[DieselAddikt]

Originally Posted by speedmunster

+1 to that. If one checks out the some of the Australian comparo videos on Youtube, one will notice that the Everest is a direct competitor to the Landcruiser Prado. Now, correct me if I am wrong but the Prado retails here in India for close to a crore of rupees whereas the Endeavour is around 33 lakhs. That is one-third the price. We, as a country, are okay to pay a crore of rupees for Prado but raise a hue and cry if the Endeavour (costing one-third of a crore) is missing two pieces of metal. All those bashing Ford for not
equipping the Endeavour with the K-Struss, please consider the price of the product first. You guys deserve to be driving the tin boxes made by those so called big car makers. Well done everyone.

I think it is the other way around. Some people choose to accept what is thrown at them because they are from "foreign" brands and they can never go wrong !! On the other hand, some people choose to at least make some noise knowing well that nothing will change unless some govt regulations kick in. We all know that manufacturers will milk us until then.

And us, lesser souls, deserving a tin can does not have anything to do with a 30L INR Ford. People bought it with their money, so at least those who bought them deserve to be treated like others. At 30L INR, a car is not exactly cheap.

For people who say Fortuner does not have it either, YES, they do not have it in ANY MARKET. That simply means their chassis was designed with a structure in mind where they do not need this piece. They may or may not have compensated for it structurally by other means. Now, why does Ford have it? Because they found that it is necessary for some applications which we are not sure about at this point of time. So why do they remove it for Indian market when we are paying the same amount of money? If we do not NEED it, Ford has to let us know why they think so. There is no point trying to bring Fortuner and Prado into the picture.

[BB311]

Originally Posted by nd4$pd

Folks who are loudly proclaiming we should not jump the gun and 'assume' the missing K truss members compromise safety are in the same post pointing out (assuming) how these K truss members are 'only' used for towing and hence not applicable to India.

Evidently, irony is lost on them.

Ford needs to provide answers and quickly.

Guns have been jumped. Assumptions and judgements have been made. Welcome to the era of keyboard warriors !!!

Coming back to the main note, (since my old posts cannot be edited after some time)
1. [FACT] - Those two stress bars main reason is to help in the compression and stress of cross members.
2. [FACT] - Australian and Thai Ford marketing clearly point to a 3 tonne tow load capacity. They even have a tow pack in there accessories list.
3. [FACT] - Acceleration/ Deacceleration with a mammoth tied behind will demand extra load bearing fitments on the chassis.
4. [ASSUMPTION] - Its removal might impact the crash ratings as it's behind the crumple zone.
5. [ASSUMPTION] - Under normal situations, current chassis design is as (or not) capable as the international standard.

Facts we know, assumptions we need a documentary prove or a reply from Ford to prove or falsify.

[THE-U-]

Originally Posted by BB311

1. [FACT] - Those two stress bars main reason is to help in the compression and stress of cross members.
2. [FACT] - Australian and Thai Ford marketing clearly point to a 3 tonne tow load capacity. They even have a tow pack in there accessories list.
3. [FACT] - Acceleration/ Deacceleration with a mammoth tied behind will demand extra load bearing fitments on the chassis.

I am not sure I agree with your facts without a proper structural analysis. I can kinda sorta see the hand waving arguments that the K-truss provides torsional rigidity. But, given that the entire vehicle is designed in Australia, I find it strange and discomfiting that structural change has been made to the chassis. I would like to think that Ford performed quite a bit of structural analysis before doing this, but, it would not surprise me to learn otherwise. Perhaps the Indian Endeavour owners can rightfully ask Ford for the explanation through class action. Ford better have an excellent justification for the removal of structural members from the chassis of an otherwise perfect vehicle.

[Flyer]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

- there's just ESP, which is not enough for such a vehicle with high centre of gravity.

Ford India website says the ESP includes Roll Stability Control. Now is this same as roll mitigation system sir? Attaching screenshot from Ford India website.

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

Can someone please find any documentary evidence about the existence (or not) of the K-truss on the chassis of the 2.2L Endeavour/Everest?

2.2 L Everest is available internationally, or atleast here in Philippines. And yes, K-truss is present in its chassis.

Originally Posted by Flyer

Attachment 1765747

This pic I posted is from a 2.2 L Ambiente AT.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by GTO

So you mean to say that Ford sells in China - a market SIX TIMES BIGGER than India - an Endeavour that is less safe, less capable off the road, less stable and less comfortable than India?

A rather simplistic interpretation of my post would throw up that extrapolation. But the short answer to your question is NO.

Let me add that in addition to the points mentioned in my earlier post, removal of the K Truss would result in::

(e) Better traction

(f) Better cornering ability

(g) Reduced slip angles in the tyres

You have already asked Ford for a response so let's wait for that as this thread has mutated into a pointless discussion.

[nd4$pd]

Originally Posted by BB311

Guns have been jumped. Assumptions and judgements have been made. Welcome to the era of keyboard warriors !!!

Coming back to the main note, (since my old posts cannot be edited after some time)
1. [FACT] - Those two stress bars main reason is to help in the compression and stress of cross members.
2. [FACT] - Australian and Thai Ford marketing clearly point to a 3 tonne tow load capacity. They even have a tow pack in there accessories list.
3. [FACT] - Acceleration/ Deacceleration with a mammoth tied behind will demand extra load bearing fitments on the chassis.
4. [ASSUMPTION] - Its removal might impact the crash ratings as it's behind the crumple zone.
5. [ASSUMPTION] - Under normal situations, current chassis design is as (or not) capable as the international standard.

Facts we know, assumptions we need a documentary prove or a reply from Ford to prove or falsify.

Nicely put. I would add one more to your list though.
6. [ASSUMPTION] - Removal of the K-truss only affects towing ability and has no safety/longevity implications.

As you have said, we need to wait for Ford to clarify all the assumptions.

[howler]

Originally Posted by GTO

Ah, a friend in Ford! Please ask your friend these two questions:

- Do people use SUVs for towing in the Philippines?

- Do people use SUVs for towing in China?



So you mean to say that Ford sells in China - a market SIX TIMES BIGGER than India - an Endeavour that is less safe, less capable off the road, less stable and less comfortable than India?



I think you have missed two key points.

1. There is nothing 'sastha' (cheap) about a 30 lakh car.

2. The 30-lakh customer is arguably a more mature client than the 3-lakh rupee one. If not mature, he is certainly more demanding.



Nope. I will update this thread if & when we hear from Ford on this missing chassis component.

You are probably right on most or let’s say all points. I don’t have the visibility of the market that you probably have .
Tell me one thing though ; if in fact ford motors has actually skimped out on a safety feature and in the process compromised the integrity of the vehicle as a result- how have the respective government agencies approved its sale in India ? I’m assuming ARAI has ticked all the boxes allowing its sale ?

[GTO]

Guys, a friendly reminder of our forum rules. This discussion is heating up & debate is good. BUT:

1. No personal attacks or rude posts.

2. No biased / fanboy posts.

Thanks for the support & understanding

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by Flyer

Ford India website says the ESP includes Roll Stability Control. Now is this same as roll mitigation system sir? Attaching screenshot from Ford India website.

Attachment 1766235

2.2 L Everest is available internationally, or atleast here in Philippines. And yes, K-truss is present in its chassis.

This pic I posted is from a 2.2 L Ambiente AT.

This gets more and more interesting.

So Ford India mentions the inclusion of Roll Stability Control on their website, but not in their brochure. Is it mentioned in the owner's manual?

And the 2.2L chassis in the Philippines has that particular chassis section, but not the 3.2L in India. Do Ford Philippines import the CBU vehicle (and from where), or do they assemble locally? And what about India?

It is not easy for a manufacturer to rejig their chassis manufacture process to leave out a couple of structural pieces just like that, unless that change has been certified by those who engineered the chassis. Which leads me to believe that there are two different chassis being manufactured for this vehicle.

The South African 2.2L Everest is locally manufactured there, but the 3.2L one is imported. Is it possible to somehow verify whether the two have the same K-brace, or not?

[swiftdiesel]

Looks like Ford has made some deliberate changes for the Indian market. I re-ran the videos a couple more times and spotted more differences from the international Everest. Honestly, I don't know what to make of it and I'm sat on the fence with this one. Sharing some collages to show what I observed:

The first collage shows that silver part mounted differently. I'm not quite sure what that part is but mounted at the centre because of the mising K truss?


The second collage shows another missing heat shield perhaps, near the rear axle in the Everest.


The third collage shows an underbody protection which I don't see in the graphic from the manual. But the Australian Everest and the Indian Endeavour have it.

[Flyer]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

Do Ford Philippines import the CBU vehicle (and from where), or do they assemble locally?

From Wikipedia

Since 2012, Ford Philippines imports the vehicles it sells to the Philippine market. These imports come mostly from Thailand and the United States (Mustang).

Ford Everest in Philippines is a CBU from Thailand.

And what about India?

Indian Endeavour is built in India.

It is not easy for a manufacturer to rejig their chassis manufacture process to leave out a couple of structural pieces just like that, unless that change has been certified by those who engineered the chassis. Which leads me to believe that there are two different chassis being manufactured for this vehicle.

Ford India exports to the following countries.

Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nepal, Mexico, Kenya, Bahrain, Angola, Bermuda, Ghana, Iraq, Liberia, Lebanon, Malawi, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, UAE, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Not sure whether Endeavour/Everest sold in these countries have K-truss or not, as they might be built in India.

[Cool_leo_guy]

Originally Posted by GTO

Have just dropped an email to Ford. I would also like to know WHY the owner's manual shows the missing part.

Now they will just update the owner's manual. Far cheaper than providing the missing k member.
Though the omission of the aforesaid part is inexcusable, the way we indians buy substandard tincans and make them market leaders is also to blame. The market leader in our country is making light, now not so cheap, and structurally weak cars which survive solely on basis of their service network.
This gives out the message that Indians will buy anything, and the lack of safety regulations, only stands to confirm this line of thought.
Result, manufacturer skimping on safety and splurging on cosmetic frills.
Ergo the missing k member in Endeavour and sundry features in ecosport and figo.

[parsh]

Interesting find A.G.

We all are eagerly awaiting the response from Ford and rationale behind the presence/absence of a part of as critical a part of a vehicle as chassis while having it available in certain markets.

A chassis of an international vehicle would be touted and taken for granted as being international/global so to say assuming it to be same across. Whether a vehicle is having presence/absence of a trivial component as any other utility in the vehicle may be debated separately but will definitely NOT carry the same significance as this one.

While looking through the video and manual images, one important mismatch came to my observation and I feel it is quite important as far as the K-member is concerned.

Manual showing presence of tying members from the point of K-member to the body mount points. Eclipsed in green.



Australian video showing existence of that member.



Indian video showing absence of that member.




This seems to be pivotal member to assist/balance the stress at the point of chassis where the end points of K-member meet the sides of the chassis.


For Innova and Fortuner's there are some simple truss members at front as below.









These trusses are bolt on in Innova as seen in images and permanent differently designed in Fortuner. It has always been like that in old and new ones of them both in any region. They essentially connect the front towing member to the stronger castor chassis member at the rear and provide necessary stress support when needed.

Thus, there has to be some importance to any member of a chassis small or big depending upon how they are designed and where they are placed.

Presence of any such chassis members in certain region and absence in another is quite logically likely to invoke doubts on various aspects.

We definitely need to understand from Ford what these entail and why the omission in Indian context, irrespective of any other factors like cost and comparison to any other vehicle. What this vehicle provides through these trusses may be provided differently in another vehicle by another manufacturer.

But for now, this does look like a glaring omission although come to light late.

It is also one of aspects which rarely comes to light as neither official reviews can cover it, although I am sure, now there will be some hawk-eyes set on such aspects while reviewing too.

Lets wait and see what Ford has to say about it and how this goes either way.

[blackbeast]

Irrespective of response/action from the FORD, Is it possible to install the missing component to the chassis. If 2.2 L chassis is indeed used for the 3.2L Endys, Does it have necessary provisions for a bolt on installation. I'm sure a lot of owners wont mind importing if not for towing, the other benefits if any.


This thread will make interest the future tbhp reviewers to compare the under body shots with ones sold internationally.

[govindremesh]

Another case of the international variant having an additional cross member compared to the Indian variant!




This is the Sim+ SD card tray of the european version of the Samsung Galaxy J5 2017. The cross member has been used to block the second SIM slot in this case!

Absence of a cross member is not necessarily bad.