Comments on: Volvo Boss: Expect Another 10% U.S. Sales Drop

By: detroit1701

detroit1701 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:38:57 +0000

The first problem with Volvo is that none of its NA cars have impressive fuel economy. Strike one. Second, the car that appeals to youth (C30) essentially costs 30K once you add an automatic transmission and cruise control. Strike two.

Where are the smaller displacement engines (1.8, 2.0, etc.)? Diesels?

By: Cammy Corrigan

Cammy Corrigan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:35:05 +0000

The only way Volvo can survive is to go back to its roots. That is, cars for the masses with families with safety and rock solid reliability as standard.

This will be a tough sell, especially outside of North America.

Firstly, as I’ve said in the past, Volvo lost its “Safety Kings” title to Renault and they’ve shown zero interest in getting it back.

Secondly, their reliability HAS taken a hit. Nobody can tell me that the Volvos of today are as solid as the Volvos of the past.

Where they may pick up some cache is to market themselves as an alternative to an SUV. I don’t mean crossovers, but as estate type cars. Volvo used to make some brilliant estate cars (740 springs to mind)

There certainly is scope to save Volvo. Its future lies in its past…….

By: TEXN3

TEXN3 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:58:51 +0000

I still don’t understand why Volvo has to be considered a luxury brand. It’s definitely an “executive” car in much of Europe. I guess all the late 80’s and early 90’s yuppies did that to Volvo in the US. Back in the early 80s, my dad (at that point an engineer at a Texaco refinery) seriously considered a Volvo. There weren’t many in Baton Rouge but he liked the engineering of the vehicle, and the price wasn’t much more than a GM A-car or Ford Fairmont. He ended up getting a turbocharged aero Bird, and then later a string of Taurii (MT5, SHO, Sable). I bet that Volvo would have outlasted all those vehicles.

It’s what I love about our 82 244, basic and solid vehicle. The platform was designed in the 60’s as the 100-series. That says alot for Volvo design and engineering for the car to still be revered as it is today. That’s what Volvo needs to be doing, build something that is actually made to last, with the driver and passenger in mind.

As much as I hate to say it (being both a FoMoCo and Volvo fan) but maybe Ford does need to loosen it’s grip on Volvo and let them compete in their own market as a niche player that goes beyond just price points.

@Steven Lang: Why would Volvo want a recycled version of their S80? That’s all you’re suggesting. Of course, I’d like to see some decontented Volvos like the old 100 (not the Mitsu derivatives), 200, and 700 series were. I’d definitely buy one though, I like the previous XC70 but wish it was a bit more basic…I guess there is always the Outback.

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:25:42 +0000

Really, can Lincoln and build Volvo in the US as the up-model. Lincoln had cachet, back when the Trans Am had it as well. Today? phtbbthbtt

By: Stein X Leikanger

Stein X Leikanger — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:11:53 +0000

Well – Saab were first with seatbelts, but the invention itself was American! (I usually criticize US automotive, so here’s a kudo.)

Bohlin’s belt for Volvo was a special variant, and he landed the patent.

The three point seat belt (the so-called CIR-Griswold restraint) was patented in 1951 by the Americans Roger W. Griswold and Hugh De Haven. [13]

Saab was the first car manufacturer to introduce seat belts as standard in 1958.[14] After the Saab GT 750 was introduced at the New York motor show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[15]

Nils Bohlin of Sweden invented a particular kind of three point seat belt for Volvo, who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 for the device.

By: Alex Dykes

Alex Dykes — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:58:15 +0000

Given the volume of cars Ford builds on Volvo platforms (Lincoln MKS to name a new one), it would seem that Ford needs Volvo. One of the questions I have is: what is the financial relationship really like between Ford-Volvo? With Chrysler-Mercedes it was obvious that Mercedes was milking Chrysler for licensing fees for their ancient E-Class platform and their thats-so-yesterday transmission. Does Ford pay Volvo for the technology they use? Does Ford pay for the crash test centre on Sweden when they use it? Could it be that they prefer to use and not pay thereby saving on tax liability of “paying” their Swedish division? Food for thought. If Volvo is correct in thinking they could be profitable at lower volume in the USA by making them in the USA at a profit, then more power to them.

The real question is: Does Ford care if the Volvo division looses money? Is the Ford-Volvo relationship designed to be as close to break even as possible for tax reasons? But then again, why are they reporting earnings now… Ponder.

By: Steven Lang

Steven Lang — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:54:44 +0000

No, to be honest folks, Volvo has a far better opportunity at becoming a successful luxury brand than Lincoln. Volvo actually has some cache for folks in their 30’s and 40’s (Lincoln is considered dowdy in comparison), and Volvo’s penchant for promoting safety, longevity, and turbochargers are all big pluses.

I don’t know why Ford is evening bothering with Lincoln or Mercury. Neither one of these brands has proven to be in the good graces of the American public for well over a decade now. If those vehicles went away the only ones who would really car are Jill, a few conservative members of the 65+ crowd, and perhaps the livery trade.

And one other thing… the Five Hundred / Montego / Taurus / Sable should have been given a quintessential Volvo front end and interior. If it had come out as a Volvo 260, I’m sure that a lot of folks who had wanted a full-sized near luxury car would have jumped on it. Marketing it as a bland Ford/Merc with none of the exterior luxury affectations made it a non-starter. It’s a shame. That platform is far more interesting than most other ones in that segment.

By: John Horner

John Horner — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:32:27 +0000

It is too late for Ford-Volvo to solve it’s strategic problems. Ford needs to spend it’s capital reconfiguring North American production to serve the main brand. Is there enough cash to get that critical job done? Certainly there isn’t any left over to bail out itty bitty Volvo. Doing Lincoln right would easily replace Volvo’s US sales volume and at much less cost than would relocating Volvo’s production base. Find a buyer or shut it down. I will always love my 1800ES and our daughter is in no hurry to give up her 240, but Volvo today is just another near luxury car wannabe.