[JediKnight]

I am amazed that erudite bhp-ians are surprised by this. This is common across cars/segments. Cars sold for the Indian market have structural members removed since we do not have statutory requirement. It is easier to see in body on frame vehicles but not so easy to make out in monocoques. e.g the export version of kwid is 130kgs heavier than the domestic market kwid. Also it is incorrect to blame the manufacturer since their liability is limited to complying to local laws else it puts them at a significant competitive dis-advantage.

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by A.G.

Picture from the Owners Manual with K-Truss marked in Red... The print version of the Owners Manual supplied with the Endeavour also shows the presence of the missing K-Truss.

Originally Posted by n.devdath

It comes across as pretty stupid for the owner's manual to show a different chassis layout than what is sold without any disclaimers whatsoever.

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.

Ford will learn from this incident, and update the owner's manual more carefully.

Now on the serious note, it might not be just cost saving. Removing truss (if not required technically for Indian market) will also shed some kilos. Removing unnecessary flab improves FE and braking effectiveness. I am not sure how much these K-truss would have contributed towards these. Also, in many cases, even though reduction of small weight (say 10kg) may not help directly in FE, but if it brings down the Inertia Weight class, the indirect advantage on FE is significant.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by A.G.

Safety is one of the pillars that Ford India promotes as a key differentiating aspect of their products for the Indian market. Cutting costs on the chassis itself by removing these members and thereby affecting the overall strength and rigidity of the vehicle leading to a compromise in the safety is disappointing.

If not for your video and posts this never would have been revealed. Many thanks!

Originally Posted by blackwasp

I wouldn't jump the gun and call it a gross compromise. Take a look a this post by Shankar (quoting for a link to it).

This is an entirely different thing (compared to the plastic energy absorbers in the quoted post) and can be clearly seen from the videos that it is missing from the Indian version and its absence is worrying. It could affect vehicle dynamics and probably safety characteristics also.

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Now on the serious note, it might not be just cost saving. Removing truss (if not required technically for Indian market) will also shed some kilos. Removing unnecessary flab improves FE and braking effectiveness.

And add some flex too, probably good for offroading.

Still I would like to know why Ford thought it was "necessary" for the Australian market? Were they addressing any shortcomings or weakness? If it was a rear K then could assume it was for adding some extra durability for towing which is not seen in Indian market. But at the front?

[Mu009]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

I am amazed that erudite bhp-ians are surprised by this. This is common across cars/segments. Cars sold for the Indian market have structural members removed since we do not have statutory requirement. It is easier to see in body on frame vehicles but not so easy to make out in monocoques. e.g the export version of kwid is 130kgs heavier than the domestic market kwid. Also it is incorrect to blame the manufacturer since their liability is limited to complying to local laws else it puts them at a significant competitive dis-advantage.

Not in any way wishing to presumptively count myself in said list, here is what a not-erudite person has to say to your perfectly fair point:
While I agree completely with what you say and am well aware of such practices, in my case at least it was simply that so far I had great expectations from Ford - particularly with the Endeavour.

It isn't about anything rational, or temporarily forgetting what I know - it's something completely irrational. A belief that here was a vehicle that was offered with as much quality in the fourth-world as the first. I mean sure, AEB, radar-based Cruise Control etc are things we have little use for, and there are relevant omissions too (like the household-style power socket for the second row), but for the first time it appeared that we were being treated to the real thing in essentials.

Again, I am aware that this is the company that made, sold and then didn't recall the Pinto back in the day. But still. One must allow even cynics and skeptics some latitude for hope, must we not?

[GTO]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Removing truss (if not required technically for Indian market) will also shed some kilos.

On a fat vehicle weighing in at 2,200 - 2,400 kilos, trying to save weight like this is akin to applying lipstick on a pig. It's still going to remain fat & heavy.

This is 100% a cheap cost cutting measure that's unpardonable on a Rs. 30 lakh product. It's like renting a room at the Taj and not getting a bar of soap in the bathtub. When you are selling a premium 3-million-rupee product, you cannot do it with the mentality of a 5-lakh-rupee-hatchback product planner. It's an entirely different ballgame.

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by GTO

On a fat vehicle weighing in at 2,200 - 2,400 kilos, trying to save weight like this is akin to applying lipstick on a pig. It's still going to remain fat & heavy... This is 100% a cheap cost cutting measure that's unpardonable

Without any background information, I would not comment on the intention of Ford while removing this part. As you said, it may just be a cheap cost reduction exercise. Here I can mention, with sufficient background on Cost Reduction activity in automotive industry, the motto is even if a dime can be saved without affecting the product/ customer, it should be saved. I personally find nothing wrong in that.

Now, looking from different perspective. Are Ford Everest in Australia and Ford Endeavour in India exact copy of each other, except for this K-truss ? Are the customer specs declared by Ford in both cases same ? I believe no. So, it is difficult to comment on the exact reason why the K-truss was provided originally. Also, whether removal of the same would have any negative impact in Indian version. As chaudh2s mentioned it could be related to towing capabilities.

Moreover, the buying in Automotive sector (or any other sector) follows "pay for what your have in front of you". In simple terms, till the time Ford is able to deliver what was promised in specifications or shown on vehicle before sale, they do not have any obligation to match anything else.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by karan561

I hope everyone is aware that this gen of the Ranger & Endeavour/Everest was developed in Australia.

This K - Truss is understandably added/designed to tackle the Australian outback as clearly majority people out there do use the vehicle OFF ROAD.

Also i believe we do get the Thai spec variant & not Australian spec, now it will be interesting to see if the Thai Endeavours/Everest's have this K-Truss enhancement in their chassis. If not then we are not getting too, simple !

If the Thai-spec has & we do not then it is truly a shame.

Not conclusive but if you look at the Everest Preview thread in which we drove the Everest in Thailand, the cut out Everest did have the K truss.

Visible in this pic:
http://www.team-bhp.com/carpics/2015...deavour-08.jpg

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-...endeavour.html (Preview: Ford Endeavour)

Also checked our official review and there's no K truss visible in underbody pic. Which means it has not been there from Day1.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

I am amazed that erudite bhp-ians are surprised by this.

e.g the export version of kwid is 130kgs heavier than the domestic market kwid.

Doesn't it come as a shock when you have to equate a 30L Endeavour to a 3L Kwid? A flagship product to a entry level one?

If I buy a Kwid, I know I'm paying for value engineering and the company has to compromise things to make it affordable for the amount of money in my hand. Not the case when I'm paying at 30 big ones for a premium SUV.

Originally Posted by JediKnight

Also it is incorrect to blame the manufacturer since their liability is limited to complying to local laws else it puts them at a significant competitive dis-advantage.

Dis-advantage against what? Another 5000 (or even 50,000) rupees might hurt, when the competition is the Fortuner, which in itself is heavily overpriced? At that price, people don't buy for a cheaper price tag - they buy cars that feel good.

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

In simple terms, till the time Ford is able to deliver what was promised in specifications or shown on vehicle before sale, they do not have any obligation to match anything else.

Which they haven't. The owner's manual, both digital and print, which are meant for the Indian version show the truss in them so there is a clear deviation from the "designed/intended Vs offered specifications" w.r.t. the Indian consumer and they are obligated to answer.

[civic-sense]

Isn't Endeavour a CKD import? That means, an already built vehicle is knocked down, packed and exported. Now, what will they gain by removing a couple of metal pieces when they reassemble it?

Originally Posted by n.devdath

Which they haven't. The owner's manual, both digital and print, which are meant for the Indian version show the truss in them so there is a clear deviation from the "designed/intended Vs offered specifications" w.r.t. the Indian consumer and they are obligated to answer.

There are dozens of equipment/features mentioned in my Compass' owners manual which is not present in the car. There are enough disclaimers in owners manuals that take care of this.

[sidhu_hs]

I am a firm believer in the thought that the more countries around the world a car is sold in, the better it is. Sure, features can be added and deleted depending upon the target markets but making structural changes for cost cutting is just not done! I hope Ford has a good explanation for it, else this is exactly the kind of thing that tarnishes the reputation of a brand.

Not for nothing does Fortuner sell four times as much as Endeavour and exactly the kind of thing Ford cannot afford to do if it aspires to capture the brand loyalty and recognition that Toyota enjoys while playing second fiddle with a 'perceived' (those quotes are provisionally required now) better product.

[BB311]

Let us all not jump the guns on this missing K Stress bars. This appears to be a cost-cutting attempt but it is not.

Firstly, Ford Everest is certified to have a trailer tow capability of 3000 kg. Indian Endeavour is not.
Secondly, Since the model is based on a pickup, which is not produced in India, These bars are not a shared fitting across any Ford car in India.
Thirdly, The use of these bars is to add extra rigidity to the tail of the ladder frame so that heavy pull (from the trailer) can be handled safely. Since adding a trailer will make it classified as a commercial vehicle (Indian Laws) Ford Endeavour is not certified for trailer towing.

Now ask yourself, If we are not going to pull any 3000 kg trailer (legally) why do we need it (legally)?
Why add extra 37.8 lbs and some $ to the bill for a redundant feature ??

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by GTO

.
This is 100% a cheap cost cutting measure that's unpardonable on a Rs. 30 lakh product. .

Umm.. Cutting down 2 members in the chassis doesn't save much and there are numerous other parts where Ford can cut costs, and not exactly in the chassis.

This, I think has got to do with towing. The Everest and Ranger are "Built Ford Tough" in Australia and is expected to tow trailers all day long and also being towed. Towing Chassis requires additional strengthening, and precise load distribution across the chassis, which might not make it road friendly.

While I will wait for the official explanation or better for someone who knows chassis design inside out, I think, this design "might" be to better road manners and/or comfort. Also, there might be an advantage of better packaging without the K members.

Eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6dQpvhjZ0U

[karan561]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Not conclusive but if you look at the Everest Preview thread in which we drove the Everest in Thailand, the cut out Everest did have the K truss.

Visible in this pic:
https://www.team-bhp.com/carpics/201...deavour-08.jpg

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-...endeavour.html (Preview: Ford Endeavour)

Also checked our official review and there's no K truss visible in underbody pic. Which means it has not been there from Day1.

Its not conclusive to say that the cut out model is Thai spec.

As the cut out model of the Endeavour would be only 1 (Australia spec. as it was developed in Australia) and it was a launch event hosted for various press from different countries, one of the Australian media channels also reported the same cut out model;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vTwC0e1GyM

However lets wait & watch.

[SandyX]

Originally Posted by BB311

Thirdly, The use of these bars is to add extra rigidity to the tail of the ladder frame so that heavy pull (from the trailer) can be handled safely.

Originally Posted by dhanushs

Towing Chassis requires additional strengthening, and precise load distribution across the chassis, which might not make it road friendly.

Umm this K-truss is towards the front of the vehicle near the engine below the transmission, not at the tail. I don't see how it directly aides tow point strengthening.