[MaheshY1]

Thanks for bringing it to our notice A.G.

If you're marketing it as an off-road-worthy SUV with ladder frame, torquey diesel, 4X4 and stuff, it should not compromise on its own values.

No excuses. Does it have something to do with 2WD and 4WD drivetrain?

Off Topic: I've also noticed that Ford does tend to show its cheap side and tries to make pennies whenever it can. We all know how many times the Endy received price correction once the new Fortuner was in sight. Don't forget the massive EcoSport price cut when the Brezza arrived. It just pissed off many buyers who had recently purchased the car and got no compensation. One of my friends bought the car weeks before the price cut. Maruti reimbursed some amount when the S-Cross got its share of price correction.

Buyer's remorse - courtesy of Ford India.

Like GTO said, It's understandable if the India-spec EcoSport had its corners cut compared to, say, US-spec model as it's nothing more than a spruced up hatchback and not touted as an off-roader in the first place. But didn't expect this from a vehicle priced around Rs 30 lakh. That gives Toyota fans one more reason to justify the why the Fortuner is a 'safer' bet; literally and figuratively.

[DieselAddikt]

Originally Posted by MaheshY1

Thanks for bringing it to our notice A.G.

Like GTO said, It's understandable if the India-spec EcoSport had its corners cut compared to, say, US-spec model as it's nothing more than a spruced up hatchback and not touted as an off-roader in the first place. But didn't expect this from a vehicle priced around Rs 30 lakh. That gives Toyota fans one more reason to justify the why the Fortuner is a 'safer' bet; literally and figuratively.

Correct. The EcoSport 1.0L Ecoboost Titanium starts at around $26000 which is more expensive than how it is priced in India. So yes, there will be corners cut and features removed so that they can price it in the vicinity of the equivalent Maruti. (Sometimes I feel Maruti is a hindrance to other manufactures and prevent them from experimenting new features and better built cars. But that is just my opinion.)

In a car that costs upwards of 30L INR and where the only competitor is the Fortuner which is way overpriced, I did not expect Ford to do these cheap tricks. Someone was saying that the real purpose could be to aid towing. But like already said, it could definitely aid the chassis when going off-road. What will they save by removing this ? And then, this is just one thing that A.G found out. What is worrying is that there could be other things missing that are hidden from our sight. Who knows ! For now, Fortuner seems the "safer" bet until proven otherwise. All manufacturers try to maximize profit. So anything could be possible in any car, be it Toyota, or Ford, or XYZ. This will continue to happen until we have strict crash test guidelines in our country.

In a way, I feel the Indian manufacturers are better. At the very least, they are not pretending that their cars are big, badass, invincible SUVs. You get what you pay for and you pay considerably less for, what now seems like, similar level of capability and safety.

[NTO]

Originally Posted by BB311

Very Right, However, let me add something here:

Thank you for highlighting. Being a mechanical engineer, this is the theoretical knowledge of Strength of Materials that I have. Really enlightened by your reply. Thanks once again!

[Brumby]

I am no specialist here but I hope we agree that no vehicle manufacturer manufactures a vehicle to test its capabilities to the limits by the end user. There is a factor of safety included to everything mechanical that is manufactured. So absence of this particular component may lower the factor of safety but will not make it incompetent or completely unsafe. Factor of safety is a ratio between the breaking stress and the working stress of a component. It is always more than 1. The limits of usage are always mentioned in the user manuals.

Not that I am favouring Ford or a fan, but they must have carried out tests to calculate maximum stresses generally an average user in India puts his vehicle to and a few more to test its off roading capabilities in Indian context. Absence of this particular component might have still met the requirements that Ford considered will that be of an average Indian buyer. For specialist users there are garages that modify vehicles to specific requirements and that can be done to almost any vehicle.

Just for reference, there are a lot of videos from Range Rover showing their vehicles climbing up the stairs, pulling locomotives on rails, pulling planes and climbing paper bridges, how many of us will opt for those capabilities of they were paid options.

Ford India definitely needs to answer to the Indian customers though.

Cheers

[thoma]

Originally Posted by Brumby

So absence of this particular component may lower the factor of safety but will not make it incompetent or completely unsafe.

Why the differential treatment to the Indian market by reducing the factor of safety, is what many want to know here. Unless and otherwise Ford answers it, we cannot decide whether to accept the reason or not.

[Brumby]

Originally Posted by thoma

Why the differential treatment to the Indian market by reducing the factor of safety, is what many want to know here. Unless and otherwise Ford answers it, we cannot decide whether to accept the reason or not.

By omitting this particular component the factor of safety will be reduced for a few conditions of usage which as per Ford India's research and data, does not need to be the same for Indian usage. There will be negligible change under most of the usage conditions that the vehicle will be under normally. It has already been discussed here that a lot of things are not permitted as per the Indian law, so the manufacturer has omitted these parts to either increase profit margins or reduce the cost.
It's upto Ford to reply to that. On a lighter note, this forum has already given a lot of content which Ford India can use to explain the omission.

Cheers

[petroguzzler]

Car Manufacturers aren't exactly operating for the betterment of the society or customers. They are entities to generate profit and do their best to ensure a strong bottom line. The onus of assessing the safety and integrity of vehicles should be in the hands of an impartial testing body like the NCAP (provided the records aren't fudged).

In the recent past, many major car manufacturers have been willfully negligent in rather serious issues like:

1. Toyota (An extremely delayed response in the Sticky accelerator issue)
2. Honda ( Using airbag inflators that were known to be lethal)
3. VW (Dieselgate)

[strawhat]

I believe the lack of strict policies is the reason why manufacturers are getting away. Because all this is outside the purview of our PDI checklist, a novice buyer will never be able to suspect any foul play. This actually raises a more generic question, probably a rhetorical question - what if more important parts have been removed?. Will the govt. step in and clamp down on such anomalies?! At least our very own Team-BHP doesn't turn a blind eye.

[itwasntme]

Needs a torsion test like this:

https://youtu.be/cCGkBsZ5pzc

[kadanaJ]

This is pathetic, but not surprising. I remember reading that the Indian version of the Swift was missing some structural components compared to the European Swift.

Look's like Ford is playing the same game to cut costs. Shame they did it in a premium car.

Eagerly looking forward to hearing Ford India's reply. Will never buy any of their cars if they don't address this issue.

[A.G.]

Originally Posted by BB311

Cost was cut, not any corner

Originally Posted by AMG Power

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

This can’t be true unless Ford proves it. In my opinion, cost and corner both have been cut.

Originally Posted by navpreet318

Features are a different thing. Chassis is not a feature.

Exactly the point many of us have been trying to make.

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

I sincerely hope the OP has the time, patience and resources to take this to a conclusion in his favour.

I am not the only Endeavour owner who has been short-changed and hence as long as members here are supportive I am confident of us being able to elicit a response and remedy from Ford.

Originally Posted by GTO

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

Which reminds me there are a few other features which have been mentioned in the Owners Manual and are supposed to work in the Endeavour with SYNC3+Navigation but don’t. Will share details soon.

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Need to check it out in detail, maybe this weekend.

Eagerly look forward to your findings

Originally Posted by i74js

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

You said it.

Originally Posted by NTO

this will load the chassis without the load getting distributed and the chassis will definitely flex more

Which is exactly what came to my mind when I found this issue.

[asingh1977]

Seeing what has been deleted, it really does not need too much structural engineering sense to tell what it does. It is some sort of support system which prevents the host part from snapping or breaking, irrespective which condition it is subjected too.

Now if Ford told me: "We will remove this, and the bolt-hole attachments, and reduce 50K". I would say, "Sir, take another 50K from me, over the car price, and leave it on, and I will pay full price".

Irrespective what the manual says/shows. And sleep well at night.

[Kishen.padiyar]

Though it may appear that only the K members are missing, are we absolutely sure that the remainder of the chassis is the same as the ones found in other markets? The material, the section thicknesses, heat treatment, manufacturing processes etc? If a particular country/region has more stringent norms to be fulfilled before a vehicle goes on sale, what is wrong in the manufacturer altering the specifications to meet the same?

Regarding the owners manual, I feel it is ridiculously blown out of proportion. It is harsh to expect that everything needs to be as per what is there in the car. One should understand how practically difficult it is to have a separate manual for every variant. Imagine the number of components that vary across the range and what if some of the features are updated a few months down the line? What if the alloy wheel design is now changed? Is there a need for a new manual again?

Slightly off-topic: On having a close look I found even the Fortuner does not feature a K-Truss. Irrespective of whether or not it's international variants have it or not, is it safe to say Fortuner is equally unsafe? So does this call for another thread?

[niteshbids]

Any car, or for that matter any product is supposed to be engineered to a T. Overdesign/Redundancy is as bad as under design. People are upset over Ford deleting members from their chassis. Another perspective would be that they had to add additional members for various other markets where towing is needed. While other cars also do not have the said members in their chassis, suddenly there is a hue and cry about the safety and structural integrity of the car which has not reported any such problems in the 3 years it has been in market. To me it sounds more like a sense of entitlement than anything else.

There are comments that Fortuner is a better option or a safer option now. Well surprise surprise, the Fortuner is also devoid of the suddenly important k members. (owners please confirm).


Picture of Toyota Fortuner Chassis (from their official website)




Details of Chassis of Mitsubishi Triton (test video shown in previous post)



Details of Nissan Pathfinder Chassis



None of these vehicles seem to have the K members (which are the bone of contention here)



I've tried to study the positioning, mounting locations and angles of the said members, to me it looks like they are for strengthening of the transmission mounting location so that the clutch/torque converter housing which connects the engine to the transmission and is made of aluminum, does not suffer extreme stress/strain when the engine/transmission is having to pull 3 tons of trailer cargo.

[ruzbehxyz]

Hi friends.

Have gone through the entire thread and read all the varied opinions from all types of members here.

The main question is, has someone influential from this forum escalated the matter to Ford India about this issue. Ford USA and Ford Australia should also be in copy because the Everest was designed in Australia.
By giving our varied opinions here we have already given a few answers to Ford India.
My personal opinion is that, this was done just to save costs. Even if Ford saves Rs.5000 per car, then it's a big amount when you compare it as whole. Omitting the particular part and how it will affect the vehicle in terms of safety / strength is a question that Ford needs to answer tactfully.
On the other hand, had there been no Fortuner in India the endeavour would be much costly and selling above 40 lakhs. In Australia and other states the Endeavour is at par with the Toyota Land cruiser in terms of costs and the Fortuner is priced much lower. It is only to keep the Endeavour at par with the Fortuner, that Ford India has compromised on some features and tyres. To keep things short, compromising on safety is not accepted and that too from Ford who is known for their strong cars or for that matter trucks.