[Sheel]

What if I want to tow a trailer or my friend's stuck SUV for some time?

[mac187]

Interesting discussion on this thread. My first reaction too was to wonder if this step was for cost cutting or because its a redundant feature for Indian market. Because this action definitely cannot be oversight, as more than one person would have signed off on removing a part from an existing model (design, safety, quality departments at least).

I absolutely will not accept argument that the disclaimer given in the marketing/ owners manual as the reason for the missing part. They should at least provide an explanation on the reason/s behind this decision and how this will/ will not affect the handling/ safety of the vehicle.

Originally Posted by civic-sense

You don't get every feature mentioned in the manual. Else I can buy a LXi and sue Maruti of not providing me airbags since the manual mentions it.

Really, this is your argument? If you go through the manual, they clearly state if a feature is not applicable/ applicable for certain trims and model years. I am saying this based on first hand experience as I have read through Swift manual.

[whencut86]

Originally Posted by GTO

Those who are happy with the disclaimers probably don't even complain when the valet driver bangs their car (due to the disclaimer on the parking token) or when their flights are cancelled (due to the disclaimer provided when booking their tickets). Well, to each his own.

However, we have discussed the disclaimers enough, so let's not waste any more posts on that.

Back to the topic, even the Endeavour in Philippines & China gets it . Ford India's behaviour is classic "penny wise, pound foolish". My mind only wonders about what else is missing in the car that we don't know of. Love the Endeavour, but it's lost a bit of respect in my eyes.

Remove a feature or two and we won't complain like this. But a chassis component!!!

Well said!!! Cannot rely on disclaimers. This is a clear case of cost cutting and cutting corners and impacting safety of a car. Seriously don't understand how people defend Ford even though they are notorious for doing this on the EcoSport and Figo hatchback. Agree Ecosport and Figo are built to a cost in India. But doing this on the 30+ lakh Endeavour cannot be justified in any way. If the Endeavour gets the K-Truss in other Asian countries but no just in India then they judge India not as a third or fourth world nation but as a fifth or sixth world nation. No matter what, Ford should not have skipped this since it impacts the chassis during a crash. Unjustifiable and Unpardonnable!!!

[SCORPION]

Originally Posted by Sheel

What if I want to tow a trailer or my friend's stuck SUV for some time?

Well, you cannot legally tow a trailer with the Endeavour because, in India, it is not approved to do so, unless you get special permission with some jugaad, and if you can find a nice trailer to tow.

Towing an SUV - sure you can. You don't really need an Endy to tow an SUV to a nearby workshop. Something much smaller can easily do the job. Besides, you are not going to tow an SUV at 100 kmph, are you? That's the max speed the Everest is rated to tow a close to 3 ton trailer!!

I think Ford ( infact all the global manufacturers like Hyundai, VW, Benz, Audi, Volvo etc) should, while handing over the keys to the next customer, make the following statement, for instance:
Look here friend, this is a global model called the Everest in the other markets. The Everest has 2 additional bars in the chassis, which your Endy does not have. Your car's safety is in no way compromised because of this, don't worry. We have done enough of testing to have come to that conclusion.
Next thing that your car doesn't have, which the Everest has is this.....and so on...

Still no convincing explanation for the missing bars nor it's intended use, except cost cutting ofcourse, which I wholeheartedly agree. So far only bashing the maker for something no one is sure of. I am sure Ford could have saved money elsewhere, if they wanted to do so, driver knee airbag, for instance. How many of you will decide not to buy the Endy because it has only 6 airbags and not the driver knee airbag?

Can someone in our esteemed forum get Ford to comment?

[whencut86]

Originally Posted by SCORPION

I think Ford ( infact all the global manufacturers like Hyundai, VW, Benz, Audi, Volvo etc) should, while handing over the keys to the next customer, make the following statement, for instance:
Look here friend, this is a global model called the Everest in the other markets. The Everest has 2 additional bars in the chassis, which your Endy does not have. Your car's safety is in no way compromised because of this, don't worry. We have done enough of testing to have come to that conclusion.
Next thing that your car doesn't have, which the Everest has is this.....and so on...

I think it was intended to be same as Everest though they have a different name in India due to the conflict. It is a CKD and is expected to be same spec as those sold in other countries. Atleast that is what Indian junta thought until this post came up.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by whencut86

No matter what, Ford should not have skipped this since it impacts the chassis during a crash. Unjustifiable and Unpardonnable!!!

Your tone suggest this impacts safety in a negative way. I’m not so sure about that. A stiffer chassis doesn’t mean occupants are better protected or more safe perse. In fact the opposite could be true. Stiffer means it will resist more to impact and that means occupants are likely to be subjected to higher G-forces.

I still think the possible reason could well be the difference in market specific specification and certification as some members have suggested. I hope Ford comes up with a credible answer. Without their clarification it is going to be guessing and on these sort of topics that is likely to cause individuals to suspect the worst and go overboard in a very indignant way.

Jeroen

[Kishen.padiyar]

So all these days all the praises Endeavour received from the reviewers, owners for robustness, ride quality, handling, 5 star safety, off-road prowess based on practical tests is now gone for a toss just because two pieces of metal are missing compared to some other markets? I personally find it ridiculous.

No point beating around the bush by assuming what the actual functionality of the K-truss is. I am sure we have true experts here in the forum who actually work on chassis, FE analysis, crash worthiness etc. Let's hear from them or an explanation from Ford themselves. Till then, let's take the back seat guys !

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

A stiffer chassis doesn’t mean occupants are better protected or more safe perse. In fact the opposite could be true. Stiffer means it will resist more to impact and that means occupants are likely to be subjected to higher G-forces.

True. The K-Truss would result in

(a) stiffer and harder crumple zones resulting in lower safety levels

(b) lesser articulation potential for off roading

(c) lower high speed stability on tarmac

(d) lower ride quality levels and more.

Removal of the K - Truss has advantages and disadvantages and for Indian driving cycles, it looks like the removal may be the better option.

[i74js]

Will this discovery result in any loss of sale for Ford India? I doubt. There is a clear bias among buyers at the time of make purchase decision between big T and Ford.

Endy offers better value for money compared to Toyota.

The missing part could be a cause of concern; yet in past 3+ years since when the new Endy is being sold in India, there has been absolutely no issues / concerns raised by the breed of owners using it.

I hope Ford would have taken note of this being discussed across forums; let's just wait for response and see if the justification holds good? This cannot be a decision taken by just someone. It would have been properly recorded and archived; though if the component is offered in all markets, not offering it in India puts a question mark on tall claims of Ford that it is sells world class products in India.

Does it "feels like a family? " - Not sure !

[NTO]

A K truss member helps distribute the load to the Peak Point (the point where the "K" originates) when the heel point, in this case the main members of the chassis, is subjected to tension and bending stress simultaneously. The absence of this K truss might have provided some weight saving (Approximately 10 Kgs per cross member of the K truss) for day to day driving but, this will load the chassis without the load getting distributed and the chassis will definitely flex more. Might lead to failure in extreme rock climbing and peak articulation. This definitely is not a good thing by Ford especially on a car costing ~40 lac INR! They owe an explanation to every owner of Endeavour in India!

(Refer image for peak point and heel point).

[gkveda]

So, are we saying, it is legally safe to sell Nano by showing the sales brochure of endeavor and issuing a Alto Owner's manual ? if owner is not knowledgeable OR ready to accept all these?

As a Owner, I expect the manual, product and brochure to be exactly the same. If there are any features available only for specific variants (For example, VSC feature in fortuner is available only in 4*4 variant and others donot have), then, Owner's manual is expected to mention these changes specifically.

Is there any specific mention of absence of K Truss member in the owner's manual?


If this is not mentioned, then, this is not within acceptable norm at all

[gauravanekar]

One of the member made a point that there is a difference between cost cutting and corner cutting. I agree with his explanation however this particular case does not seem to be an example of validated cost cutting exercise.
We have seen Ford skipping anti rollbar in Figo (being a figo owner i was pained to know this when this was revealed), now this. Unlike K cross member, no one can say that antirollbars are useless in India.

It looks like it is Ford India's practice to do this kind of corner cutting, and there many more example waiting to be found.
It is also true that small savings in cost in many places lead to big saving over the lifecycle of the model, this everyone understands in automotive industry.

@Ford: I know it is difficult for you to explain this away. At least dont do it in future.

[Jaggu]

There are two serious aspects to this:

1- Structural integrity and safety. As a responsible manufacturer, Ford hopefully would come forward and clarify the impact of these changes and reasoning behind the same?

2- The image in the user manual.

As an owner i really wouldn't worry about the latter since enough and more disclaimers are also provided. What i would be worried is point 1, which IS A SERIOUS concern after paying 40 big ones for a ROBUST SUV! Sad part this is not even an easy retro fit, since one side is welded on to the chassis!

[deepfreak15]

What a way to start your innings on Teambhp!

Am I the only one tired of these "generic" manuals that manufacturers are coming up with today? If you buy a VAG car you get a manual that covers all variants sold across the globe with most features having a disclaimer "If available on your model". How would I know if that feature was intended for the car I bought? This needs to stop!
Coming back to the OP issue, this looks like the second time Ford has listed something that's not on their car (first one being the anti- roll bar). Like most of us here I too am really curious to hear their official statement on this.

[BB311]

Originally Posted by NTO

A K truss member helps distribute the load to the Peak Point (the point where the "K" originates) when the heel point, in this case, the main members of the chassis, is subjected to tension and bending stress simultaneously.

Very Right, However, let me add something here:

K Truss is for bridges. Your diagram is accurate, for the bridges, as the load is on the peak and distributed using K Truss to the pillars. However, in our case of discussion here, the arrangement is not vertical, its a chassis.

As such, the load of "weight" is on the side members directly. The K Truss of the bridge is replaced with stress bars (missing in Endeavour) to counter two different forces - Stress and Compression. The connection is reversed too, from cross beam to side beams. The stress beam is not attached to the cross beams center (Peak load point) but each stress beam is attached at 1/3rd distance from one of the side member. The other endpoint is attached to the point where the chassis narrows and makes way for tires and suspension.

What this means is, when both the side members are not at the same height and:

1. A sudden break is applied with a trailer attached to it,
2. Or sudden acceleration input is made, leading to a quick change in momentum of chassis,

both the side members will witness some torsional stress, due to a difference in height. A trailer being towed on an uneven trail at high speeds is one such situation.

The K things, that we all are discussing here, will counter the compression and stress forces in this scenario.

I have seen some posts on previous pages, lambasting the sharing of some facts to imply a support to some manufacturer. Ofcourse, this would have been true when I would have justified 33% less surface area of airbags in the Indian version of some french manufacturer, missing balance bars of some American manufacturer or reduced strength of impact beams of some Japanese herd manufacturer. Point being, do any of these big conglomerates break any local law in India ? Perhaps, our general audience in India is more interested in a sunroof (It's 46 degrees outside ) and a touch ICE than all these technicalities.

Nation and Lawmakers need to wake first, companies just mean business. If I can sell a lemon for a price of a watermelon, why not ??