[nd4$pd]

We all have certain biases - a lot of what can be seen in posts here are examples of choice-supportive bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

Very few people are immune to this bias. I certainly don't claim to be though I do carry an iPhone and an Android

However, Ford remaining silent shows they want to downplay this and are hoping that this dies out. Hard-pressed to find another reason for a 2 weeks delay in responding to what is a fairly simple question.

[ACM]

Originally Posted by A M

This is because Prado is overpriced and to make matters worse, it is imported as a CBU in India. Am sure you will agree that Prado is not a Range Rover competitor but it carries that kind of price tag in India.

It is commendable that Ford priced the Endeavour genuinely

What seems missed in understanding my previous post is that internationally Ford Endeavour and Prado are priced in parallel and Fortuner lower.

So say the Prado at about 45L OTR. Endeavour at 40L OTR and Fortuner at say 30L OTR in India would have been eqivalent price translation to Indian terms.

What we have instead is Fortuner= Endeavour at about 40L (which is unfair to ford and also from/by Toyota to Indians) and Toyota Prado in Stratospher which is simply crazy.

This is just an approximation to convey the point better.

So for me when buying an Endeavour at Fortuner pricing I feel happy that a much more expensive vehicle is available at the same price as a cheaper one. Of course that is just the VFM psychology and two wrongs don't make a right nor do two rights permit one wrong.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by nd4$pd

We all have certain biases - a lot of what can be seen in posts here are examples of choice-supportive bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

Very few people are immune to this bias. I certainly don't claim to be though I do carry an iPhone and an Android

Ok, as a current owner of Fortuner & Endeavour, let me try to answer.


FORD India imports most of its parts from overseas, Chassis & Body panels from Thailand and Engines from South Africa. They must have decided internally on what all parts and features they want/can give in the Indian market considering the competition from the Fortuner and must have specced the Endeavour to compete for both on prices and features.

If we check the features on the Titanium in Australian market then, some of the missing/ different features on the India market are -

230V Inverter in the rear
20Inch wheels
Adaptive Cruise Control with Forward Collision alert
Blindspot Monitoring with cross-traffic alert
Beltminder System - 2nd row
Lane Keeping System
Tyre Pressure Monitoring System
Heated Front Seats
8 Way Power Front Passenger Seat
Trailer Pre-wiring
Dynamic Stability program (DSC) including Rollover mitigation, Trailer Sway control & Traction control.

Besides this, they have clearly mentioned detailed ratings like Towing capacity, Maximum & Rear axle loads.

https://www.ford.com.au/suv/everest/...p-return-model



Now I am not sure if the manufacturers here have to get their vehicles passed by the Government agencies for road or crashworthiness but there must be some norms like we have ISI for most products. If FORD India has all the norms in place and is missing some additional features or specifications, which makes their product relatively un-safe say compared with the similar models that they sell overseas, in all fairness to FORD, they cannot be held responsible as long as they are meeting the Indian standards.

The same way we are not cribbing about the additional features missing from the Indian Titanium models, we should not worry much about that missing Truss member in my opinion. Yes, this may make our vehicle unsafe but comparing with what? There are millions of Maruti's or Renaults or other Ford models, all are or any of those are per Euro or Australian standards? I think hardly any. Can anybody here can confirm if the Indian Endeavour will perform better or worst then its nearest competitor Fortuner?

Now, if any existing owner thinks that they have bought Endeavour considering it exactly the same as per Australian variant, I will like to see an advertisement or information from FORD India suggesting that apart from some missing features, it's exactly the same.

I am not sure if this will be a reason enough for me not to buy an Endeavour today knowing that the chassis is missing some parts. I will definitely like to have exactly the same car as they sell elsewhere but unfortunately for varying reasons, we don't get same things even on the high-end cars.

However, Ford remaining silent shows they want to downplay this and are hoping that this dies out. Hard-pressed to find another reason for a 2 weeks delay in responding to what is a fairly simple question

Agree, since this may relate to the safety, the last thing they will need is a bad publicity. They may come out with a more diplomatic answer. Who knows what other things work in tandem with these missing members and are missing too

Originally Posted by ACM

What seems missed in understanding my previous post is that internationally Ford Endeavour and Prado are priced in parallel and Fortuner lower.

That's a perception, in fact, Fortuner high-end models overlap the low-end models of Prado in Australia. It's just that in India Prado comes as CBU ( 155 % Duties + GST) whereas Endeavour is CKD ( 53 % GST)

https://www.toyota.com.au/main/prado/prices

https://www.toyota.com.au/main/fortu...vgrades=190764

[shashanka]

Originally Posted by SCORPION

Everything that we say here need not have a so called 'source of information'. It could merely be an individual view or perspective of a subject. In this case, the source is partly my own brain, since I do love automobiles and follow the automobile market to some extent. I also read an article a while ago, in a leading automobile magazine. Pasting a link below.
http://www.autocarpro.in/features/gm-leave-india-26165.

When a major car maker like GM leaves our market, it's not a great moment for us. They may have made losses here, for whatever reason, but they will make their money elsewhere. But we are left with lesser models to chose from (both now and in the future). There were people who loved the Cruze and I, for one, loved the Trailblazer's engine, and it was a strong contender while I was chosing a car. Besides, many of us are left high and dry, like I mentioned in my post. So let's not be proud that GM left. We as automobile enthusiasts, want to be spoilt for choice. We need more and more models in our market. We need the freedom to buy what we desire and not just be content with a handful of choices that we have right now. So every time a company wraps up in India, or hesitates to enter the market, we tend to lose too, to some extent at least.

This thread is turning out to be only for consumer complaint redressal. Only complaints and fault findings are entertained.
The essence of this forum is not just to make ourselves heard and make our presence felt to the automobile manufacturers. It is also a forum where like minded people express their views and engage in a healthy debate. People (who are not necessarily members here) read and refer to the forum because they know they can get information and views from a wide variety of enthusiasts. Some may be right, some wrong. But, I think, somewhere down the line, we have lost that spirit.

Hey Scorpion (malimji),

Why are you on such a downer? See, this is a forum, like you said, which entertains views & opinions across the spectrum of the auto fraternity - all that is needed is to maintain a certain level of courtesy in the debate (I've been banned & taken back in the fold several times, so I am a veteran in that respect!). But that does not imply that this is only a complaint redressal forum - do you find another forum that caters to the whole gamut of interests of members? To mention in passing, I have an abiding interest in old cars (veterans, classics, vintages - they go under various names!) & I have not come across another platform here in our country where the subject is catered to in such depth - whether it is restoration, or spotting old & collapsing examples, or spotting & reporting well-maintained running examples.

The 'around the corner'/'shifting gears' section is another unusual & brilliant idea. One may smile at some of the threads ('Which watch do you own' and 'Which mattress to buy' come to mind!) in this section, but tell me does that tell you that "we have lost the spirit"? Come on, the spirit is alive & kicking!

[A.G.]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

Now, if any existing owner thinks that they have bought Endeavour considering it exactly the same as per Australian variant, I will like to see an advertisement or information from FORD India suggesting that apart from some missing features, it's exactly the same.

As I said earlier, that was the picture which was portrayed by all the leading media houses right from the preview and then in their review. But this does not matter – what matters is why the Owners Manual for the Endeavour provided by Ford India shows this chassis member without any rider / disclaimer attached with it. I have a hunch that even the service manual, which is VIN specific and not generic, would be showing this missing member. There is no escaping the Black & White.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by A.G.

As I said earlier, that was the picture which was portrayed by all the leading media houses right from the preview and then in their review. But this does not matter – what matters is why the Owners Manual for the Endeavour provided by Ford India shows this chassis member without any rider / disclaimer attached with it. I have a hunch that even the service manual, which is VIN specific and not generic, would be showing this missing member. There is no escaping the Black & White.

Well FORD India is not responsible for what media writes or shows unless they have specifically mentioned in their press release or advertise. Can you check the owners manual and see if the features mentioned in my post are also mentioned or not? I don't have the manual at this time but as with any other manuals be it of any Car or Electronics or whatever which is sold across multiple countries/ regions there has to be a disclaimer that not all features or specifications may be available in the specific variant. If that's not written anywhere, then surely it's a bad printing work by FORD India.

Coming to the subject, we were discussing this last night in our group, many guys have a feeling that the reasons for buying a FORD or Toyota product over say a Maruti or Tata is the quality of the components, sheet metal thickness and the overall perception of getting a Global product. I agree that we all perceived Endeavour as an Everest they sell elsewhere and bought it in good faith that it will be exactly same just for the missing features which were apparent at the time of purchase.

But as learnt now, there can be more to just the missing features and manufacturers can go to any levels to save money (at this time we don't have any other reasons available)

I don't know if we can do anything about this situation and will suggest you not to fret much and instead enjoy the truck

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by A.G.

what matters is why the Owners Manual for the Endeavour provided by Ford India shows this chassis member without any rider / disclaimer attached with it. I have a hunch that even the service manual, which is VIN specific and not generic, would be showing this missing member. There is no escaping the Black & White.

I own quite a few service manuals and work shop manuals as they are sometimes called. These days on the more modern cars they tend to be essentially some clever software that pulls date from various sources. There are are no VIN specific manuals so to speak. Some manuals (or systems) might be able to provide you with VIN specific information.

I have access to the VW systems. If I enter the VIN, the system will interrogate several different databases and it will pull together specific information about the factory options, the engine, the gearbox and a few other bits.

As I am only a hobby mechanic you can imagine that I use these service manuals fairly sporatic compared to a real professional workshop mechanic.

But even with the occosional use, I have found many errors and omissions in every single piece of documentation I have or have access too. Probably the worse one in my limited experience is Jaguar. The forums the world all over are alive with discussions about how the official service manuals, or rather parts of it, are just incorrect and or incomplete.

Variant coding has allowed the manufacturers to, at least in theory, to keep track of each and every variation to an model, at the component level, in a systematic way. In practice I'm not sure how well and to what extent this is fully utilized and even then, mistakes will be made.

So just because it's black and white, doesnt necessarily mean it is correct.

Compared to the aviation industry (where it would be really an exception to find an error in any manual) the car industry at large still lags behind in terms on how well they are able to documentate their products at various levels and or stakeholders. (Owner/workshop/specialist). The big difference between the aviation and car industry is that just about all manuals, tools, each instructions on a car is officially certified. Not like that in the car industry at all.

Jeroen

[deepjaju]

So after 18 pages of discussions what has the final result been ? Has Ford replied or should us Bhpians take a more progressive step using the regualr & social media to highlight this issue ?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by deepjaju

So after 18 pages of discussions what has the final result been ? Has Ford replied or should us Bhpians take a more progressive step using the regualr & social media to highlight this issue ?

I think you should. I think Ford should come up with an answer

Jeroen

[A.G.]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

Can you check the owners manual and see if the features mentioned in my post are also mentioned or not? I don't have the manual at this time but as with any other manuals be it of any Car or Electronics or whatever which is sold across multiple countries/ regions there has to be a disclaimer that not all features or specifications may be available in the specific variant. If that's not written anywhere, then surely it's a bad printing work by FORD India.

230V Inverter – Not mentioned as a feature but name is mentioned only in Fuse box details
20Inch Wheels – Mentioned only in Load Carrying – Roof loads with other tyre details
Adaptive Cruise Control with Forward Collision alert – Not mentioned as a feature but mentioned only in Fuse box details as Adaptive Speed control.
Blindspot Monitoring with cross-traffic alert – Not mentioned as a feature but mentioned in Fuse box details and MyKey with a clear note of being dependent on options equipped on the same page.
Beltminder System - 2nd row – Not mentioned
Lane Keeping System – Mentioned under Driver Assist in Information Display with a clear note of describing options not fitted on the vehicle you have purchased on the heading page.
Tyre Pressure Monitoring System – Mentioned on multiple pages with clear note of if equipped. This is present on my vehicle.
Heated Front Seats – Mentioned under Climate Control with a clear note menitioning if equipped.
8 Way Power Front Passenger Seat – Does not explicitly mention for Front Passenger and a clear note for Powered Seats mentioning if equipped is there.
Trailer Pre-wiring – Could not find
Dynamic Stability program (DSC) including Rollover mitigation, Trailer Sway control & Traction control – Under the chapter of Stability Control it mentions Electronic Stability Control, Roll Stability Control, Curve Control and Traction Control and to switch these off, it says to press the stability control button on the floor console.

Originally Posted by Turbanator

I agree that we all perceived Endeavour as an Everest they sell elsewhere and bought it in good faith that it will be exactly same just for the missing features which were apparent at the time of purchase.

That is the biggest setback. As mentioned above, for most of the features not present but mentioned, there is a rider / disclaimer at the start of the chapter and even in the foreword of the Owners Manual itself but there is nothing of this sort mentioned where the chassis (which is a structure, not a feature) is shown.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

So just because it's black and white, doesnt necessarily mean it is correct.

Definitely all Black & White is not correct but it does not mean that it does not have any weightage. After all, the appropriate forums only rely on the Black & White to make a decision or to come to a conclusion.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by A.G.

As mentioned above, for most of the features not present but mentioned, there is a rider / disclaimer at the start of the chapter and even in the foreword of the Owners Manual itself but there is nothing of this sort mentioned where the chassis (which is a structure, not a feature) is shown.

Ok, I downloaded the catalogue from here

http://www.fordservicecontent.com/Fo...19G219-ZCA.pdf

It does carry a note at the start of the manual




and if you go through subsequent pages wherever there are different options they have mentioned beneath the features like here






Now, if I am not mistaken, the picture you posted on your opening posts is from the page where they have mentioned the Jacking points and in all fairness, this is not the place where they will mention about the changes specifically. They must have simply copied from the Australian manual and pasted never realising that this is not what is being sold in India. So I will say, its definitely an omission, the reasons of which at this point appears only monetarily but again, we cannot do much.

I am now being used to seeing covered blanks in many SUVs and the non-glowing lights on the German cars where many features are taken off for various reasons for the Indian market.

Yes, this is a new low for MNC like FORD which has given us something different then what is available elsewhere and I won't be surprised if some other hardware/ software is different relating to Electronic stability control and rollover mitigation.

[rascalangel]

There are two distinct parts to this discussion:
1) The missing K member/truss and its impact on the sturdiness and crash worthiness of the vehicle
2) The feeling of being short changed by Ford India and the subsequent loss of respect


In the first case, while many have argued that the missing member does not mean the vehicle is any less safe or it is fine as it still meets the "Indian" standards, I feels this line of thinking is dangerous. The reasons being

a) Indian standards are non existent or deprecated
b) How low then can we allow the manufacturer to go? is it ok for FORD then to use lesser grade of steel/aluminum for engine block/pistons? (Cause well it violates no "Indian Standard"). Is it ok for FORD then to put, lets say, cheap chinese engineered fuel injectors? (as long as the performance is same or little less?). would then the same arguments be valid?



Pardon my drawing skills, but if the two things in the above image were bridges, which one would be more stable? of course the second one! Because it would be more rigid because of the trusses. Similarly whether the chassis meets the crash test worthiness or not, the trusses would have made the chassis more rigid/sturdy. Ford should not have cheapened out here. (they should have used thinner gauge metal sheets, most of us wouldn't have complained then )


Some members even compared it to Swift! Cmmon, thats like comparing a Xiaomi Redmi series to Iphone! Swift is what it is, its cheap and gets the work done! 40Lakhs is not cheap. Please!


As for the second part of being short changed, i can feel for the anguished owner. Its like booking a suite in Taj to find medimix soap in the bathroom. (According to some of us then theres nothing wrong in it, did Taj mentioned in the brochure that they will give bath salts and exotic shower gels? doesnt the soap do what its supposed to, then why complain? etc.etc.)


I mean how would all us feel if, Iphone tomorrow ships with Gorilla glass 3 only to India but everywhere else they ship with say Gorrilla Glass 5. And then Apple (or their fanboys) justifies saying it still prevent scratches and does what its supposed to and that they dont violate any Indian standards or laws or Indian conditions do not demand GGlass 5? would we still feel that Apple is right in doing so?


Disclaimer: I drive a tincan (some people say its coffin on wheels). I may probably never be able to afford a 40Lakh car. These views are my personal and put here as an outsiders perspective to the whole debate. Yes i have read all 18 pages before this post. No animals or pistons were hurt. Sorry if i broke some hearts.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by rascalangel

There are two distinct parts to this discussion:
1) The missing K member/truss and its impact on the sturdiness and crash worthiness of the vehicle
2) The feeling of being short changed by Ford India and the subsequent loss of respect

Agree

In the first case, while many have argued that the missing member does not mean the vehicle is any less safe or it is fine as it still meets the "Indian" standards, I feels this line of thinking is dangerous. The reasons being
a) Indian standards are non existent or deprecated
b) How low then can we allow the manufacturer to go?

Well, then why target only Ford that too only for 2 missing members? Why and how do companies like Maruti are allowed to operate with 2 different set of everything - one for exports and other for Domestics? Is the Life of someone buying a 6 Lac Car any less valuable then someone buying a 30 Lac Car?

is it ok for FORD then to use lesser grade of steel/aluminum for engine block/pistons? (Cause well it violates no "Indian Standard"). Is it ok for FORD then to put, lets say, cheap chinese engineered fuel injectors? (as long as the performance is same or little less?). would then the same arguments be valid?

I believe other analogies does not hold good as they get a CBU Engine from South Africa

if the two things in the above image were bridges, which one would be more stable?

Again, I don't think it's so simple. We don't know which all manufacturers use these Truss members and there have to be many additional support members apart from the missing Truss to take care. Will be interesting to know if Fortuner or Prado have these members or they have some other setup.

Similarly whether the chassis meets the crash test worthiness or not, the trusses would have made the chassis more rigid/sturdy. Ford should not have cheapened out here.

It will be impossible for anyone to confirm by how much is Endeavour unsafe vs Everest or say Fortuner except for FORD probably and they are keeping mum

they should have used thinner gauge metal sheets, most of us wouldn't have complained then )

Ha ha, they could not do this as all the body parts comes from overseas so they can only go to extent of not using anything but producing something with different spec for so low volumes not going to happen. So we are safe as far as sheet thickness and quality is concerned.

Its like booking a suite in Taj to find medimix soap in the bathroom. (According to some of us then theres nothing wrong in it, did Taj mentioned in the brochure that they will give bath salts and exotic shower gels? doesnt the soap do what its supposed to, then why complain? etc.etc.)

Actually, it happens all the time at star hotels, last month at the time of checking in at Taj Kolkatta, I asked for a glass of water and I was asked to go to the coffe shop as they dont serve water at the reception. They offered to send welcome drinks to my room. It's so basic but strange maybe specific to Taj -Kolkatta.

I mean how would all us feel if, Iphone tomorrow ships with Gorilla glass 3 only to India but everywhere else they ship with say Gorrilla Glass 5.

Again, if I am not mistaken there is a difference in the Chipset & or Modem that Samsung or Apple on certain models for Asian and European/ US Markets. You can google for more details.

[chaudh2s]

Originally Posted by rascalangel

Pardon my drawing skills, but if the two things in the above image were bridges, which one would be more stable? of course the second one! Because it would be more rigid because of the trusses. Similarly whether the chassis meets the crash test worthiness or not, the trusses would have made the chassis more rigid/sturdy. Ford should not have cheapened out here. (they should have used thinner gauge metal sheets, most of us wouldn't have complained then )

I had decided not to comment on this thread because the frustration being vented out here is akin to an Indian accident scene, bystanders with no business are more interested, and thrash the driver of bigger vehicle, even if the mistake was of the other party. The bystanders (radars be damned!) even get to know the speed of vehicle (150 pe chala raha tha!).
Well, coming to point:

1.) Picture on the right is not a truss. For a truss to be a truss, we need a bottom and top chord, there is no bottom chord here. Its a diagonal members called knee brace (in a bridge case scenario).

2.) This type of arrangement(knee brace) is typically provided, when you are not able to achieve sufficient stiffness in the joint between beam and column (or horizontal and vertical member) by welding or bolting alone. The knee brace converts moment into a couple, and lower the joint stresses.

2.) You cannot conclude second picture is more stable than the first, without understanding the use case of this structural arrangement. The first picture can be equally if not more stable than second picture. The first is a moment frame which is more flexible arrangement, and second is a sort of braced frame arrangement, which is more stiff and in structural systems, both arrangements are made use of, depending upon how you design the system.

3.) Now since you have drawn the pictures and called them bridges, if we now turn these bridges into a horizontal plane (as a chassis of our humble endy), we would see that the second picture, with its knee braces, comes beneath the firewall and outside the crumple zone area. At this location it wouldn't provide any assistance or otherwise in a crash scenario. So, am reasonably convinced that this knee brace has no or little impact on the safety aspect.

4.) However, when towing a trailer, driving scenarios like taking a turn, undulating off road situations, etc. can cause additional torsional stresses (both in plane and out of plane) on the chassis. This in turn creates additional moments at the joints of longitudinal and cross members of chassis. This is where this knee brace would be most effective. Converting moment into a couple and lowering the stress at joint.

5.) But, us Indians like to take pleasure in not minding our own business but put our 'not so expert' opinions into everything.


I delved more into the design of this chassis and can now also safely say that (adding to point 3 in my post above). Indian Endeavour is 2400Kg and probably the crumple zones in the front area, ahead of firewall is NCAP 5 star complaint. But, if we take the case of Everest, which is 2400Kg and also towing a 3500Kg trailer. The combined weight becomes 5900Kg. Now, when this 5900Kg gets involved in a crash, the car gets sandwiched between the trailer and oncoming vehicle. The stress from the front crumple zones is transferred via these knee braces (from just behind the front tires) to the (substantially wide) cross member, to absorb the forces. This cross member acts as a sacrificial member or extension of crumple zone.

Now, if we provide the same setup in Indian version, though it will not be detrimental in any way(apart from higher weight, higher bill of materials), it won't provide any benefits either. So, if the Indian Endeavour is passing NCAP 5 star, i don't need that knee brace.

[Surprise]

Originally Posted by chaudh2s

Well, coming to point:

1.) Picture on the right is not a truss. For a truss to be a truss, we need a bottom and top chord, there is no bottom chord here. Its a diagonal members called knee brace (in a bridge case scenario).

2.) This type of arrangement(knee brace) is typically provided, when you are not able to achieve sufficient stiffness in the joint between beam and column (or horizontal and vertical member) by welding or bolting alone. The knee brace converts moment into a couple, and lower the joint stresses.

2.) You cannot conclude second picture is more stable than the first, without understanding the use case of this structural arrangement. The first picture can be equally if not more stable than second picture. The first is a moment frame which is more flexible arrangement, and second is a sort of braced frame arrangement, which is more stiff and in structural systems, both arrangements are made use of, depending upon how you design the system.

3.) Now since you have drawn the pictures and called them bridges, if we now turn these bridges into a horizontal plane (as a chassis of our humble endy), we would see that the second picture, with its knee braces, comes beneath the firewall and outside the crumple zone area. At this location it wouldn't provide any assistance or otherwise in a crash scenario. So, am reasonably convinced that this knee brace has no or little impact on the safety aspect.

4.) However, when towing a trailer, driving scenarios like taking a turn, undulating off road situations, etc. can cause additional torsional stresses (both in plane and out of plane) on the chassis. This in turn creates additional moments at the joints of longitudinal and cross members of chassis. This is where this knee brace would be most effective. Converting moment into a couple and lowering the stress at joint.

5.) But, us Indians like to take pleasure in not minding our own business but put our 'not so expert' opinions into everything.


I delved more into the design of this chassis and can now also safely say that (adding to point 3 in my post above). Indian Endeavour is 2400Kg and probably the crumple zones in the front area, ahead of firewall is NCAP 5 star complaint. But, if we take the case of Everest, which is 2400Kg and also towing a 3500Kg trailer. The combined weight becomes 5900Kg. Now, when this 5900Kg gets involved in a crash, the car gets sandwiched between the trailer and oncoming vehicle. The stress from the front crumple zones is transferred via these knee braces (from just behind the front tires) to the (substantially wide) cross member, to absorb the forces. This cross member acts as a sacrificial member or extension of crumple zone.

Now, if we provide the same setup in Indian version, though it will not be detrimental in any way(apart from higher weight, higher bill of materials), it won't provide any benefits either. So, if the Indian Endeavour is passing NCAP 5 star, i don't need that knee brace.

Originally Posted by a4anurag

Thank you for the post and enlightening us with the change in structure in the chassis of the Endeavour.

I had got in contact with a friend of mine who works for an automotive major with specialisation in safety related tests. Had sent the link of this thread to find why the lack of that 'K-Truss' on the Indian variant versus the ones sold in foreign countries. Their reply was as below:

Based on the diagram: The said component (K-Truss) seems to be a full frontal crash related component.

During a full frontal crash, the 2 arms probably aid the detachment of the sub-frame from the B.I.W (Body in white).

The component (K-Truss) will be seen on cars that are tested for NCAP ratings with Full Width Crash Test (meaning Full frontal). Indian NCAP (BNVSAP) standards currently doesn't demand or test for Full Frontal Test requirement hence the omission of the component (K-Truss).

Thanks chaudh2s for such a simple and neat explantation.

@a4anurag, It would be really interesting to share this input with your friend to get his views on these points. Not to figure out who is wrong or right, but with absence of any reply from Ford, exchanging such views/opinions helps to figure out ourselves to some extent on usefulness of the missing element in our conditions