Suman, what you say is perfectly valid. But I am talking about odo reading of 20,000kms. At that point of time, when the bush troubles started appearing, the Safari had done much less daunting terrains than the indica.
As of today, she has seen much worse than indica, but not when the troubles first started appearing.
Case in point - Most safari's the center pin bush related troubles.
Add to that my inspection of the tie rods and bushes. Similar bushes do duty in gypsy. I was hoping the safari to have beefier and more durable stuff.
A little extra cost of input, even at the cost of increasing the price slightly could have made the safari a much better expedition vehicle. The DNA is there, as is the opportunity. Just few bits and pieces need to be polished, and all the reliability troubles of safari will go away. Its the simple things that need changing, not the big stuff.
Being at the receiving end of retros and counter retros, I can list a few things right out of memory
For example
1. Radiator - There is a pipe from coolant retrun and refill reservoir to the radiator cap. It can easily come loose of the clamp and then bend, leading to blockage. Tata can spend 4-5rs here and put a better clamp and beefier pipe
2. Turbo hose failure - Tata did a retro, but if they had gone for better quality clamp, many people would not have been stranded. Extra cost, 10rs?
3. Cam sensor failure in 3.0 - Fault tolerance compromise. Get a higher grade sensor(even military grade). Cost - few rs. In Semiconductors, it just cost a few rs more to go from consumer grade to military grade
4. Center pin - Design change, and a teflon bush - All problems solved. Extra cost, again a few rs, but no repetitive greasing required
5. Power window channels - The most rattle prone area. Use a heavier guide channel. Will not get bent or out of alignment - Again a few rs
6. ECU related woes - Improper testing. Testing more with local fuel could have led to better software from day 1, rather than a retro. Costs saved, hundreds of injector replacements
7. Suspension bush issues - Teflon or "high strength rubber". Few hundreds in cost of entire safari
8. Timing belt issues - A lot of 2.2s were stranded due to timing belt cut. Mine had the belt half cut. Design issue again. So much money wasted on retro. Using a better design instead of cost saving design from day one would have worked wonders
9. Alignment issues - Remember the sumo days when alignment used to be off so frequently. Tie rods, thats the culprit. Tata fixed this partially, but a slight design change and using a heavier ball joint can again fix this. Export Safari's which our italian friends use have this design, which is more durable, but costs slightly more
My estimate? An increase in input cost of 6000-7000rs can make the safari reliability at par with the Fortuner?
Why does this not happen then?
Again, my theory, could be completely wrong.
Engineer goes to marketing and sales team and proposes. Well they shoot it down?
Why?
Because in their MBA school they read how ford tries to save 30-40 cents also in their production car. So 6000rs is a big amount.
but they do not understand that when you make a million cars a year, a dollar goes a long way.
But safari dies and tooling is 10 years old, and she sells 11000-12000 units a year.
If a sale cost increase of 10,000rs results in a vehicle as reliable as the Japanese, it will push sales to scorpio levels(2000+ a year). The resulting profit will be huge.
This is what happens when "textbook knowledge" is used, rather than ground knowledge. What is applicable in detroit may not be applicable here.
If only Tata guys had developed the safari like BD and Spike are doing with the Thar, they would have had a winner on their hands.
without these silly niggles, the safari is the best all terrain SUV soft roading vehicle money can buy south of 30 lakhs. It has all the underpinnings to be a winner, yet the silly weak links in the chain have spoiled its reputation and sales potential. |