According to Iranian government officials, the production of Samand was considered a successful project, so the project manager was appointed as the head of the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization of Iran, which was the highest industrial decision-maker in the country after the Minister of Industry.
Khodrocar - But apparently, in his opinion, the Samand project could not be repeated due to the difficulties and high volume of investment, because in the first step, he stopped the Saipa national car project, which was running with a formula similar to Samand. Saipa Company had defined a project called S81 and by then a large part of its design had been done. Saipa national car was to be built based on the Pride platform and Italian Design Company participated in its design.
The new directors of the Development Organization knew that the previous methods they used to become automakers were not very economical, so they sought new ways and formulas for the automotive industry.
Idro executives prepared a proposal to present to foreign companies, and based on this proposal, they asked the world's leading companies to come to Iran for investment and joint production of a cheap car, while they also manage the project implementation.
The Italian company Fiat was the first company to respond positively to this request, but since 25% of Fiat shares were bought by General Motors, the Iranians asked Fiat to guarantee that General Motors would not cause problems in the way of this contract, but Fiat announced Did not have the capacity to provide such a guarantee, which is why Fiat's offer was rejected.
After that, Peugeot, which had a good relationship with the Iranians, offered to invest in the production of the Peugeot 307, but the price of this car was higher than the 7,000 euros that Iran had set for its desired car, because Iran was looking for a car that could Price comment to replace Peykan.
After that, Renault-Nissan proposed an investment to produce a car on the X90 platform, the specifications of which corresponded to the features specified by the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization of Iran.
The design of the X90 platform, later renamed Logan, was one of Renault CEO's ideas. During a trip to Russia with French President Jacques Chirac, he observed that Lada's simple, low-end cars sold better than modern Renault cars at $ 6,000.
The reason for this was the $ 12,000 price of Renault cars, which was almost twice as expensive as Lada cars. That's why he decided to design a $ 6,000 car with few features for the markets of less developed countries such as Russia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and South America, which was managed by a Renault designer.
The result was the X90 platform, which had an up-to-date structure but used 50% fewer parts than a typical Renault car due to its lower cost.
Renault considered Dacia production plants in Romania to produce this car. At the same time, an offer from Iran to produce a low-cost joint car reached Renault, and the French company welcomed this issue. Based on the decision of the Development Organization, it was decided that this new car would be produced simultaneously in Iran Khodro and Saipa.
November 26, 2003 A contract for the production of Logan, known in Iran as the L90, was signed between the CEO of Renault and the head of the Development Organization. It was owned by Renault and 49% by the Expansion Organization.
It was decided that Renault Pars would transfer the technical knowledge of producing the parts of this car to the Iranian parts manufacturers and this car would enter the production cycle from the beginning with 50% internalization, while the quality control of production in Iran Khodro and Saipa companies would be the responsibility of Renault Pars.
On the other hand, Renault promised to sell the surplus of this car in Iran in the global markets and Renault sales network and turn Iran into Renault's base in the Middle East. But the implementation of this contract was hampered in the middle of the work. Two years after the contract was signed, while parts manufacturers were preparing to produce L90 parts, a new government took office and the managers who signed the contract changed. At this point, members of the Iranian parliament objected to the agreement and the Minister of Industry issued an order suspending its implementation.
In the early 1380s, Iranian carmakers had good conditions, high tariffs on imported cars and the need of the people had created a special market for them. Iranian automakers easily pre-sold their products, and consumers had to pay for them long before they were delivered.
This private market also provided the government with a rich income, apart from the major ownership of car manufacturers by the government and the collection of duties and taxes from the cars produced by car companies, which played a decisive role in creating jobs, and this placed a heavy burden on the government.
As a result, government officials pressured automakers to increase production capacity to increase both government profits and increase employment in the automotive industry. This policy of the government caused Iran Khodro and Saipa to be only concerned with increasing circulation since the beginning of the 1380s.
The approach of the two domestic automakers was exactly the opposite of the policy of Hyundai and Kia in South Korea, who had stated since the beginning of 2000 that they only sought to increase quality and considered the increase in circulation as a logical result of increasing quality. Based on this policy, Korean companies increased investment in research and development and engineering capacity, but Iranian companies, unlike Koreans, only invested in increasing production capacity, and by establishing new production and assembly lines and hiring new workers,
They increased the circulation of the same old products. For the managers of the automotive industry and the officials of the Ministry of Industry, announcing the number of domestic cars and increasing them daily was a sign of the success of their management policies, but this policy led to problems.
The most important problem that arose as a result of this policy was the decline in the quality of production cars. In a situation where car manufacturers were desperately seeking to increase circulation, Iranian parts manufacturers could not meet the requests of car companies in terms of production capacity. The automaker supplied parts defects from other companies of lower quality, parts that were either defective from the beginning or broke down after a short time.
Managers of car companies in order to achieve the desired circulation in practice neutralized the issue of quality control during production. The result was the production of cars that had problems from the beginning and consumers had to take them to a repair shop after delivery.
The second problem that arose with the increase in car circulation in the country was the intensification of the problem of air pollution and traffic in large cities. On the other hand, the country's roads did not have the traction of this volume of cars, and the weak safety of domestic cars increased the number of casualties due to accidents.
The situation led to protests by regulators against carmakers, and the media daily published articles quoting the environment, traffic police, the standard organization, and other regulatory bodies criticizing the performance of carmakers. In this situation, government officials in support of carmakers In practice, they changed the structure of regulatory bodies so that they could not impede the activities of automakers.
In fact, with this action, an unwritten alliance was formed between the government and the automakers. It provided a strong and comprehensive support to the automakers so that none of the regulatory bodies and even the parliament could disrupt the activities of the automobile companies. Under these circumstances, anyone who criticized the performance of automakers was accused of undermining industry and domestic production.
Gradually, the two major automakers became investment companies and went beyond the automotive industry, experiencing banking, the insurance industry, the stock market, and even the purchase of oil wells in neighboring countries, and invested some of their liquidity in these areas. .
In 2004, the Iranian government decided to stop production of Peykan, although Peykan provided good income to the Iranian government, but the Ministry of Oil announced that due to the high consumption of gasoline in this car, the money paid to Peykan for gasoline subsidies is more than income. Which has its production.
Negotiations between the Ministry of Oil and Iran Khodro lasted a year, and it was finally decided that Iran Khodro would stop producing Peykan in exchange for $ 300 million. Iran Khodro intended to spend this amount to produce a replacement car for Peykan. Eventually, Peykan car was stopped with the production of 2 million and 295 thousand units and Iran Khodro Company lost one of its most important sources of income.
At this time, Iran Khodro Company faced another problem. At the end of 2004, news was heard from all over the country that Peugeot 405 cars were on fire. With the increase in the number of fires, Iran Khodro Company accepted the existence of a defect in the fuel system of cars that had been produced since mid-2004 and asked the owners of these cars to refer to the authorized dealers of this company and replace this defective part.
Despite this call, some owners of this car did not come to replace the part until the fire of this car continued until 2006. As the fire continued, the traffic police and even the Attorney General demanded that Iran Khodro accept responsibility for these incidents.
The new directors of the Development Organization knew that the previous methods they used to become automakers were not very economical, so they sought new ways and formulas for the automotive industry.
Idro executives prepared a proposal to present to foreign companies, and based on this proposal, they asked the world's leading companies to come to Iran for investment and joint production of a cheap car, while they also manage the project implementation.
The Italian company Fiat was the first company to respond positively to this request, but since 25% of Fiat shares were bought by General Motors, the Iranians asked Fiat to guarantee that General Motors would not cause problems in the way of this contract, but Fiat announced Did not have the capacity to provide such a guarantee, which is why Fiat's offer was rejected.
After that, Peugeot, which had a good relationship with the Iranians, offered to invest in the production of the Peugeot 307, but the price of this car was higher than the 7,000 euros that Iran had set for its desired car, because Iran was looking for a car that could Price comment to replace Peykan.
After that, Renault-Nissan proposed an investment to produce a car on the X90 platform, the specifications of which corresponded to the features specified by the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization of Iran.
The design of the X90 platform, later renamed Logan, was one of Renault CEO's ideas. During a trip to Russia with French President Jacques Chirac, he observed that Lada's simple, low-end cars sold better than modern Renault cars at $ 6,000.
The reason for this was the $ 12,000 price of Renault cars, which was almost twice as expensive as Lada cars. That's why he decided to design a $ 6,000 car with few features for the markets of less developed countries such as Russia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and South America, which was managed by a Renault designer.
The result was the X90 platform, which had an up-to-date structure but used 50% fewer parts than a typical Renault car due to its lower cost.
Renault considered Dacia production plants in Romania to produce this car. At the same time, an offer from Iran to produce a low-cost joint car reached Renault, and the French company welcomed this issue. Based on the decision of the Development Organization, it was decided that this new car would be produced simultaneously in Iran Khodro and Saipa.
November 26, 2003 A contract for the production of Logan, known in Iran as the L90, was signed between the CEO of Renault and the head of the Development Organization. It was owned by Renault and 49% by the Expansion Organization.
It was decided that Renault Pars would transfer the technical knowledge of producing the parts of this car to the Iranian parts manufacturers and this car would enter the production cycle from the beginning with 50% internalization, while the quality control of production in Iran Khodro and Saipa companies would be the responsibility of Renault Pars.
On the other hand, Renault promised to sell the surplus of this car in Iran in the global markets and Renault sales network and turn Iran into Renault's base in the Middle East. But the implementation of this contract was hampered in the middle of the work. Two years after the contract was signed, while parts manufacturers were preparing to produce L90 parts, a new government took office and the managers who signed the contract changed. At this point, members of the Iranian parliament objected to the agreement and the Minister of Industry issued an order suspending its implementation.
In the early 1380s, Iranian carmakers had good conditions, high tariffs on imported cars and the need of the people had created a special market for them. Iranian automakers easily pre-sold their products, and consumers had to pay for them long before they were delivered.
This private market also provided the government with a rich income, apart from the major ownership of car manufacturers by the government and the collection of duties and taxes from the cars produced by car companies, which played a decisive role in creating jobs, and this placed a heavy burden on the government.
As a result, government officials pressured automakers to increase production capacity to increase both government profits and increase employment in the automotive industry. This policy of the government caused Iran Khodro and Saipa to be only concerned with increasing circulation since the beginning of the 1380s.
The approach of the two domestic automakers was exactly the opposite of the policy of Hyundai and Kia in South Korea, who had stated since the beginning of 2000 that they only sought to increase quality and considered the increase in circulation as a logical result of increasing quality. Based on this policy, Korean companies increased investment in research and development and engineering capacity, but Iranian companies, unlike Koreans, only invested in increasing production capacity, and by establishing new production and assembly lines and hiring new workers,
They increased the circulation of the same old products. For the managers of the automotive industry and the officials of the Ministry of Industry, announcing the number of domestic cars and increasing them daily was a sign of the success of their management policies, but this policy led to problems.
The most important problem that arose as a result of this policy was the decline in the quality of production cars. In a situation where car manufacturers were desperately seeking to increase circulation, Iranian parts manufacturers could not meet the requests of car companies in terms of production capacity. The automaker supplied parts defects from other companies of lower quality, parts that were either defective from the beginning or broke down after a short time.
Managers of car companies in order to achieve the desired circulation in practice neutralized the issue of quality control during production. The result was the production of cars that had problems from the beginning and consumers had to take them to a repair shop after delivery.
The second problem that arose with the increase in car circulation in the country was the intensification of the problem of air pollution and traffic in large cities. On the other hand, the country's roads did not have the traction of this volume of cars, and the weak safety of domestic cars increased the number of casualties due to accidents.
The situation led to protests by regulators against carmakers, and the media daily published articles quoting the environment, traffic police, the standard organization, and other regulatory bodies criticizing the performance of carmakers. In this situation, government officials in support of carmakers In practice, they changed the structure of regulatory bodies so that they could not impede the activities of automakers.
In fact, with this action, an unwritten alliance was formed between the government and the automakers. It provided a strong and comprehensive support to the automakers so that none of the regulatory bodies and even the parliament could disrupt the activities of the automobile companies. Under these circumstances, anyone who criticized the performance of automakers was accused of undermining industry and domestic production.
Gradually, the two major automakers became investment companies and went beyond the automotive industry, experiencing banking, the insurance industry, the stock market, and even the purchase of oil wells in neighboring countries, and invested some of their liquidity in these areas. .
In 2004, the Iranian government decided to stop production of Peykan, although Peykan provided good income to the Iranian government, but the Ministry of Oil announced that due to the high consumption of gasoline in this car, the money paid to Peykan for gasoline subsidies is more than income. Which has its production.
Negotiations between the Ministry of Oil and Iran Khodro lasted a year, and it was finally decided that Iran Khodro would stop producing Peykan in exchange for $ 300 million. Iran Khodro intended to spend this amount to produce a replacement car for Peykan. Eventually, Peykan car was stopped with the production of 2 million and 295 thousand units and Iran Khodro Company lost one of its most important sources of income.
At this time, Iran Khodro Company faced another problem. At the end of 2004, news was heard from all over the country that Peugeot 405 cars were on fire. With the increase in the number of fires, Iran Khodro Company accepted the existence of a defect in the fuel system of cars that had been produced since mid-2004 and asked the owners of these cars to refer to the authorized dealers of this company and replace this defective part.
Despite this call, some owners of this car did not come to replace the part until the fire of this car continued until 2006. As the fire continued, the traffic police and even the Attorney General demanded that Iran Khodro accept responsibility for these incidents.
Latest News
