Case in point: I’m currently leasing a 2006 XC70. Today I looked at a 2009 Subaru Outback as its replacement for when my lease is up in a few months. I love the XC70 and it’s been dead reliable. At 55K, no issues, none, nada. So why on earth am I considering switching brands? One word: Cost.

In Canada for 2009, a Subaru Outback 3.0R Premier lists for 43,595. To create a similarly equipped XC70 3.2, you need to choose the Convenience and Premium packages, then add the following options: Sunroof, Wood Inlays, Navigation System and Premium Sound with Satellite Radio. Total price: 53,310!

Now, what do you get for that additional 10k? Slightly less hp, slightly more torque, slightly more cargo space, a comparable interior (in my opinion), and not much else.

Volvo: We’ve got the money and therefore we’re going to buy an overpriced station wagon (even if it is slightly ugly) to show off to our neighbors that our precious children are safer then yours!

Unfortunately, I am a young socialist who drives a Volvo wagon but I don’t have any kids. I suppose then that my sperm is safer?

I absolutely love it.

I’ve been saying the same of Saab since 2001, and you’re right that it applies equally to Volvo. Both have (had?) the most progressive, left-leaning demographics of any premium brand. In theory, buyers would have been stacked eight feet deep—hell, I know several Saab (and ex-Saab) owners who’ve bought Priuses.

Ford, to it’s credit, at least developed hybrids people might want to buy, just not under the Volvo nameplate. GM Marketing is on crack if they think that a) full-size truck buyers give a shit about mileage or emissions or b) hybrid buyers would be caught dead in a GMT900.

1. added an SUV/crossover a few years earlier

2. been positioned as the brand that Toyota Prius drivers would want to move up to, with luxury hybrids and whatnot

3. marketed the c30 more aggressively as a Mini Cooper alternative….and allow individual customization of the c30s a la the Minis

4. not let the s60 wither on the vine for so long.

I’ve owned an ‘85 240 wagon, ‘91 740 Turbo wagon, ‘96 850 sedan, ‘02 S60 AWD sedan. In my opinion, Volvo lost its way with the S80 and S60 rounded designs.

The whole idea of a Volvo from an aesthetic point of view was that it was understated. Like they used to say, a Volvo “looks like the box it came in” and “blends into traffic like a lane divider.” This was a plus and part of what motivated people to buy them–they were, quite simply, designs that excelled at saying nothing at all.

They were all very solid cars, but any honest long-time Volvo owner or mechanic will admit that beyond about 120k miles you will find that you are buying it over and over again.

Best deal? Buy a 3-year old Volvo and drive it to about 110k miles.

Hey, I resemble** that remark!

** Technically, I’m a younger socialist, but otherwise you’re pretty much bang-on.

Good riddance! ;)

If only…

Hummer: Appeals to guys with big wallets that want to show it off. The few guys that actually try and take their Hummers off-road get stuck and either have a Jeep drive by them or pull them off of a rock that they high-centered on.

Saab: Why is it that older socialists always drive a Saab? Must be their dream of America being a socialist utopia like Europe?

Volvo: We’ve got the money and therefore we’re going to buy an overpriced station wagon (even if it is slightly ugly) to show off to our neighbors that our precious children are safer then yours!

Good riddance! ;)

As for Ford, Mercury costs Ford nothing to maintain. The cars are all straight rebadges, so there’s no engineering work, and all Mercury dealers are paired with at least Lincoln, if not Ford as well, so there aren’t any extra Mercury dealers floating around. Lincoln could be saved with the right product. There is still lots of customer good will there. Same with Volvo.

Chrysler: Bye, bye.

Each one was better than the last, with the exception of the V40 which was really a POS compared to the others.

I love the V50, even though it may be “badge-engineered,” and I really hope Volvo survives in some incarnation or another.

Since folks are more inclined to buy Volvos and Saabs when they cost about 3/4 of the new price, why not actually streamline production down to two or so related vehicles, engineer simplicity into them (wow what a novel idea), build them with quality (Honda, anyone?), give them a specific high-tech, high-class, Scandanavian look (Bang & Olafson anyone?), make it a VIRTUE to indicate that the styling won’t be changing for the sake of change over one decade minimum and remind prospective buyers what this will do for parts prices (lower them – and wow – actually DO lower them) as well as insurance costs (due to lower priced parts) and resale value (increase them, potentially).

In other words, go back to the Saab 99 and Volvo 240 “modes of operation”. Like small niche players should.

Then actually price the cars at about 3/4 of what they now cost for a similar current Saab or Volvo. Actually, scratch that. Nix Saab – it’s a dead brand walking. Volvo has the potential to survive.

Interesting how Ford has the potential to survive, too. GM, not so much.

Volvo and Saab were badge-engineered in entirely different ways, and Volvo’s was much more respectable: Ford took the best of them and folded it into their models, resulting in cars like the D-Platform Five Hundred, Taurus, Freestyle and Flex that are actually quite good, and have benefitted greatly from Volvo platform and engineering expertise. Meanwhile, Volvo got the necessary cash and R&D expertise to keep going.

Their failure is really one of marketing, and their state is similar to that which Acura will find itself in very soon, or Subaru if they’re not careful. There’s still a lot “Volvo” left; it’s a viable company, but they need to come up with a reason for people to buy their product. A price cut would be a big start, because Volvo just doesn’t compete with Mercedes or Audi; they compete with Saab (snort!), Subaru and perhaps Volkswagen.

Saab, though, became a reseller for rebadged Opels at best, and yet another cost amortization for the GMT360 at worst. GM gutted them stem to stern, leaving only that which was unprofitable to replace at the time, and taking nothing Saab offered to make the rest of GM better. Right now, Saab is just another head on the hydra. There’s nothing they sell that you couldn’t buy at another GM Factory Outlet.

As for Volvo – having been ripped off by their dealers twice I have no sympathy.

Of course someone bought (and continues to buy) the new metal. I’m just saying that the people I’ve known that have bought Saabs and Volvos found the used cars to be a considerably better deal. I made no claim about whether or not anyone was buying the new metal.

Why would I go and spend 40K+ on the Turbo X when I KNOW that in a year I could find one on a dealer lot with 10,000 miles on it going for under 30K that the dealer is desperate to sell

Same thing with Volvo