India's iconic Ambassador car brand is sold to Peugeot

I know which ad you're referring to. Don't have to click this link, it was a catchy one!

With modern, powerful cars, using the handbrake really is unnecessary. However until recently many European cars had only a handful of HP and incredibly low torque compared to modern diesels... Citroën 2CV: 12 to 21 HP DIN. VW Beetle: 34 to 50 HP. Even a "sport" car like a Golf GTI was 110 HP only in the 80s. The torque was also much lower.

I was not "taught" much to do with a manual transmission, but now I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. I've never done a hand-brake turn though. At first, I even struggled because the brief instruction I had had was from a used-car salesman and I barely learned enough to get my first manual transmission-equipped car off that lot. But I learned hand-brake hill-holding and foot-brake hill-holding, eventually, by trying them out when consequence-free opportunities presented themselves. There is a maneuver in turns, when you might need to make a gear change in a turn, that calls for manipulating the brakes, clutch and gas in coordination with the gear change, so the hand brake in that situation would not be right and your hands are full anyway. The goal of this maneuver is to maintain smooth momentum and change gears. So I think people should learn all the techniques.

No, it's something you're taught to do generally. It's going to be 3 inputs either way (accel, brake, clutch - 4 if you count steering), most people find it easier to do them independently with two feet and one hand than to have one foot do two inputs.

> You mean people actually use the handbrake for hill starts with a manual? I thought it was just something you do when first learning. I've always found it more difficult to coordinate everything with the handbrake, I can operate all the pedals quick enough anyway.

Your comment makes me think you've never had to do a hill start on a sufficiently steep hill with a sufficiently heavy vehicle. I don't care how fast you are moving your foot from the brake to the accelerator, you will roll backwards. Not to mention the wear you're putting on the clutch, which again, won't take that kind of abuse in a heavy vehicle.

The first time I used a car with hill assist I wondered why the car wouldn't start. Seems the assist was slower than me at the brake-clutch-accelerator game.

307 isn't particularly new, though. Production ended in 2007 (except in South America and China).

I agree that putting controls behind a touch screen is not nice. Especially in the winter where I live, they're impossible - they don't work in the cold, with gloves.

Maruti was founded in 1981 and it was the beginning of the end for the Ambassador. Premier was a much bigger player than Sipani.

It was so low because of the per capita income that was equally low, and looking into reasons for such a disproportion would lead to a wide-ranging discussion.

Times have changed a lot. It wasn't until the 90s that the average middle class family could afford a car. The father bought his first car at about the same time I did, except he was 50 and I had just started grad school in the US.

Cars were definitely a luxury item while I was growing up. Better incomes, more choice, ability to get car loans, etc have made cars the norm now (in big cities at least).

In cities like Kolkata the taxi fleet is Ambassadors. I don’t know what the average age of the vehicles is, but they almost always feel as old as they look.

For all its faults, the Ambassador is a robust vehicle.

Well there's this guy:

> Nirmal Kumar Ram, who worked at the factory's engine plant, says he has not yet left his job because Hindustan Motors has still not told workers that they were fired.

Instead of communicating with the employees they just kind of forgot about them.

And this guy:

> "Even before production stopped, I didn't get my salary for six months."

The company wasn't paying the employees, of course it's impossible to know what was said but you wouldn't think that he'd be waiting around for six months unpaid if they weren't telling him it was coming.

Not sure if it is fair to compare India and China/Korea. I don't know much about the history of China and Korea, but I doubt if both those countries faced full scale colonialism like India did. Recovering from the devastation caused by 200+ years of colonial rule takes a while.

S.Korea particularity benefitted from the Korean war. USA stepped in and boosted it's economy.

There are lot of things contributing to this mismanagement

Unlike China and Korea, India is not ethnically and culturally cohesive (I know China is a bit more diverse but not to levels of India).

The Economic Reforms started in 1991 soon lost stream by mid-2000s and there we no policy cohesion for reforms

Colonial two step, every Indian will not miss a chance to say how many official languages are there in India, but Indian economy discriminates against non-english languages, esp. in a set up where majority of public education is non-english. The effort of language development outside of Hindi is a state's mission, which itself has two or more official languages outside of English. So, only 20-30% of people who are educated in English medium has the ability to fully participate in the economy etc.

The point is India will straddle along, the West and South will lead the economic growth, where as North and East will drag along, and there is nothing changing in the near future.

Think China and India like the Hare and the Tortoise, China did the miraculous fast run esp. from late 90s to 2012 (when the miracle actually ran out of steam), and India will staddle and move along at 4-7% with ebbs and flows and will catch-up say, in 2050 (its my pure guess).

> India never suffered from war

After Independence and Partition? India never had to deal with war??

Add into this that the country has a huge amount of english speakers, and is also a democracy.

Just to be clear, are you blaming protectionism ?