Delhi Auto show to showcase the cars which will lead the assault for 10% of the Indian market, the most important of which is Toyota Etios (which will also be produced in Brazil). Autocar.co.uk reports that Etios is 90% production ready and that it will go on sale in India at the end of 2010 (with first-year sales projected at 70k units). Because of the price (around $10000) it’ll go head to head with the Maruti Swift, the very boys who hold a huge chunk of the Indian car market. To help combat Maruti, a larger and better quality interior is key to the Etios. Autocar also reports that in order to keep costs under control, Toyota went on a cost cutting exercise. Measures taken include, limited sound proofing, a hard, but durable, interior and one windscreen wiper. But before you cry “Toyota are turning into GM”, don’t be fooled. Toyota tried the same thing with the Aygo in Europe and the end result was a good car which sells very well.

If you hear a loud screeching noise coming from the Stuttgart area, that’ll probably be Dieter Zetsche berating his Asian management team. The Economic Times of India reported that the Mercedes-Benz marque has lost its leadership of the luxury car segment in India to BMW after nearly ten years on top. Daimler also posted a 10.43% decline in sales in India, as volume fell to 3,247 units (if that doesn’t seem like much, consider that Mercedes also trails BMW in China by about 60k units to about 90k). And just like that, out come the excuses: “We are behind BMW in 2009 because of limited availability of our E-Class car … I don’t want to focus on leadership. We want to have a profitable growth,” Mercedes Benz India Managing Director and CEO Wilfried Aulbur told reporters. “We see a very strong growth in 2009 and it will be a blockbuster year for us. We are very bullish and we expect, it will be a high double-digit growth.”

When Ford let Jaguar-Land Rover go, the betting odds on Tata’s prospects with the perpetually-mired firm were not exactly in its favour. Now it seems that Tata might have bought low, as JLR starts to turn a corner. The Liverpool Daily Post reports that the Jaguar-Land Rover group, owned by Tata Motors, had worldwide sales rise 30% last month. Wholesale and retail sales both showed strong growth. A spokesman said: “Despite the continuing economic uncertainty, we are seeing improved economic stability in most markets, especially the UK and China.”

Let’s get small: The new 50:50 joint venture between China’s SAIC and GM may plan to launch an entry-level low-cost car for the Indian market, say’s India’s Wheels Unplugged.

The Tata Nano is sprouting new variants in its global ambitions and to fend off the competition. Even before the little Basmati burner ramps up to large-scale production in its new dedicated factory, and possible franchise manufacturers take the bait, news of its offshoots never ends. Tata is managing the Nano brand’s exposure just fine. Lets start with the ultimate in mixed metaphors, the Darth Vader helmet-inspired “Design”:

Das Autohaus [sub] has it from India’s Economic Times that VW and Suzuki are planning a low-priced mini-car which could give Tata’s Nano some problems.

In my editorial on GM’s plant to take on the Indian market in partnership with SAIC, I wrote that Maruti Suzuki’s monstrous market share indicated the possibilities for GM. Well, the Indian market leader isn’t going to just sit on that lead. In 2007, Osamu Suzuki said that his firm’s Indian passenger car market share would never drop below 50 percent, an assertion that took two years to prove untrue. The WSJ reports that although the overall Indian market will probably grow 16 percent this year, Maruti’s share of that market has fallen over the last year from 45 percent to about 40 percent (with passenger car share down from 55 percent to 48 percent).

Fresh details on GM’s Asian wranglings are coming in, and it seems that SAIC paid The General a mere $85m for the one percent needed to control the joint venture. GM’s Nick Reilly tells the New York Times:

the 51 percent stake would give S.A.I.C. the right to approve the venture’s budget, future plans and senior management. But the venture has a cooperative spirit in which S.A.I.C. has already been able to do so… S.A.I.C. wanted to have a majority stake to consolidate the venture in its financial reporting

Which is about as credible as the conclusion that the Shanghai and India deals are going to provide GM International with a meaningful amount of cash with which to rescue its European and Korean divisions. As it turns out, the Indian deal isn’t going to translate into free cash for GM. GM and SAIC will set up a joint Hong Kong-based investment company, which GM will give its Indian operations and SAIC will fund with $300-$530m, bringing its overall value to $650m.

And so it happened. Xinhua (translation via Gasgoo) has put on the wire that General Mayhem will “transfer half of its Indian operations to SAIC Motor by setting up a 50-50 joint venture there with the Chinese partner.” As expected, “GM and SAIC have also reached an agreement to transfer 1 percent of GM’s stake in their 50-50 Shanghai car venture to SAIC.” With that little percent, SAIC has a controlling majority of the Chinese joint venture. What for?

China and the world are waiting for a press conference to be held at 5pm local time (0900 zulu,) for which GM is promising “some important GM news,” relating to SAIC, says Reuters. Nick Reilly will take time off from restructuring Opel, and will personally host the conference.

It is widely expected that GM will cede control of the 50:50 China joint venture by selling 1 percent to SAIC. They will also most likely announce that GM will transfer half of GM’s India operations to the Chinese company.

Ford were mighty relieved when it managed to off-load it’s British marques, Jaguar and Land Rover, to Tata. Now after 1 year and 9 months of ownership, causing the normally profitable Tata Motors to fall into a £41 million pound loss and falling sales, how do you think Tata are feeling about the purchase of JLR? Sad? Depressed? Suicidal? According to steelguru.com, Ratan Tata is surprisingly optimistic.

If we assume that the global meltdown is a phenomenon that will be over in the near term, I think we will look back and say that these are very strategic and worthwhile acquisitions. There were many questions raised regarding whether these two large acquisitions Corus and JLR are worthwhile and whether the prices were right in terms of being at the top of the market, virtually. My view on that is that if you want to buy a house and that house is of a particular value, then it may not be there if you wait

With Tata unable to produce enough Nanos to keep up with demand, more automakers are gunning for its entry-level segment. Renault-Nissan is teaming up with its Indian-market partner Bajaj to produce a car that’s even cheaper to produce than the Nano. “I can tell you the cost of this car would be lower than any car today made in India,” Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn tells Gasgoo, adding that a lower production cost wouldn’t guarantee that the new car would be priced lower than Nano. The Renault ULC, as the low-cost car is being called during development, will be available in India in 2012, by which time GM and Toyota could have competing models on the market. Ford’s recently-announced Indian market low-cost car, based on the discontinued previous-generation European Fiesta, will be positioned above the Nano. And that strategy also appeals to Honda. The Motor Company tells the WSJ that rather than competing directly with the lowest-cost segment, a sub-Fit (Jazz, as it’s known globally) hatchback will be introduced around 2012 to compete with Ford’s model. The Jazz/Fit currently sells for about $15,000 in India, leaving a huge window between there and the Nano’s approximately $3,000 price price tag.

I’m thinking about opening a car factory. A really small one. Tata would sell me their Nano in kit form. I’d have it assembled (using cheap Chinese labor, of course) and sell it as the Bertel car. Entirely possible. Tata may allow small car assemblers to put together its Nano and sell it under their own brand, India’s Business Standard reports via Reuters.

Automotive News [sub] reports that Tata plans on bringing a version of its Nano subcompact to the US market “in about two years.” About? “Maybe two years and six months,” equivocated Tata chairman Ratan Tata at the Cornell Global Forum on Sustainable Enterprise. But the Indian firm faces at least one major challenge: where to sell the thing. Jaguar/Land Rover North America spokesfolks say that “Tata will not use Jaguar Land Rover’s distribution network and vice versa.” For obvious reasons. The Nano boasts none of the small-but-premium appeal of BMW’s MINI or Chrysler’s forthcoming Fiat 500. So where will it sell? Roger Penske’s Saturn World Market? Global Vehicles U.S.A.’s 330-strong Mahindra distribution network? Wal-Mart?

In the WTF dept., “Hyundai Motor India is planning to shift production of one of its premium models to Europe after a strike over unionization at its south India plant that led to the mass arrest of 750 protesters,” reports Financial Times.

The move reflects growing skepticism of international automakers about the political climate in what used to be one of the world’s most promising growth markets.

India’s Tata has gone from darling to dumpling in just a year. The high profile Nano People’s Car project still hasn’t gone into production, and the $2.3b purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover now seems spectacularly ill-timed. Business Week recently covered the story with these great opening notes: “What a difference a year makes.” India is in the throes of its own economic crisis; thanks to high inflation, high interest rates, tight credit markets, excessive corporate debt and a suddenly spending averse middle class. Pretty much like most places in the world, but a little different.

The Financial Times (sub) is pissed. Pissed at Peter Mandelson, Britain’s business secretary, and his planned bail-out of Jaguar Land Rover. Forgetting the old school of not mixing reporting with opinion, the FT pulls out the flame thrower and blasts away: “It is hard to imagine a less deserving candidate. The luxury carmaker fails the public interest test on two key grounds. First, its products are of questionable social utility. For the government to allocate scarce funds to prop up the production of the 4.2 Litre V8 Petrol Supercharged Jaguar is a nonsense. It has a top speed of more than 150mph, emits 299g of carbon dioxide per kilometre and costs about three times the average annual wage. True, the UK car industry employs 190,000 people directly and supports several hundred thousand more once components and retailing are taken into account. But if Mr Mandelson wants the government to underwrite this £50b industry, he should harness such public funds as are available to develop the green cars of the future, not pander to vested interests.”

Hmmm. Let us remind you: This is not a rabid blog. This is the venerable Financial Times. We kid you not. Would the pink Financial Times be so ferocious if Land Rover and Jaguar still be a company that’s firmly in British hands? We guess not. The FT seems to have issues with the current owners of Land Rover and Jaguar, who happen to sit in one of Britain’s old and long departed crown colonies. After refilling the flame thrower, the FT launches an incendiary attack in the easterly direction:

Since the first mutterings of an auto industry bailout, the idea has wrapped itself in unabashedly patriotic rhetoric. Now that the battle for the billions has been joined, this nationalist veneer is reaching near-self-parody levels of earnestness. All the while we’ve been arguing that saving American jobs and saving the Detroit Three in their current forms are mutually exclusive goals. As reality slowly becomes too real to ignore, directors, representatives and pundits are beginning to acknowledge this trade-off, although you might be surprised by how they’re playing. Or, if you’re as cynical as we are, not. The gameplan comes from Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press, who argues that to survive, Ford and GM must “must show a business plan that’s profitable at much lower sales volume and has upside flexibility to build more vehicles and for workers to make more money with overtime. This will require plant closures and layoffs.” At home, of course. Meanwhile, Phelan argues that “GM and Ford’s greatest assets are their worldwide facilities and capabilities…

Chinese mothers don’t admonish their one-and-only child to “eat up, there are children starving back in America.” But we’re getting there. Case in point: This weekend, another Rolls-Royce showroom opened in Shenzen, Gasgoo reports. It’s the seventh Rolls Royce retail location in China. Another one, located in China’s industrial center Ningbo, will open its doors in a few months. Rollers are on a roll in China. I counted two Phantoms alone in the underground garage of my Beijing building. At the Shenzen opening, Rolls presented their new Rolls-Royce Phantom Coupé to the Chinese public. It’s their entry model. “Nearly two-thirds of Coupé customers worldwide have not owned a Rolls-Royce before,” said Jenny Zheng, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars’ General Manager for Greater China. BMW are thanking their lucky stars…