[Gildarts]

[quote=BB311;4407683]

Originally Posted by BB311

It's a RWD vehicle, which pushes the front part (with rest of the car ofcourse) forward. The opposing force of the trailer will pull the rear part of side members towards inside and the opposite part (front end) outside. Just like it happens in a chopstick tied to a rubber band and you pull the rubber band. The K stress bars in the front are not to handle the side member pull inside but to prevent the push outside.

In this case it's a 4x4. But as you mentioned, the K truss members handle the outward push on the side members i think. Especially under braking with a trailer in tow.
IMHO, I think those members aid in preserving chassis integrity under sudden braking when towing heavy loads. I find it hard to believe that FORD would cut corners in such a critical component.

[Brumby]

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

Absolutely!!

Just FYI, I had shared this team-bhp post with one of my friends who works for FORD US projects. His quick comments were:

- Probably, Indian market may not need those kind of Load bearing components like in AUS where they use these SUVs etc to tow heavy stuff very frequently(it is one of their primary need).
- He mentioned that such heavy Towing etc is probably not allowed in India(am not sure) & is not demanded by Indian market.
- Such components Design is largely driven by market need and it's function(& not only cost!)

I completely agree with your friend, and I did mention in one of my posts here that in the Indian market the Endeavour might not be largely subjected to stresses which necessitate requirement of those structural components, hence the omission.

Believe me if this was an optional equipment mentioned for a particular use, most of the customers except a few BHPians would have opted out to save some money. Just take a guess how many factory customised Thars does Mahindra sell at the price which they quote for all the extra towing, pulling, water wading etc etc it offers.

Regarding the manual, it's a user manual only and all the do's and don'ts for the user are usually mentioned, which include the restrictions for use. Even a workshop/service manual will be common for all the Endeavours, I mean there are no separate manuals for a 4-cylinder and a 5-cylinder equipped Endeavours, and they don't need to be that way for the user. May be there are a lot of DIY guys here and for them there are other channels to procure model specific workshop/service manuals, if allowed by the maker.

We need to understand that this is a vehicle made on an assembly line and not made to order, to have a detailed specific manual.

Cheers.

[nitinhegde]

Originally Posted by Brumby

We need to understand that this is a vehicle made on an assembly line and not made to order, to have a detailed specific manual.

Cheers.

Indeed. I am amazed at the Hue and cry made here for this topic. In my humble opinion, this comparison(owners manual image depicting K-Truss and 'perceived' missing design component in actual car) is grossly misplaced.

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

He feels that, we at Team-BHP, are biased towards some manufacturers and our hyper reactions to these topics impacts the India sales in favor of other manufacturers who maybe rather undeserving(I can understand his emotions as he works for FORD

Interesting point there. Which brand are we biased towards? Would love to understand. For the past 10 years that I have spent on this board - I have probably seen threads/horror stories related to every brand on sale. You can replace Ford with any brand, responses would still remain largely similar.

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

- Lastly, he said that Team-bhp folks were not fair to FORD by jumping to conclusions without knowing the real reasons. He feels that, we at Team-BHP, are biased towards some manufacturers and our hyper reactions to these topics impacts the India sales in favor of other manufacturers who maybe rather undeserving(I can understand his emotions as he works for FORD )

Thank you for your efforts in trying to get some info, and it is ok for your friend to "feel" that TBHP is a biased platform, that is his personal opinion.

However, any of this does NOT absolve Ford India of the responsibility of replying to the OP's and other owner's queries.

Originally Posted by Brumby

the Indian market the Endeavour might not be largely subjected to stresses which necessitate requirement of those structural components, hence the omission.

And you feel this is the right way to clinic/test a premium product before it is offered for sale in our country?

Let's leave the towing capacity, do we know the impact the resulting flex due to the omission of these members will have on the off-road & on-road behaviour of the vehicle AND its durability in the long run?

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

In my humble opinion, this comparison(owners manual image depicting K-Truss and 'perceived' missing design component in actual car) is grossly misplaced.

Let the OEM prove it otherwise with proof and this thread will automatically be closed.

We have the right to know the reason and even the law of the land buttresses that.

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Interesting point there. Which brand are we biased towards? Would love to understand.

Absolutely, calling a user-driven forum biased is simply absurd..!!!

[deepjaju]

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.

This is such an absurd comparison. Comparing the Endeavour to the Prado. Then might as well compare the Endeavour to the Ecosport and let the ecosport have like a wheel or a roof or window missing and then say "this is what we deserve for the tin boxes made by those so called big car makers"

"If we let ourselves be bullied, then we shall be bullied"

The point is if the Indian version of the Endeavour is supposed to have (as per the manual) that K-Struss then why it is not? If it is not supposed to then no harm no foul right?

Its really sad to see that big car makers like Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, etc. are taking India seriously only in terms of sales but lack the attention to detail that other countries enjoy. We on the other hand are handed over brochures by these companies having pictures of left hand oriented cars in a right hand drive country along with lack of features or even the option of adding any of those features for a price.

[navpreet318]

I think we need to clear up things a bit. K-members are suddenly not important.

It is part of a design. Shapes, designs and trusses are used to make a particular Chassis handle the amount of load and stresses it is meant to experience in a real world scenario.

Had it not been for weight and other related constraints we might as well have thrown in a steel slab of a 1 feet thickness and placed the SUV shell over it. Would have done the job. Pushed, pulled or torsion tested. Everything would have been easier on it.

But here there is a weight constraint. Then there is location of suspension, engine, drive-line components and other associated components.

To keep all of these constraints certain components are designed to have members to absorb energy, provide strength etc.

So in a design, all these are considered. Additional members are sometimes included to maybe lighten some other components. Maybe reduce their thicknesses etc. These are all part of the overall design. To liberate space and to save weight.

Now these K-members are there for a reason. Either they provide some sort of support to the additional members with which they are connected.

Now most of the people here harping that its for towing are only doing so because BD sir used to say it all of the times on most of the Thar threads where people wanted to install the rear tow hook for show purpose. How I miss him now!

Here the K member is placed way forward near the front of the vehicle. It should essentially have a different purpose.
As one of the post mentions that maybe Ford has used the 2.2 Chassis in 3.2 to save costs. Just having it removed in one country does not make sense unless you're told by an MBA(I myself am one) in one of his PPT slides that this will save ford a fortune over a period of a decade!
Little did he know that the MBAs on Tbhp are a bit different.

Now coming to the K members. It is not necessary that they be present in every design. If a design is tested without using it and it serves the purpose then its not required. Case in point, trucks in India! Major load bearing structures as well as load pulling ones.
But my only point is that if it was designed and tested using the K member then it should have been present in India. Have they developed a special Chassis for India? Tested it in the same way?

I hope now no one will start going to Tata and Mahindra Showrooms asking for K members in the Storme and Scorpio!

[BB311]

Originally Posted by Gildarts

Especially under braking with a trailer in tow.
IMHO, I think those members aid in preserving chassis integrity under sudden braking when towing heavy loads. I find it hard to believe that FORD would cut corners in such a critical component.

You are spot on the need of those parts - braking with heavy trailer in tow. Imagine the momentum change a 2.2-tonne vehicle needs to handle with 3 tonnes certified tow load. Also, unlike the trailer trucks, these personal vehicles trailers don't have a hydraulic brake line running to aid in braking.

However, the point here is, when will the govt. allow 3 tonnes towing in India for non-farming private vehicles? We need to have this law passed to put pressure on ford to get this part for free !!!

Till then, we at least need an official Ford response to the requirements of this part.

Originally Posted by Brumby

Believe me if this was an optional equipment mentioned for a particular use, most of the customers except a few BHPians would have opted out to save some money. Just take a guess how many factory customised Thars does Mahindra sell at the price which they quote for all the extra towing, pulling, water wading etc etc it offers.
Cheers.

This part is actually not a part. It's a chassis' design character. It can not be added optionally. Those Mahindra customized Thar's modify the UI (looks) aspect and little suspension work only, I guess chassis remains the same as stock factory. I might be wrong here though, I am not very sure on this point.

PS: I get the gist of your post, just mentioned the above point to quash the hope of current owners to install it optionally.

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Interesting point there. Which brand are we biased towards? Would love to understand. For the past 10 years that I have spent on this board - I have probably seen threads/horror stories related to every brand on sale. You can replace Ford with any brand, responses would still remain largely similar.

tBHP has never been biased. It's just an end viewer's perspective that's biased. A community of countless strong members cannot be biased towards particular manufacturer it's just a perspective.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

- Lastly, he said that Team-bhp folks were not fair to FORD by jumping to conclusions without knowing the real reasons. He feels that, we at Team-BHP, are biased towards some manufacturers and our hyper reactions to these topics impacts the India sales in favor of other manufacturers who maybe rather undeserving(I can understand his emotions as he works for FORD )

Riiight...a bunch of volunteers who take time out of their day to run a totally not-for-profit website and a few thousand auto consumers who participate by contributing and browsing is not being FAIR to a 150 billion dollar+(!) multinational corporation with an army of PR, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, et al.

How very despicable of us here at TBhp.

I really wonder how powerful corporations can ever cast themselves as victims in any situation/interaction with consumers?

I also really wonder about consumers like us who choose to side such corporations. Sometimes, after paying them our money and then doing free PR for auto corporations online.

(of course, none of this is directed at nitinhegde; thanks for taking the trouble to contact your friend and sharing the info)

[GTO]

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

Probably, Indian market may not need those kind of Load bearing components like in AUS where they use these SUVs etc to tow heavy stuff very frequently(it is one of their primary need).

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?

Originally Posted by AMG Power

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.

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?

Originally Posted by howler

Add to that an overly entitled Indian market that’s wants the whole shebang but “sastha mein”. We as a market need to mature before we can start condemning manufacturers who are in businesses

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.

Originally Posted by n.devdath

Have they come back to us yet Rush?

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

[Sankar]

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?

Ask this too...

1) Ranger
Maximum Gross Combination Mass 6000Kg
Max braked towing capacity - 3500Kg
No K member

2) Everest
Maximum Gross Combination Mass 5800Kg (lesser than Ranger).
Max braked towing capacity - 3000Kg (lesser than Ranger)
Has K member

So, ask what's this deal with K member and so called tow rating.


PS: Maximum Gross Combination Mass - Total permissible mass/weight of the rig including the loaded vehicle and loaded trailer (inclusive of vehicle and trailer weight).

PPS: Ranger is pickup version of Everest/Endevor. Like Hilux is for Fortuner and Triton is for Pajero Sport.

[RSimonS]

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

Indeed. I am amazed at the Hue and cry made here for this topic. In my humble opinion, this comparison(owners manual image depicting K-Truss and 'perceived' missing design component in actual car) is grossly misplaced.

This is a moot point, how can it be a misplaced statement?
If the pictures show in the Manual is indicative and not part of the original equipment, why the same part is 'visible' in the same vehicle sold abroad?

Originally Posted by n.devdath

3. Will Ford issue variant-specific owner's manuals to avoid such situations in the future?

If Ford is creating India Model specific Manual, it would be more of a cover up than being honest.

Originally Posted by nitinhegde

Absolutely!!

Just FYI, I had shared this team-bhp post with one of my friends who works for FORD US projects. His quick comments were:

- Probably, Indian market may not need those kind of Load bearing components like in AUS where they use these SUVs etc to tow heavy stuff very frequently(it is one of their primary need).

Does it say anywhere in the Owners Manual that Ford Endeavour Should not be used for Towing? Isnt the statement more of an assumption than fact?

- He mentioned that such heavy Towing etc is probably not allowed in India(am not sure) & is not demanded by Indian market.

Can you please direct me to the portion in motor vehicle act which says SUVs should not be used for towing?

[BB311]

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?
.

Surely not. Besides, these Stress bars are beyond the crumple zone. They will only help in making the cabin shell more secure.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Brumby

Apologies for saying this but it is not possible to have equipment specific manual.

Why not?

I work in the technical writing field and with the way we implement structured writing, it's just a matter of selecting certain content components or topics, or even parts of a topic/content set and publishing a specific version of a manual for a specific product variant.

I'd imagine it's a heck of a lot simpler and cheaper than tweaking an assembly line to remove a chassis component for a country-specific version of a vehicle.

Though nowhere near as profitable for Ford I guess.

[Lalvaz]

Sad to see that automobile manufacturers are giving a lower standard of product to the Indian consumer even in 2018. This is directly connected with the sorry legal system in India, since they know that the laws do not work for the consumer in India. Numerous players like Tata, Skoda etc routinely count on the Indian consumer giving up due to the long delays and costs of a legal battle.

Its even sadder to see so called automobile enthusiasts blindly supporting unethical practices by Ford, by making all sorts of tall claims that this K Member is not an integral part, and is merely used to help tow trailers. They also harp about how it helps increase fuel efficiency. What a load of crap. My question to them is: The question was posed to Ford on why this member is missing in the Indian version. IF they are not official spokespeople for Ford, why are they even replying with these speculative answers? Is the Philippines variant also being used to tow trailers? Stop spouting nonsense.

Its purely because we Indians do not demand better of our manufacturers that they think that they can get away with anything in India. High time we made a hue and cry and made these automobile manufacturers treat us on par with the developed world. It wasn't that long ago that SKODA gave DSG replacements in China but not in India. This step motherly, condescending behaviour has to STOP NOW !!!

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.

Totally misleading and fraudulent comparison. The Ford australia website lists the starting price of the Everest at 47490 AUD, which is about 24 lacs INR. So stop comparing that with a 1 crore vehicle.

Also, you need to watch your tone of voice when you talk about what we people deserve. Totally not done.