Price Analysis: 2010 Volvo S60 And 2011 Saab 9-5

Michael Karesh
by Michael Karesh

In recent years Sweden’s car makers have staked out an uneasy position above the mainstream brands but below the premium European marques. With profits elusive, both were recently sold by their American owners. And both are about to introduce new sedans that they badly need to sell well. How does the pricing of the new 2011 Volvo S60 and 2010 Saab 9-5 compare? Has either been priced aggressively to pump up sales?

I’ve come across remarks that the Saab is considerably more expensive than the Volvo. And it is, especially before adjusting for its roughty $4,250 in additional standard content (based on TrueDelta.com’s car price comparison tool). The Volvo starts at $38,500, the Saab at $48,390. In both cases only the top trim level will be available initially, with others to follow.

But this isn’t a valid comparison. They’re both sedans powered through all four wheels by 300-horsepower turbocharged sixes, but the 9-5 is much larger than the S60, with 15 inches more overall length (197 vs. 182) and over five inches more rear legroom (38.8 vs. 33.5). The Volvo S60 really competes with the Saab 9-3, while the Saab 9-5 really competes with the Volvo S80. So each requires a comparison with its own peer group.

For the enlarged Saab 9-5, this means other midsize luxury sedans. After similarly loading up both cars (the default comparison at TrueDelta.com), the 2011 BMW 535i was about $15,000 more than the new 9-5. Even after adjusting for remaining feature differences the BMW is about $13,900 more, a sizable premium but one that history has proven many people will pay. The 2010 Mercedes-Benz E350 4Matic is not quite as pricey, about $10,200 more before feature adjustments, and about $8,000 afterwards. The 2010 Audi A6 3.0T is closer still, about $5,300 more than the Saab before feature adjustments, and about $5,700 more afterwards.

Moving beyond the pricey Germans, the redesigned 2011 Infiniti M37x lists for virtually the same as the Saab before adjusting for remaining feature differences, but is about $3,000 more afterwards. A Lexus GS 350 AWD? About $1,800 less than the Saab, but also a little more compact. And the 2010 Volvo S80 T6, which has failed to meet sales expectations? It’s about $600 more before feature adjustments and about $900 more afterwards. Close, but it offers considerably less rear legroom, and needs to be closer to the Saab in size. From these comparisons, Saab appears to have priced the new 9-5 about even with the Volvo (which few buyers pay remotely close to sticker for) and not far from the Infiniti and Lexus. If the car sells, it won’t be based on an aggressive pricing strategy.

The new Volvo S60 goes up against the 3-Series and the other aspirants to the BMW’s crown. It replaces a model that has been on life support in the U.S. for the past three model years. Here as well the BMW costs quite a bit more. Specifically, a similarly loaded up 2011 335i xDrive lists for about $7,200 more. With the 2010 Audi S4 the difference is even larger, about $10,000. But then Volvo hasn’t blessed the new car with its late, lamented R moniker. The closest American competitor, the Cadillac CTS 3.6 AWD, is about $4,000 more than the Volvo after a series of price increases over the past few years.

On the other hand, a 2010 Infiniti 2010 G37x lists for about $4,900 less before feature adjustments, and still about $2,900 less afterwards. (The Japanese offer no other 300+ horsepower AWD sedans in this lower-midsize entry lux class.) Saab deprived the 9-3 of its V6 for 2010. Going back to the 2009, the 9-3 Aero was about $2,500 more expensive than the new S60—but massive $6,500+ rebates were required to get them off dealer lots. And what about the Volkswagen CC, which shares a coupe-like roofline with the new S60? In VR6 form it’s within $1,000 of the Volvo. The Volvo’s interior should be considerably nicer than the VW’s, and in general it should have a more premium look and feel. But is this a sign that the Volvo is aggressively priced, or that the VW is overpriced? More likely the latter.

So, with the new cars both Saab and Volvo appear to have maintained their pricing position from the past decade or so. They’re much less expensive than comparable German cars, but are at best even with and are often more expensive than Japanese competitors. This pricing strategy hasn’t helped them sell many cars in the U.S. in recent memory. So, unless the new cars are highly desirable to car buyers—they’ve really got to be outstanding in some highly relevant way—they’re not likely to sell much better than the cars they replace.

Of the two, the Volvo has the better shot, even a much better shot. Its brand is stronger, with a clearer identity and broader awareness and consideration. Its company’s future is (relatively) more secure. The new sedan’s more dramatically styled. And it’s simply easier to sell a $40,000 car than a $50,000 car.

But even $40,000 is a stretch for these brands. Neither should count on selling many new S60s or 9-5s with the top trim level, and each needs to introduce lesser trims before the public fixates on the introductory pricing—if it hasn’t already.

To run your own price comparisons: Car price comparisons

Michael Karesh
Michael Karesh

Michael Karesh lives in West Bloomfield, Michigan, with his wife and three children. In 2003 he received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. While in Chicago he worked at the National Opinion Research Center, a leader in the field of survey research. For his doctoral thesis, he spent a year-and-a-half inside an automaker studying how and how well it understood consumers when developing new products. While pursuing the degree he taught consumer behavior and product development at Oakland University. Since 1999, he has contributed auto reviews to Epinions, where he is currently one of two people in charge of the autos section. Since earning the degree he has continued to care for his children (school, gymnastics, tae-kwan-do...) and write reviews for Epinions and, more recently, The Truth About Cars while developing TrueDelta, a vehicle reliability and price comparison site.

More by Michael Karesh

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 51 comments
  • Akitadog Akitadog on Jun 02, 2010

    "...the BMW is about $11,700 more, a sizable premium but one that history has proven many people will pay." More like history has proven that many people will LEASE, at monthly payments equivalent to a much cheaper car were it being financed. The percentages of any luxury car being BOUGHT new are small compared to the number being leased. The pressure to look to the rest of the world like you have more money than you do is immense, especially in large metro areas.

  • Buddhabman Buddhabman on Jun 07, 2010

    It will be interesting to see how they get more people in the door for a demonstration drive. That's really the key, they have to get the BMW, Audi, Acura, Volvo buyer to come in and cross shop. AWD will help sales in the northeast and mountain regions. The price point will be a tough one, but the 9-5 has been a Consumer Reports top pick since 2003, it's a pretty trouble free car. I am waiting for the 2011-12 9-5 Sport-Combi to arrive.

  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Thankfully I don't have to deal with GDI issues in my Frontier. These cleaners should do well for me if I win.
  • Theflyersfan Serious answer time...Honda used to stand for excellence in auto engineering. Their first main claim to fame was the CVCC (we don't need a catalytic converter!) engine and it sent from there. Their suspensions, their VTEC engines, slick manual transmissions, even a stowing minivan seat, all theirs. But I think they've been coasting a bit lately. Yes, the Civic Type-R has a powerful small engine, but the Honda of old would have found a way to get more revs out of it and make it feel like an i-VTEC engine of old instead of any old turbo engine that can be found in a multitude of performance small cars. Their 1.5L turbo-4...well...have they ever figured out the oil dilution problems? Very un-Honda-like. Paint issues that still linger. Cheaper feeling interior trim. All things that fly in the face of what Honda once was. The only thing that they seem to have kept have been the sales staff that treat you with utter contempt for daring to walk into their inner sanctum and wanting a deal on something that isn't a bare-bones CR-V. So Honda, beat the rest of your Japanese and Korean rivals, and plug-in hybridize everything. If you want a relatively (in an engineering way) easy way to get ahead of the curve, raise the CAFE score, and have a major point to advertise, and be able to sell to those who can't plug in easily, sell them on something that will get, for example, 35% better mileage, plug in when you get a chance, and drives like a Honda. Bring back some of the engineering skills that Honda once stood for. And then start introducing a portfolio of EVs once people are more comfortable with the idea of plugging in. People seeing that they can easily use an EV for their daily errands with the gas engine never starting will eventually sell them on a future EV because that range anxiety will be lessened. The all EV leap is still a bridge too far, especially as recent sales numbers have shown. Baby steps. That's how you win people over.
  • Theflyersfan If this saves (or delays) an expensive carbon brushing off of the valves down the road, I'll take a case. I understand that can be a very expensive bit of scheduled maintenance.
  • Zipper69 A Mini should have 2 doors and 4 cylinders and tires the size of dinner plates.All else is puffery.
  • Theflyersfan Just in time for the weekend!!! Usual suspects A: All EVs are evil golf carts, spewing nothing but virtue signaling about saving the earth, all the while hacking the limbs off of small kids in Africa, money losing pits of despair that no buyer would ever need and anyone that buys one is a raging moron with no brains and the automakers who make them want to go bankrupt.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Usual suspects B: All EVs are powered by unicorns and lollypops with no pollution, drive like dreams, all drivers don't mind stopping for hours on end, eating trays of fast food at every rest stop waiting for charges, save the world by using no gas and batteries are friendly to everyone, bugs included. Everyone should torch their ICE cars now and buy a Tesla or Bolt post haste.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Or those in the middle: Maybe one of these days, when the charging infrastructure is better, or there are more options that don't cost as much, one will be considered as part of a rational decision based on driving needs, purchasing costs environmental impact, total cost of ownership, and ease of charging.(Source: many on this site who don't jump on TTAC the split second an EV article appears and lives to trash everyone who is a fan of EVs.)
Next