Chapter I

Introduction of Automotive industry in India

The Automotive industry in India is one of the largest in the

world and one of the fastest growing globally. India manufactures
over 11 million vehicles (including 2 wheeled and 4 wheeled) and
exports about 1.5 million every year. It is the world's second
largest manufacturer of motorcycles, with annual sales exceeding
8.5 million in 2009. India's passenger car and commercial vehicle
manufacturing industry is the seventh largest in the world, with an
annual production of more than 2.6 million units in 2009. In 2009,
India emerged as Asia's fourth largest exporter of passenger cars,
behind Japan, South Korea, and Thailand.

As of 2009, India is home to 40 million passenger vehicles

and more than 2.6 million cars were sold in India in 2009 (an
increase of 26%), making the country the second fastest growing
automobile market in the world. According to the Society of Indian
Automobile Manufacturers, annual car sales are projected to
increase up to 5 million vehicles by 2015 and more than 9 million
by 2020. By 2050, the country is expected to top the world in car
volumes with approximately 611 million vehicles on the nation's
roads.

A chunk of India's car manufacturing industry is based in and

around Chennai, also known as the "Detroit of India" with the
India operations of BMW, Ford, Hyundai and Nissan
1|Page
headquartered in the city. Chennai accounts for 60 per cent of the
country's automotive exports. Gurgaon and Manesar in Haryana
are hubs where all of the Maruti Suzuki cars in India are
manufactured. The Chakan corridor near Pune, Maharashtra is
another vehicular production hub with companies like General
Motors, Volkswagen, Skoda, Mahindra and Mahindra, Tata
Motors, Mercedes Benz, Fiat and Force Motors having assembly
plants in the area. Ahmedabad with the Tata Nano plant, Halol
with General Motors in Gujarat, Aurangabad with Audi in
Maharashtra and Kolkatta with Hindustan Motors in West Bengal
and Toyota in Bengaluru are some of the other automotive
manufacturing regions around the country

2|Page
 History
The first car ran on India's roads in 1897. Until the 1930s, cars
were imported directly, but in very small numbers. Embryonic
automotive industry emerged in India in the 1940s. Mahindra &
Mahindra was established by two brothers as a trading company
in 1945, and began assembly of Jeep CJ-3A utility vehicles under
license from Willys. The company soon branched out into the
manufacture of light commercial vehicles (LCVs) and agricultural
tractors.

Following the independence, in 1947, the Government of India

and the private sector launched efforts to create an automotive
component manufacturing industry to supply to the automobile
industry. However, the growth was relatively slow in the 1950s
and 1960s due to nationalization and the license raj which
hampered the Indian private sector. After 1970, the automotive
industry started to grow, but the growth was mainly driven by
tractors, commercial vehicles and scooters. Cars were still a
major luxury. Japanese manufacturers entered the Indian market
ultimately leading to the establishment of Maruti Udyog. A number
of foreign firms initiated joint ventures with Indian companies.

In the 1980s, a number of Japanese manufacturers

launched joint-ventures for building motorcycles and light
3|Page
commercial-vehicles. It was at this time that the Indian
government chose Suzuki for its joint-venture to manufacture
small cars. Following the economic liberalisation in 1991 and the
gradual weakening of the license raj, a number of Indian and
multi-national car companies launched operations. Since then,
automotive component and automobile manufacturing growth has
accelerated to meet domestic and export demands.

Following economic liberalization in India in 1991, the Indian

automotive industry has demonstrated sustained growth as a
result of increased competitiveness and relaxed restrictions.
Several Indian automobile manufacturers such as Tata Motors,
Maruti Suzuki and Mahindra and Mahindra, expanded their
domestic and international operations. India's robust economic
growth led to the further expansion of its domestic automobile
market which has attracted significant India-specific investment by
multinational automobile manufacturers. In February 2009,
monthly sales of passenger cars in India exceeded 100,000 units
and has since grown rapidly to a record monthly high of 182,992
units in October 2009. From 2003 to 2010, car sales in India have
progressed at a CAGR of 13.7%, and with only 10% of Indian
households owning a car in 2009 (whereas this figure reaches
80% in Switzerland for example) this progression is unlikely to
stop in the coming decade. Congestion of Indian roads, more than
market demand, will likely be the limiting factor.

4|Page
SIAM is the apex industry body representing all the vehicle
manufacturers, home-grown and international, in India.

Supply Chain of Automobile Industry

Supply Chain of Indian Automobile Industry:

The supply chain of automotive industry in India is very

similar to the supply chain of the automotive industry in Europe
and America. The orders of the industry arise from the bottom of
the supply chain i. e., from the consumers and goes through the
automakers and climbs up until the third tier suppliers. However
the products, as channeled in every traditional automotive
industry, flow from the top of the supply chain to reach the
consumers. Automakers in India are the key to the supply chain
and are responsible for the products and innovation in the
industry.

The description and the role of each of the contributors to the

supply chain are discussed below.

 Third Tier Suppliers: These companies provide basic

products like rubber, glass, steel, plastic and aluminum to
the second tier suppliers.
 Second Tier Suppliers: These companies design vehicle
systems or bodies for First Tier Suppliers and OEMs. They
work on designs provided by the first tier suppliers or OEMs.
They also provide engineering resources for detailed
5|Page
 designs. Some of their services may include welding,
fabrication, shearing, bending etc.
 First Tier Suppliers: These companies provide major
systems directly to assemblers. These companies have
global coverage, in order to follow their customers to various
locations around the world. They design and innovate in
order to provide “black-box” solutions for the requirements of
their customers. Black-box solutions are solutions created by
suppliers using their own technology to meet the
performance and interface requirements set by assemblers.

First tier suppliers are responsible not only for the assembly of
parts into complete units like dashboard, breaks-axel-suspension,
seats, or cockpit but also for the management of second-tier
suppliers.

Automakers/Vehicle Manufacturers/Original Equipment

Manufacturers (OEMs): After researching consumers’ wants and
needs, automakers begin designing models which are tailored to
consumers’ demands. The design process normally takes five
years. These companies have manufacturing units where engines
are manufactured and parts supplied by first tier suppliers and
second tier suppliers are assembled. Automakers are the key to
the supply chain of the automotive industry. Examples of these
companies are Tata Motors, Maruti Suzuki, Toyota, and Honda.

6|Page
Innovation, design capability and branding are the main focus of
these companies.

 Dealers: Once the vehicles are ready they are shipped to

the regional branch and from there, to the authorised dealers
of the companies. The dealers then sell the vehicles to the
end customers.
 Parts and Accessory: These companies provide products like
tires, windshields, and air bags etc. to automakers and
dealers or directly to customers.

Service Providers: Some of the services to the customers include

servicing of vehicles, repairing parts, or financing of vehicles.
Many dealers provide these services but, customers can also
choose to go to independent service providers

7|Page
 Production statistics
The production of automobiles has greatly increased in the last decade. It passed the 1 million mark
during 2003-2004 and has more than doubled since

Total
Car % % %
Year Commercial Vehicles
Production Change Change Change
Production.
1999 533,149 285,044 818193
2000 517,957 -2.85 283,403 -0.58 801360 -2.10
2001 654,557 26.37 160,054 -43.52 814611 1.62
2002 703,948 7.55 190,848 19.24 894796 8.96
2003 907,968 28.98 253,555 32.86 1,161,523 22.96
2004 1,178,354 29.78 332,803 31.25 1,511,157 23.13
2005 1,264,000 7.27 362, 755 9.00 1,628,755 7.22
2006 1,473,000 16.53 546,808 50.74 2,019,808 19.36
2007 1,713,479 16.33 540,250 -1.20 2,253,999 10.39
2008 1,846,051 7.74 486,277 -9.99 2,332,328 3.35
2009 2,166,238 17.34 466,456 -4.08 2,632,694 11.40

8|Page
 Emission norms

In tune with international standards to reduce vehicular

pollution, the central government unveiled the standards titled
'India 2000' in 2000 with later upgraded guidelines as 'Bharat
Stage'. These standards are quite similar to the more stringent
European standards and have been traditionally implemented in a
phased manner, with the latest upgrade getting implemented in 13
cities and later, in the rest of the nation. Delhi(NCR), Mumbai,
Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Pune,
Surat, Kanpur, Lucknow, Solapur, and Agra are the 13 cities
where Bharat Stage IV has been imposed while the rest of the
nation is still under Bharat Stage.

Motor vehicles

Background

The first Indian emission regulations were idle

emission limits which became effective in 1989. These
idle emission regulations were soon replaced by mass
emission limits for both petrol (1991) and diesel (1992)
vehicles, which were gradually tightened during the
1990s. Since the year 2000, India started adopting
European emission and fuel regulations for four-
wheeled light-duty and for heavy-dc. Indian own

9|Page
 emission regulations still apply to two- and three-
wheeled vehicles.

Current requirement is that all transport vehicles

carry a fitness certificate that is renewed each year
after the first two years of new vehicle registration.

On October 6, 2003, the National Auto Fuel Policy has been

announced, which envisages a phased program for introducing
Euro 2 - 4 emission and fuel regulations by 2010. The
implementation schedule of EU emission standards in India is
summarized in Table 1.

10 | P a g e
 Indian Emission Standards (4-Wheel Vehicles)

Standard Reference Date Region

India 2000 Euro 1 2000 Nationwide

Bharat Stage Euro 2 2001 NCR*, Mumbai,

II Kolkata, Chennai

2003.04 NCR*, 13 Cities†

2005.04 Nationwide

Bharat Stage Euro 3 2005.04 NCR*, 13 Cities†

III
2010.04 Nationwide

Bharat Stage Euro 4 2010.04 NCR*, 13 Cities†

IV

* National Capital Region (Delhi)

Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad,

Pune, Surat, Kanpur, Lucknow, Sholapur, Jamshedpur and Agra

The above standards apply to all new 4-wheel vehicles sold

and registered in the respective regions. In addition, the National

11 | P a g e
Auto Fuel Policy introduces certain emission requirements for
interstate buses with routes originating or terminating in Delhi or
the other 10 cities.

For 2-and 3-wheelers, Bharat Stage II (Euro 2) will be applicable

from April 1, 2005 and Stage III (Euro 3) standards would come in
force from April 1, 2010.

12 | P a g e
 Exports

India's automobile exports have grown consistently and

reached $4.5 billion in 2009, with United Kingdom being India's
largest export market followed by Italy, Germany, Netherlands and
South Africa. India's automobile exports are expected to cross
$12 billion by 2014.

According to New York Times, India's strong engineering

base and expertise in the manufacturing of low-cost, fuel-efficient
cars has resulted in the expansion of manufacturing facilities of
several automobile companies like Hyundai Motors, Nissan,
Toyota, Volkswagen and Suzuki.

In 2008, Hyundai Motors alone exported 240,000 cars made

in India. Nissan Motors plans to export 250,000 vehicles
manufactured in its India plant by 2011. Similarly, General Motors
announced its plans to export about 50,000 cars manufactured in
India by 2011.

In September 2009, Ford Motors announced its plans to

setup a plant in India with an annual capacity of 250,000 cars for
US$500 million. The cars will be manufactured both for the Indian
market and for export. The company said that the plant was a part
of its plan to make India the hub for its global production
business. Fiat Motors also announced that it would source more
than US$1 billion worth auto components from India.

13 | P a g e
 In July 2010, The Economic Times reported that PSA
Peugeot Citroen was planning to re-enter the Indian market and
open a production plant in Andhra Pradesh with an annual
capacity of 100,000 vehicles, investing EUR 700M in the
operation. PSA's intention to utilize this production facility for
export purposes however remains unclear as of December 2010.

In 2009 India (0.23m) surpassed China (0.16m) as Asia's

fourth largest exporter of cars after Japan (1.77m), Korea (1.12m)
and Thailand (0.26m) by allowing foreign carmakers 100%
ownership of factories in India, which China does not allow.

In recent years, India has emerged as a leading center for

the manufacture of small cars. Hyundai, the biggest exporter from
the country, now ships more than 250,000 cars annually from
India. Apart from shipments to its parent Suzuki, Maruti Suzuki
also manufactures small cars for Nissan, which sells them in
Europe. Nissan will also export small cars from its new Indian
assembly line. Tata Motors exports its passenger vehicles to
Asian and African markets, and is in preparation to launch electric
vehicles in Europe in 2010. The firm is also planning to launch an
electric version of its low-cost car Nano in Europe and the U.S.
Mahindra & Mahindra is preparing to introduce its pickup trucks
and small SUV models in the U.S. market. Bajaj Auto is designing
a low-cost car for the Renault Nissan Automotive India, which will
market the product worldwide. Renault Nissan may also join

14 | P a g e
domestic commercial vehicle manufacturer Ashok Leyland in
another small car project. While the possibilities are impressive,
there are challenges that could thwart future growth of the Indian
automobile industry. Since the demand for automobiles in recent
years is directly linked to overall economic expansion and rising
personal incomes, industry growth will slow if the economy
weakens

15 | P a g e
 Chapter II:

History of Sport utility vehicle

Ford Explorer

A sport utility vehicle (SUV) is a generic marketing term for a

vehicle similar to a station wagon, but built on a light-truck
chassis. Usually equipped with four-wheel drive for on- or off-road
ability, and with some pretension or ability to be used as an off-
road vehicle, some SUVs include the towing capacity of a pickup
truck with the passenger-carrying space of a minivan or large
sedan. Since SUVs are considered light trucks and often share
the same platform with pick-up trucks, they are regulated less
strictly than passenger cars under the two laws in the United
States, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for fuel economy,
and the Clean Air Act for emissions.

The term is not used in all countries, and outside North

America the terms "off-road vehicle", "four-wheel drive" or "four-
by-four" (abbreviated to "4WD" or "4x4") or simply use of the
brand name to describe the vehicle like "Jeep" or "Land Rover"
are more common. However, not all SUVs have four-wheel drive
capabilities. Conversely, not all four-wheel-drive passenger
vehicles are SUVs. Off-road vehicle is a broad class of vehicles,
built primarily for off-road use. However, this distinction is often
16 | P a g e
not made by the general public and the media. Although some
SUVs have off-road capabilities, they often play only a secondary
role, and SUVs often do not have the ability to switch among two-
wheel and four-wheel-drive high gearing and four-wheel-drive low
gearing. While auto makers tout an SUV's off-road prowess with
advertising and naming, the daily use of SUVs is largely on paved
roads and in urban areas.

Extremely popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the

SUV's popularity has since declined. Due to high oil prices and a
declining economy since the mid-2000s, manufacturers have
responded to buyers' complaints. The traditional truck-based SUV
is gradually being supplanted by the crossover SUV, which uses
an automobile platform for lighter weight and better fuel efficiency,
as a response to much of the criticism of sport utility vehicles.

Origins

Early SUVs were descendants from commercial and military

vehicles such as the World War II Jeep and Land Rover. SUVs
have been popular for many years with rural buyers due to their
off-road capabilities.

The earliest examples of longer-wheelbase wagon-type

SUVs were the Chevrolet Carryall Suburban (1935), GAZ-61
(1938), Willys Jeep Wagon (1948), Pobeda M-72 (GAZ-
M20/1955), which Russian references credit as possibly being the

17 | P a g e
first modern SUV, International Harvester Travelall (1953), Land
Rover Series II 109 (1958), and the International Harvester Scout
80 (1961). These were followed by the more 'modern' Jeep
Wagoneer (1963), International Harvester Scout II (1971), Ford
Bronco (1966), Toyota Land Cruiser FJ-55 (1968), the Chevrolet
Blazer / GMC Jimmy (1969), and the Land Rover Range Rover
(1970).

According to the transportation curator at the Henry Ford

Museum, Robert Casey, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true
sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term.
Marketed to urban families as a substitute for a traditional car, the
Chrerokee had four-wheel drive in a more manageable size
(compared to the full-size Wagoneer), as well as a plush interior
resembling a station wagon. With the introduction of more
luxurious models and a much more powerful 4-liter engine, sales
of the Cherokee increased even higher as the price of gasoline
fell, and the term "sport utility vehicle" began to be used in the
national press for the first time.

The corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard was

ratified in the 1970s to regulate the fuel economy of passenger
vehicles. Car manufacturers evaded the regulation by selling
SUVs as work vehicles. The popularity of SUV increased among
urban drivers in the last 25 years, and particularly in the last
decade. Consequently, modern SUVs are available with luxury

18 | P a g e
vehicle features, and some crossover models adopt lower ride
heights to accommodate on-road driving.

Keith Bradsher explained the rise of the SUV with American

Motors' (AMC) lobbying the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for a waiver of the United States Clean
Air Act. The EPA subsequently designated AMC's compact
Cherokee as a "light truck", and the company marketed the
vehicle to everyday drivers. AMC's effort to affect rulemaking
changing the official definition of their new model then led to the
SUV boom when other auto makers marketed their own models in
response to the Cherokee taking sales from their regular cars.

19 | P a g e
 Popularity

SUVs became popular in the United States, Canada, and

Australia in the 1990s and early 2000s. U.S. automakers could
enjoy profit margins of $10,000 per SUV, while losing a few
hundred dollars on a compact car. For example, the Ford
Excursion could net the company $18,000, while they could not
break even with the Ford Focus unless the buyer chose options,
leading Detroit's big three automakers to focus on SUVs over
small cars.

Small cars were sold mainly to attract young buyers with

inexpensive options and to increase their fleet average fuel
economies to meet federal standards. The relatively high wages
of unionized auto workers in the U.S. and Canada (members of
the UAW and CAW, respectively), compared to the low wages of
non-union workers at non-U.S. companies like Toyota, made it
unprofitable for the U.S. auto makers to build small cars. For
example, the General Motors factory in Arlington, Texas where
rear-wheel drive cars were built, such as the Chevrolet Caprice,
Buick Road master, and Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was
converted to truck and SUV production, putting an end to full-size
family station wagon and overall terminating production of rear-
wheel drive full-size cars. Due to the shift in the Big Three's
strategy, many long-running cars like the Ford Taurus, Buick
20 | P a g e
Century and Pontiac Grand Prix fell behind their Japanese
competitors in features and image (relying more on fleet sales
instead of retail and/or heavy incentive discounts); some were
discontinued. A crash test by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety shows the damage to a compact Ford Focus struck by a
Ford Explorer SUV

Buyers were drawn to SUVs' large cabins, higher ride height,

and perceived safety. Full-size SUVs often offered features such
as three-row seating, to effectively replace full-size station
wagons and minivans. Wagons were seen as old-fashioned.
Additionally, full-size SUVs have greater towing capabilities than
conventional cars, and can haul trailers, travel trailers (caravans)
and boats. Increased ground clearance is useful in climates with
heavy snowfall. The very low oil prices of the 1990s helped to
keep down running costs. The SUV's image of utility may partly
explain its popularity, not least among some women, who
constitute more than half of all SUV drivers. SUV was one of the
most popular choices of vehicle for female drivers in the U.S.

Social scientists have drawn on popular folklore such as

urban legends to illustrate how marketers have been able to
capitalize on the feelings of strength and security offered by
SUVs. Popular tales include narratives where mothers save the
family from armed robbery and other incidents by taking the
automobile off road, for example.

21 | P a g e
 In Australia, SUV sales were helped by the fact that SUVs
had much lower import duty than passengers cars did, so that
they cost less than similarly equipped imported sedans. However,
this gap was gradually narrowed, and in January 2010 the import
duty on cars was lowered to match the 5 percent duty on SUVs.

Sales of SUVs and other light trucks fell in the mid-2000s

because of high oil prices and declining economy. In June 2008,
General Motors announced plans to close four truck and SUV
plants, including the Oshawa Truck Assembly. The company cited
decreased sales of large vehicles in the wake of rising fuel prices.
The business model of focusing on SUVs and light trucks, at the
expense of more fuel-efficient compact and midsized cars, is
blamed for declining sales and profits among Detroit's Big Three
automakers since the mid-late 2000s. The Big Three were slower
to adapt than their Japanese rivals in producing small cars to
meet growing demand, due to inflexible manufacturing facilities,
and the higher wages of unionized workers in the U.S. and
Canada (members of the UAW and CAW, respectively), which
made it unprofitable to build small cars

22 | P a g e
 ENVIRONMENTAL DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR SPORTS
UTILITY VEHICLE

SUVs: Danger on the Road

Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs): They are unsafe, bad for the
environment and subsidized by generous tax breaks. People are
starting to realize that it's not "in style" anymore to be driving
these behemoth vehicles around - in fact soon it may be
embarrassing to be seen driving an SUV through city streets.

SUV owners across the country are finding "traffic tickets" on

their windshields charging them with driving a gas-guzzling
vehicle. And Friends of the Earth's bumper stickers, with slogans
like, "Support OPEC, Drive an SUV" are making appearances
across the country.

Late in 2002, a new book was published: High and Mighty:

SUVs - The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How they Got
that Way by Keith Bradsher - former Detroit bureau chief of The
New York Times. This fascinating book exposes the truth about
the dangers of SUVs.

Even the new head of the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Jeffrey Runge, recently stepped up to the plate

23 | P a g e
and spoke honestly about the risk of rollovers and other SUV-
related hazards.

Safety Last

Even though SUVs are frequently marketed as safer than

cars, they are in fact more dangerous. Government studies have
found that the occupant death rate for mid- sized SUVs is 6
percent higher than cars. For large SUVs, the death rate is 8
percent higher than minivans and mid-sized cars like the Ford
Taurus. Since SUVs ride higher off the ground and have a higher
center of gravity, their rollover rate is three times worse than for
cars. In addition, current government safety standards do not
require SUVs to have reinforced roofs, which would help protect
occupants in case of a rollover. Rollovers account for about 1,000
deaths each year - deaths that would have been prevented if the
accident occurred in a car.

Given that SUVs are built with stiff frames, they are more
likely to kill other drivers in an accident. Department of
Transportation scientists study the "kill rate" - how many other
people certain vehicle models are responsible for killing each year
in crashes. Looking at SUVs, these scientists came to a
frightening conclusion. For every one life saved by driving an
SUV, five others will be taken. In one specific instance, they found
that the SUV Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million

24 | P a g e
models on the road. In comparison, the Honda Accord kills 21
people.

Public Health Problem

SUVs burn more gas, and spew out more pollution. Many of
the big SUVs pollute three times as much as cars, which greatly
contributes to climate change and smog. But for many of us, it is
difficult to connect our actions at the gas pump with the
temperature outside, or with the quality of the air.

Since we don't really see the immediate impacts of our

gasoline use - or our vehicle choice - it is easy to ignore the
repercussions. In the Washington, D.C. region, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency recently declared the area's
ozone levels "severe," after a summer with the worst ozone
pollution in a decade. Last year, an official with the Maryland
Department of Transportation publicly blamed the explosive
growth in SUV sales as the main reason pollution in the region
dramatically increased.

The Need for Stronger Regulations

Our government allows SUVs to be dirty and dangerous, and

they get a huge break from lax fuel economy standards. And yet

25 | P a g e
that's not the worst of it. These oversized behemoths actually
qualify for oversized tax breaks as well.

SUVs are exempt from the federal gas-guzzler tax, which is

usually assessed on low mileage cars. This saves automakers as
much as $10 billion a year. Another ridiculous tax break lets small
businesses take a $25,000 tax deduction when they buy an SUV.
The doctors and real estate agents taking advantage of this tax
break would get nowhere near this sweetheart deal if they bought
a car. Amazingly, President Bush has proposed raising this
deduction to $75,000. Suddenly a new hummer would cost just
pocket change.

26 | P a g e
 BUILDING A BETTER SUV

Model year 2002 was a very good year for automakers selling
SUVs, pickups, and minivans—the vehicle class known as “light-
duty trucks.” Sales of these high-profit vehicles reached more
than 7.5 million, a new record that represents a four-fold increase
during the past 20 years However, 2002 was not a very good year
for SUV and pickup truck owners and those who share the roads
with them. Highway fatality rates climbed to the highest level
since 1990, with SUVs and pickups accounting for the majority of
the increase (NHTSA, 2003b). Adding insult to fatality, light truck
fuel economy fell to its lowest level since 1981, forcing the
average light truck owner to pay more than $11,000 for gasoline
over the life of the vehicle. It was also not a very good year for oil
dependence or the environment. U.S. dependence on oil
continued to grow unabated as the country consumed nearly 20
million barrels of oil every day, more than half of which was
imported. As a result, consumers sent about $200,000 every
minute overseas to buy oil.2 and with average new vehicle fuel
economy dropping to its lowest point in more than 20 years, the
average model year (MY) 2002 passenger vehicle, over the
course of its lifetime, now pumps out about 83 tons of the heat-
trapping gases that cause global warming. Another 22 tons will be

27 | P a g e
released by the production and delivery of the gasoline that
vehicle uses.

The poster child for these trends of increased fatalities, oil

dependence, fuel costs, and environmental degradation is the
SUV. SUV sales increased by a factor of 20 between the early
1980s and 2002, and now represent one out of every four new car
sales in the United States. The popularity of SUVs is not
surprising, considering that they are marketed to consumers as a
safe and rugged alternative to the station wagon. The reality,
however, is that automakers offer consumers unsafe SUVs that
also place a heavy burden on consumers’ pocketbooks and the
environment. Automakers have let U.S. consumers down by not
putting existing technology to work to make safer SUVs, pickup
trucks, and minivans that go farther on a gallon of gas. And the
U.S. government has failed to put regulations in place that would
require automakers to do so. This report provides a blueprint for
using existing technologies that can ensure SUVs and other light
trucks become a part of the solution instead of the problem.
These technologies are put to work in the design and simulation
of two SUVs, the UCS Guardian and the UCS Guardian XSE. Our
analysis shows that these SUVs could achieve significant
improvements in fuel economy and safety while maintaining size
and performance. The fuel economy improvements can pay for
themselves in a few years by reducing the cost to fill up at the

28 | P a g e
pump, and the safety improvements can result in thousands of
lives saved each year if all SUVs on the road put these
technologies to work. If this blueprint is followed, consumers will
have the freedom to choose the car or light truck that meets their
needs while guarding their lives, saving the lives of others on the
road, protecting their wallets from high gas prices, and reducing
the impact they have on U.S. oil dependence and the
environment.

29 | P a g e
FUEL ECONOMY

The fuel economy of the average new SUV in 2002 was only
about 20.3 miles per gallon (mpg) according to federal tests
(Hellman and Heavenrich, 2003). The fuel economy of the
average new pickup was only 19.3 mpg. In other words, the
average new pickup or SUV in 2002 used about 1.4 times as
much fuel as the average car. This increased gasoline use
translates directly into increased expenditures for gasoline. The
owner of the average light truck purchased in 2002 will pay about
$11,000 for gasoline over the life of the vehicle. The average car
owner will pay only about $7,800 (Figure 3, p.6). Thus, light truck
owners spend an average of $3,200 more on gas over the lifetime
of their vehicles than car owners, all because of poor fuel
economy. And, because we import about 55 percent of the oil
used to make our gasoline, a significant portion of that extra
$3,200 is being sent overseas. Two key reasons for the low fuel
economy of SUVs are weight and shape. Because SUVs and
pickups are more than 1,000 pounds heavier than the average
car,3 it takes 30 percent more power for them to accelerate. In
addition, the tall, blocky shape of most SUVs makes for a very
non aerodynamic vehicle. Light trucks also trail cars on fuel
economy because they are behind on technology. For example,
engines with four valves per cylinder run more efficiently than

30 | P a g e
those with only two. And yet only about 32 percent of new light
trucks had this technology in 2002 compared with more than 64
percent of cars Finally, the low fuel economy of today’s light
trucks is also a function of the same 20-year trend being followed
by all cars and light trucks toward increased weight, power, and
performance. Since 1982, the weight of the average light truck
has increased by 20 percent and engine horsepower has
increased by more than 80 percent. Government inaction on fuel
economy. More than 25 years ago, the government did act on fuel
economy due to the gasoline crisis of the early 1970s. The
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established fuel
economy standards for automakers, the so-called Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. CAFE nearly doubled
the fuel economy of passenger cars over a period of 10 years,
and improved light truck fuel economy by about 60 percent.
However, from1985 through 2002, there were no improvements to
fuel economy standards other than increases and decreases of a
few tenths of a mile per gallon. Because light trucks represented
less than 20 percent of the market when CAFE standards were
first established, and were primarily used for farming,
construction, or other work purposes, they were treated differently
from cars. Congress set a target of 27.5 mpg for cars to reach by
1985, and that standard remains in place today. The legislature
gave the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
the authority to set fuel economy standards for light trucks, and
31 | P a g e
the agency established a target of 20.5 mpg by 1987. Nine years
later, despite a doubling in light truck market share and the
transition of SUVs, pickups, and minivans from work vehicles to
passenger vehicles, the CAFE standard for light trucks peaked at
only 20.7 mpg, where it remains today. In 2003, with light trucks
representing about half of the new vehicle market, NHTSA
finalized a seven percent increase in the light truck CAFÉ
standard beginning in MY 2005 and reaching its target by MY
2007 (NHTSA, 2003c). Although this 1.5-mpg increase in light
truck fuel economy will be the largest increase in the standard in
more than 20 years, it will save only about one day’s worth of oil
each year between 2005 and 2010.4 this falls far short of the fuel
economy potential outlined in this report.

AIR POLLUTION

Our cars and trucks emit a variety of air pollutants as a result

of burning gasoline. Two of the pollutants, hydrocarbons (HC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), mix with sunlight to form ozone, one of the
key ingredients of the smog that threatens public health. Carbon
monoxide (CO) is another health hazard (primarily in winter), and
particulate matter (PM) can lodge deep in the lungs and lead to
respiratory problems and possibly cancer. These four are referred
to as criteria pollutants. Significant progress has been made in
reducing the emission of criteria pollutants from cars and trucks
over the past three decades. But just as light trucks have been

32 | P a g e
treated differently from cars in terms of fuel economy, they also
receive special treatment when it comes to air pollution. For
example, “light” light-duty trucks (those with a gross vehicle
weight below 6,000 pounds) are currently allowed to emit more
than 1.5 times more nitrogen oxides than cars (Figure 5). “Heavy”
light-duty trucks (those with a gross vehicle weight between 6,000
and 8,500 pounds) are allowed to emit more than four times the
nitrogen oxides of cars. Given advances in catalyst and engine
control technology, this gap is unnecessary, but truck engines
have nevertheless fallen behind cars technologically. The gap is
also influenced by the increased power needs of trucks due to
their extra bulk. Another important set of air pollutants are the
heat-trapping gases, such as carbon dioxide and air conditioning
refrigerants, linked to global warming. These gases, which are a
result of the low fuel economy of light trucks, the use of a high-
carbon fuel such as gasoline, and poor control of refrigerant
leaks, remain in the atmosphere for more than 100 years,
contributing to an increase in Earth’s average surface
temperature that could reach 2.5 to 10.4°F (1.4 to 5.8°C) between
2000 and 2100 (IPCC, 2001).

During its lifetime, the average light truck sold in 2002 will
emit about 99 tons of these heat trapping gases from its tailpipe.
Another 26 tons will be released by the production and delivery of
the gasoline this vehicle uses, for a total of 125 tons of global

33 | P a g e
warming emissions during the truck’s lifetime. Government action
and inaction on emissions. Compared with fuel economy, the U.S.
government has been relatively consistent in cleaning up criteria
pollutants. There is room for more progress, however. Most
recently, the so-called Tier 2 standards were established for
criteria pollutants and phase in from 2004 to 2009. Though these
new standards will finally eliminate the separate standards for
trucks and cars by 2009, they still do not account for the smallest
of particulate matter, the ultra-fine particles that can lodge deep
within the lungs and cause significant respiratory problems. Tier 2
standards also do not adequately address the toxicity of vehicle
exhaust. U.S. government action on heat-trapping emissions has
been effectively nonexistent. No federal regulations exist to curb
greenhouse gases, and the current administration has refused to
endorse the Kyoto Protocol to cut such emissions. Existing laws
designed to stimulate the use of alternative fuels could help shift
vehicles to lower carbon fuels, but they are not being enforced or
effectively implemented. Gambling with Our Lives Two of the most
important safety issues for light trucks are the high fatality rate of
drivers in SUVs and pickups involved in rollover accidents, and
the danger of these vehicles to others on the road. As described
below, automakers have not provided consumers with safe SUV
design choices, and the U.S. government has failed to require
automakers to do so.

34 | P a g e
THE FORD EXPLORER XLT

The Ford Explorer is the most popular SUV in the United

States, and at more than 400,000 sales per year, even outsells
the best-selling cars, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord
(Ward’s, 2003). The 2002 two-wheel drive version of the Explorer
XLT had a base price of about $29,200 (Automotive News, 2002).
Fuel economy technology. The base model 2001 Explorer XLT
included a 4.0-liter, single overhead cam V6 engine with two
valves per cylinder and a five-speed automatic transmission
(Ford, 2003).10 The Explorer engine produces about 210
horsepower, or about 157 kW, for a specific power rating of 39
kW/liter. This rating was about average for light trucks in 2001, but
approximately 15 percent lower than the average car. The 4,500-
pound Explorer was able to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour
in about 9 to 10 seconds. The two-wheel drive version achieved a
CAFE test fuel economy rating of 21.5 mpg, while the four-wheel
drive version achieved 19.3 mpg. Because the CAFE test does
not actually represent real-world conditions, the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) adjusted fuel economy rating11 for the
two-wheel drive Explorer was 18 mpg, and 16 mpg for the four-
wheel drive version.

35 | P a g e
 Top 10 SUVs Producers in India

Growing SUV Market in India

SUVs are regarded as status symbols of rich and powerful in India.

Many prefer SUVs to other cars as they have more space to accommodate,

36 | P a g e
can be used on difficult Indian roads, have higher seating and it is easy to
drive them in chaotic traffic and bad roads. SUV in India has a large market
base, and the demand is growing exponentially with time. Crossover SUV
vehicles are making great waves presently in the automobile scenario.
The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), had revealed that
in the fiscal, April 2009 to March 2010, the sales of SUVs noticed 20.88
percent rise. A total of 272,733 units were sold against 225,621 units in the
same period a year ago. Official figures reveal, India has 14 million cars
and three million SUVs. Currently the SUV market segment is dominated
by Mahindra and Mahindra, the largest SUV producer in the country, Tata
Motors and Toyota Kirloskar Motor, Fiat India, Ford Motors, Force Motors,
General Motors, Hyundai Motors, Nissan, Porsche, etc. are some of the
most well known ones.

Here is the list of most popular SUV models in the Indian automobile
market Tata Safari, Mahindra Scorpio, Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara,
Chevrolet Captiva, Ford Endeavour, and Mitsubishi Outlander. Porsche
Cayenne, Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Pajero, and Audi Q7 are few of the new
SUV vehicles that are also hugely favored by Indian car consumers.
Besides the ongoing high growth momentum in the Indian automobile
market, the leading luxury car makers are struggling to meet the demand
for luxury cars in the country and the waiting period for most of the cars is
reached up to six months. So, the automakers have to fill this gap to deliver
high satisfaction for the customer.

37 | P a g e
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the

research problem. In it, we study the various steps that are generally
adopted by a researcher in studying his research along with logic
behind them. Researchers not only need to know how to apply
particular research techniques, but also need to mean and indicate
why and where these techniques are to be used. Researchers also need
to understand the assumptions underlying various techniques and the
criteria for the applicability of these techniques to certain problems.

Thus, Research methodology helps to give a logic behind the

methods used in the context of our research so that research results
are capable of being evaluated either by the researcher himself or
by others . Thus, a Research Methodology talks about why a
research study has been undertaken , how the research has been
defined, in what way and why the hypothesis has been formulated ,
what data have been collected and particular methods has been
adopted . I have conducted study about “Perception of Businessmen
and Servicemen towards SUVs”.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study is made to know Preference of SUVs among businessmen

and servicemen so that it can be implemented for better efficiency and
better achievement. It helps analyze the views and attitudes of both the
classes businessmen and servicemen towards various aspects .

AREAS OF STUDY

38 | P a g e
 The units selected for the purpose of study are Chandigarh, Mohali
and Panchkula.

39 | P a g e
The Study aims to fulfill the following objectives:

 To find major players in SUV market.

 To find the various brands of SUV.
 To find he awareness and preference of SUV’s among
businessmen and servicemen.
 To find the satisfaction level of SUV’s used.
 To find the main purpose of buying an SUV.
 To find the preferred features in SUV.
 To find the preference of fuel among businessmen and
servicemen.
 To find the media influence on choice of SUV.
 To find various promotional schemes influencing buying behavior.
 To find out the ideal price considered by customer

40 | P a g e
DATA COLLECTION
The task of data collection begins after a research problem is
being defined and research design chalked out.
DATA TYPES:
 Primary Data: The data which is collected afresh and for the
first time.
 Secondary Data: The data which has already been collected by
someone else.
COLLECTION OF DATA FOR PROJECT
 PRIMARY SOURCES – Questionnaire, Personal Interviews,
Observation.
 SECONDARY SOURCES –Journals, Magazines, Newspaper,
Reports, Internet.

DATA ANALYSIS
After the data collection, various parameters have been used
for the purpose of data analysis & the information collected has been
presented in different tables & on the basis of these tables analysis &
interpretation has been made & the same has been presented in the
form of Bar Diagram and Pie charts.

41 | P a g e
SAMPLING DESIGN
A sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a given
population. There are many sample design from which a researcher
choose. Researchers must prepare/select a sample design which should
be reliable and appropriate for their research only.

SAMPLE SIZE
This refers to the participants surveyed. Sample Size is 100.

NATURE OF RESEARCH

Descriptive research, also known as statistical research, describes

data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being
studied. Descriptive research answers the questions who, what, where,
when and how. Although the data description is factual, accurate and
systematic, the research cannot describe what caused a situation. Thus,
descriptive research cannot be used to create a causal relationship, where
one variable affects another. In other words, descriptive research can be
said to have a low requirement for internal validity.

QUESTIONNAIRE

A well defined questionnaire that is used effectively can gather

information on both overall performance of the test system as well as
information on specific components of the system. A defeated
questionnaire was carefully prepared and specially numbered. The
questions were arranged in proper order, in accordance with the relevance.

42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
44 | P a g e
 Occupation
Businessman 50
Serviceman 50

Interpretation:
Above pie chart shows that out of 100 respondents 50% are
Businessmen and 50% are Servicemen.

45 | P a g e
 Gender

Gender Buseinessmen Servicemen

Male 44 45
Female 6 5
Interpretation:
Above pie charts show the gender of businessmen ande servicemen.
As there are 50% businessmen and 50% servicemen in the research. Out
of 50 % resopondents there are 88% and 90% of male of businessmen and
servicemen, and rest 12% and 10% belong to female of servicemen and
businessmen.

46 | P a g e
 Locations
Chandigarh 50
Mohali 31
Panchkula 19

Interpretation
Above pie chart show the locations. Out of 100 respondents 50 %
belongs to Chandigarh, 31% from Mohali and 19% from Panchkula.

47 | P a g e
 Age( in years)
20 to 30 36
31 to 40 50
41 to 50 11
51 and above 3

Interpretation:
Above Pie chart shows the respondents age. Out of 100 respondents
50% of respondents comes under the age of 31 to 40 years, 36% comes
under the age category of 20 to 30, 11% comes under the age group of 41
to 50 and rest 3% comes under the age group of 51 and above

48 | P a g e
 Annual Household Income

Annual household income p.a (in Businessmen Servicemen

lakh)
Below 5 0 11
5 to 10 23 39
above 10 27 0
Interpretation:
Above pie chart shows the annual household income of respondents. 46%
and 78% belongs to 5 to 10 lakh per anum of businessmen and
servicemen. 54% businessmen belong to above 10 lakh under and 22%
servicemen belong to below 5 lakh.

49 | P a g e
 Own Cars and SUVs
SUV 58
Both(Car and SUVs) 42

Interpretation:
Above pie chart shows that out of 100 respondents 58 % of respondents
own SUVs and 42% respondents own both Cars and SUVs.

50 | P a g e
 Name Of the SUVs Models respondents owned
7
BMW (X3 and X6) 4
Captiva 5
CRV 11
Endeavour 13
Fortuner 8
Innova 13
Lexus 1
Pajero 3
Safari 16
Scorpio 9
Tavera 4
Xylo 6
Interpretation
Above pie chart shows the name of the owned SUVs of respondents. Out
of 100 respondents 16% of respondents have safar, 13% have Endavour
and Innova, 11% have CRv,9% have Scorpio, 8% have Fortuner, 7% have
Audi-Q7, 6% have Xylo, 5% have Captiva, 4% have BMW (X3 and X6) and
Tavera, 3% have Pajero and only 1% have Lexus. They all give there views
of rest of the questions asked on the basis of SUVs model they have at
present.
51 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

Main Purpose Businessmen Servicemen

Personal/ General Use 20 26
Official Use 5 8
Long Distance Travel 15 20
Rental Purpose 5 5
Status Symbol 22 5
For use on Rough Mountain 5 7
Any Other 0 8
Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows the main purpose of buying SUV. Businessmen
give more preference to status symblo on the other hand servicemen give
preference more for their personal/general use, and then businessmen give
preferenc to their personal use and servicemen give preference to long
distance travel.

52 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

Preferred to Buy Businessmen Servicemen

Brand Showroom 45 41
Second Hand car market 6 9
Internet 0 1

Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows the preference of respondents from where they
prefere more to buy. Businessmen and servicemen both give more
preference to Brand showroom and then to secound hand car market.
Second hand car market prefered by those who is running business of
giving SUVs on rent and they prefer more to Innova and Tavera.

53 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

Features Businessmen Servicemen

(mean value) (mean value)
Better Looks/ Design 3.42 3.46
Spacious Sitting Area 3.32 3.06
Spacious Storage 4.72 4.14
Safer 3.26 3.62
Better Engine Capacity 3.02 3.16
Status Symbol 3.2 4.7
Ideal For long Distance 3.9 4.5
Better Mileage 4.88 5.62

Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows why respondents prefer to SUV to another vehicle ( sedan and
heachback cars). As this is a ranking questions respondents were asked to give ranking
according to there preference, as mean value of better engine capacity is low as
compared to other features therefore businessmen prefered engine capacity more then
spacious storage ,sitting area, safer better looks, status symbols and so on. And on the
other hand spascious sitting area is preferred more by servicemen as they prefer SUVs
for their big family.

54 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

Features Prefer Most Businessmen Servicemen

Centre Locking 16 23
Power Window/Steering 28 33
Alloy Wheel 21 11
Leather Seats 18 13
Rear seat belts, stereo 20 8
Automatic Adjustable Door Mirror 14 7
Fog lamps, ABS, Airbags 26 21
Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows the prefered feature for making buying decesion,
as per the data both servicemen and businessmen prefer to power window
and sterring and so on.

55 | P a g e
 Media Influenced
Television 48
Magazines 16
Newspapers 7
Pamphlets 0
Hoardings 4
Exhibition/Trade Fairs 6
By Friend/Family 19

Interpretation:
Above pie charts shows which media influenced most to respondents while
purchasing. Out of 100 respondents 48 % influrnced by watching television,
19% are influenced by their friends and family, 16 % are influenced by
magazines, 7 % are influenced by newspapers advertisement, 6% are
influenced with trade fare/ exhibitions and 4% are influenced by hoardings.

56 | P a g e
 Ideal price For SUV

Ideal Price For SUV ( In Lakh) Businessmen Servicemen

Below 8 2 7
8 to 9 11 16
9 to 10 9 12
10 to 11 6 5
11 to 12 8 7
12 and above 14 3

Interpretation:
Above pie chart shows what shoud be the ideal price for SUV. 28%
businessmen says that it should be more then 12 lakh on the other hand
32% of servicmen says that it should be 8 to 9 lakhs.

57 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

Promotional Schemes Businessmen Servicemen

Influenced Buying
Behavior
Discounts 8 20
Free Accessories 16 18
Long Warranty Period 34 28
Free Insurance 11 11
Any Other (After sale
service) 1 3
Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows the influence of promotional schemes in making
purchasing decesion. As per their views both businessmen and servicemen
give more preference to long warranty period, and then to free accessoties,
discounts, free insurence and after sales service.

58 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

What Made to Switch to SUV? Businessmen Servicemen

Better Feature 17 16
Better Mileage 13 22
Safer 22 25
Just For Change 6 4
Better Looks 14 10
Economy 4 8
Status symbol 23 12
Price Offs/ Promotional Offers 3 3
Any other 2 5

Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows what made respondents to switch to SUV. As
per their views businessmen swithc to SUVs for their status symbol and on
the other hand servicemen switch because of better mileage as they prefer
to go for long distance travel with their big family.

59 | P a g e
 Blue-Businessmen

Red-Servicemen

Options Servicemen
Businessmen (mean
(mean value) value)
Price 3.24 2.5
Brand Image Features 2.34 3.04
Looks/ Design 2.68 2.86
Engine Capacity 2.3 2.64
After Sales Service 3.48 3.96
Better Storage area and
Mileage 4.3 4.58
Interpretation:
Above bar graph shows respondents purchasing decesion. As this is
a ranking questions respondents were asked to give rank to he most
prefered as per their views and so on, therefore businessmen give more
preference to engine capacity of SUVs and servicemen give preference to
price.

60 | P a g e
 Fuel Preference

Fuel Preference Businessmen Servicemen

Petrol 20 19
Diesel 30 31

Interpretation:
Above pie chart shows the fuel preference of the respondents. Both
businessmen and servicemen preffered diesel fuel engines as it is cheeper
then the petrol fuel engines

61 | P a g e
 Like to switch from present SUV to another?

Like To switch from Businessmen Servicemen

present SUV to another?
Yes 11 15
No 39 35
Interpretation:
Above pie chart shows the switching ratio of the user with their
present SUVs and cars. Both servicemen and businessmen don’t want to
switch to another SUVs or cars as compare to theira present SUVs.

62 | P a g e
 Findings of the study:

 It is found that businessmen prefer SUV for crating status

symbol for them and servicemen prefer SUV for their
personal use for long drive with their big family.

 It is found that, both businessmen and servicemen preferred

to buy SUV from brand showroom

 Television advertisements influenced the consumer to

purchase SUV for their use

 Businessmen says that the ideal price of SUV is above 12

lakh as it also helps to create status symbol in the well
known persons, and servicemen says that the ideal price of
SUV should be 8 to 9 lakh

 Both businessmen and servicemen prefer long warranty

period

 It is also found that businessmen prefer to switch to SUV for

crating their status symbol and servicemen prefer safety to
switch to SUV

 Businessman looks for the engine capacity for making their

purchasing decision whereas servicemen prefer price for
making purchasing decision

63 | P a g e
  Both Businessman and servicemen prefer diesel engine as
compare to petrol engine.

Limitation
Although every sincere effort has been made by us to collect the utmost
authentic and relevant data and information, the study did face certain
limitations which are precisely discussed herein below

 The questionnaire included objective answers, so it was difficult to

reflect the reasons for certain patterns.
 The data was collected through questionnaire. The responds from the
respondents may not be accurate.
 The consumer behavior being dynamic and vibrant in nature, the
possibility of today’s findings having become obsolete or stale over a
period of time cannot be ruled out
 Possibility of some bias on the part of certain respondents cannot be
ruled out
 Some of the respondents gave ambiguous replies to certain
questions

64 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_India

http://auto.indiamart.com/cars/sport-utility-vehicle.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_Stage_emission_standards

65 | P a g e
 Annexure-I
Hello, my name is Bharat. I am a student of Centre for Management
Training & Research, Kharar. I am conducting research on Preference of
SUV’s among businessmen and servicemen. All information given by
you will be kept confidential and will only be used for research purpose..

Q1. What do you own?

€ Car (hatchback, sedan) € SUV €
Both
If you have SUV, then which model of SUV you have
______________________?

Q2. What according to you was your main purpose of buying an SUV?
(you can tick more than one)
€ Personal/general use € Official use € Long distance
travel
€ Rental purpose € Status symbol
€ For use on rough mountains
Any other reason, (please specify) ______________________

Q3. From where did you buy / preferred to buy an SUV? (you can tick
more than one)
€ Brand showrooms € Second hand car market
€ Internet
Any other. (Please Specify) ________________________

Q4. Why do you prefer SUV to another vehicle? (Please arrange the
following in order of your preference. Give a rank of 1 to the most
preferred, 2 to the next preferred and so on)
1. Better looks/ design
2. Spacious sitting area
3. Spacious boot storage
4. Safer
66 | P a g e
 5. Better engine capacity
6. Status symbol
7. Ideal for long distance travel
8. Better mileage

Q5. Tick the following features that you look for in SUV? (you can tick
more than one)
€ Center locking € Power window/steering € Alloy wheel
€Leather seats € Rear seat belts Stereo
€ Automatic Adjustable Door mirror € Fog lamps, ABS,
Airbags

Q6. Which of the following media influenced your choice of SUV?

€ Television € Magazines € Newspapers
€ Pamphlets € Hoardings € Exhibition/Trade fairs
€ By friends/family

Q7. What according to you is an ideal price for SUV?

€ Below 8 Lakh € 8-9 Lakh € 9-10 Lakh
€ 10-11 Lakh € 11-12 Lakh € 12 lakh and above

Q8. Which of the following promotional schemes influenced your buying

behavior? (you can tick more than one)
€ Discounts € Free accessories € Long warranty
period € Free insurance
Any other. (Please Specify) ________________________

Q9 What made you to switch to SUV? (you can tick more than one)
€ Better features € Better mileage € Safer
€ Just for change € Better looks € Economy
€ Status symbol € Price offs/ promotional offers
Any other reason. Specify ______________________

Q10. What influence do the following features had in your purchase

decision? (Please arrange the following in order of your
preference. Give a rank of 1 to the most preferred, 2 to the next
67 | P a g e
preferred and so on)
1. ______Price
2. ______Brand Image Features
3. ______Looks/Interiors
4. ______Engine capacity
5. ______After sale service
6. ______Boot storage mileage locations
Q11. Which of the following fuel alternatives do you prefer?

€ Petrol € Diesel

Q12 Would you like to switch from your present car to an SUV or
purchase a new SUV?
€ Yes € No

Name: .
Gender: € Male € Female
Address: -
_____________________________________
Age( in years): € 20-30 € 31-41 € 41-50 € 51 & above
Occupation: € Businessman € Serviceman
Annual Household Income (pa in lakh): € Below 5 € 5-10 €
Above 10

68 | P a g e