2010 Tata Nano vs. 2002 Hyundai Getz
To start off, 2010 Tata Nano is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Hyundai Getz. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Hyundai Getz would be higher. At 1,606 cc (4 cylinders), 2002 Hyundai Getz is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Hyundai Getz (103 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 68 more horse power than 2010 Tata Nano. (35 HP @ 5250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Hyundai Getz should accelerate faster than 2010 Tata Nano. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Hyundai Getz weights approximately 510 kg more than 2010 Tata Nano. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2010 Tata Nano is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Tata Nano. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Hyundai Getz, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2002 Hyundai Getz (144 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 96 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Tata Nano. (48 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2002 Hyundai Getz will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Tata Nano. 2002 Hyundai Getz has automatic transmission and 2010 Tata Nano has manual transmission. 2010 Tata Nano will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2002 Hyundai Getz will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2010 Tata Nano | 2002 Hyundai Getz | |
| Make | Tata | Hyundai |
| Model | Nano | Getz |
| Year Released | 2010 | 2002 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Rear | Front |
| Engine Size | 624 cc | 1606 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 35 HP | 103 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 48 Nm | 144 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 73.5 mm | 76.5 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 73.5 mm | 87 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 600 kg | 1110 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3099 mm | 3820 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1495 mm | 1670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1652 mm | 1500 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2230 mm | 2450 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 4.2 L/100km | 6.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 37 L | 45 L |
