Swedespeed.com has posted pictures of the facelifted Volvo C30. Volvo’s concentrated most of their re-design firepower on the Swede’s front end; the lights and air intakes differ most notably from the previous iteration. According to automotorsport.se, remaining Volvo dealers and customers are hoping that the Ford subdivision (still) will install the newly developed 1.6-litre turbocharged direct injected petrol into the C.
20 Comments on “Volvo C30 facelift – bildläcka på forum!...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Retuning the suspension back to be exactly that of a (Euro Gen 2) Focus, as opposed to the Volvo hash job would be a great idea, too ;)
I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than one or two of these on the road. Warranty is excellent (5 years), but in the small hatch department I’m thinking this is already covered by the GTI, the Mazda 3 (at least until they ruined the design–the c30 beats the Mazda hands down in this area), or for a little more cash, the Audi A3. I’ve driven the C30 recently, and it’s a fun car, but optioned out can be a bit pricey.
If they changed the front end because it was getting long in the tooth, they certainly didn’t do it no favor…
This is the one thing about the future? sale: the Ford parts bin is hellaciously deep. Can the new buyer compete? If you want a good Volvo, I think the answer is to buy it now.
Instead of a facelift, how about they figure out a way to get the car to the US with some of the other eleven engine options that are available elsewhere? But nooo, we yanks are obsessed with speed and only deserve the thirsty turbo 5 that drinks premium…
They need an unique interior.
You can´t tell if you´re sitting in a C30, S40 or C70.
They also need a sportier model.
The C30 is comfortable, but it´s not very engaging to drive.
More transportation than sport.
If this is the facelift, I could spot no major differences from the original. But I am not a Volvo afficionado, not recently. I prefer their older, efficient, boxy designs that were true to the character and were not only safe, they looked safe too.
The hatch is not a bad design, at least it looks OK from that angle. But it has serious competition that is priced less, and it must prove its value to its prospective buyers.
The C30 needs to offer the S40’s AWD system at a reasonable price… I think this would push it upmarket but also make it slightly unique…. I am certainly a VAG-Audi fan, but IMO the C30 looks better from the outside than the A3… interior and driver engagement are also lacking here, but the A3 is no where near as engaging as the sportier alternatives (R32).
Volvo has never recovered from handing its core market to Subaru on a silver platter.
“Instead of a facelift, how about they figure out a way to get the car to the US with some of the other eleven engine options that are available elsewhere? But nooo, we yanks are obsessed with speed and only deserve the thirsty turbo 5 that drinks premium…”
bolhuijo, I think the extremely high cost of going through the American government regulatory maze that is necessary for a car to be sold in this country is the main reason there are relatively few engine/transmission options on cars here. Given that, for a relatively low-volume car they have to go with the one option that they think will make the highest sales.
I don’t see this getting better in the future either, given the trend toward increased government involvement in everything that was obvious even before the current statist crew took over.
As others have noted, the C30 looks great, and has a premium feel to it you won’t get in a Mazda, but simply isn’t much fun to drive.
Reliability has been about average, based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey:
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Volvo&mc=289
I still don’t think the dealer network in the USA even wants to sell these things. The last time I went to Volvo showrooms with interest in buying a C30, the dealer(s) basically tried to shove me into V70 and told me it wasn’t worth their time to try to push the low-margin (for the dealer) C30.
Design-wise, it would be more obvious in a fully side-view of the C30, the problem is the HUGE Front Overhang. While the rear wheels are very close to the rear bumper, the front overhang is so long, it looks like it could fall off!
This is a problem for most FWD cars… but it looks worse in the Volvo C30 because of the HUGE front-rear overhang difference.
After discounts you could theoretically get one of these for under 20k, but good luck finding a base model. Dealers carry very few of these as well. Searching inventory of Volvo dealers within about 75 miles, they all ranged from 0-1 C30 in stock.
I just built one of these on Volvo’s website – with nav, popular luxury options and a roof, we’re talking 32 grand. And – here’s a new one – Volvo actually charges you for any paint color other than non-metallic red.
Wow. Any questions as to why it doesn’t sell? We’re talking a car with the same performance envelope as, say, a Civic Si coupe, for near-BMW money.
The best thing Volvo could do for this car would be to pump up the power, but when you start stuffing FWD compacts with big power, you get huge torque steer issues; they’d have to put AWD in the vehicle to tame it. Up goes the cost.
I like the looks of this car, but for that money, there’s a whole universe of better, higher-performing cars to choose from. An Infiniti G-sedan bases out at $35,000 or so. A CPO BMW 335 coupe will be in that range.
fishnix :
September 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
The C30 needs to offer the S40’s AWD system at a reasonable price… I think this would push it upmarket but also make it slightly unique….
In a FWD car, you don’t really need the AWD system unless it’s got over 200 hp – mainly, it’s to stave off torque steer. That’s why all the high-performance Audis – which are all based on FWD platforms – have it.
Ingvar wrote:
If they changed the front end because it was getting long in the tooth, they certainly didn’t do it no favor…
Agreed. While the front is the least attractive part of the C30, grafting the nose of an XC60 onto is not the answer. Even though this is just a rendering from a fan site, it does follow the exact formula established by the C70 freshening (so I wouldn’t be too surprised if Volvo does it).
Dimwit wrote:
This is the one thing about the future? sale: the Ford parts bin is hellaciously deep. Can the new buyer compete? If you want a good Volvo, I think the answer is to buy it now.
Wow … I couldn’t disagree more. Volvo started going downhill precisely when bits and bobs from the Ford parts bin began cropping up in their new models.
mpresley wrote:
… or for a little more cash, the Audi A3.
I recently cross-shopped the C30 before buying an A3. Here in Canada, when comparably equipped, the 3-door C30 was almost exactly the same MSRP as the 5-door A3 (you need to add a ton of options to the Volvo just to match the A3’s standard equipment). But still, the Audi felt like a more substantial car and the Audi dealers were more willing to “deal” (perhaps a result of the C30 being in short supply). As a former Volvo dealer, I still have a residual affinity for the brand, but this model is just not competitive in today’s market. Like FreedMike said, it offers Civic Si performance for near-BMW money.
ZekeToronto :
September 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Wow … I couldn’t disagree more. Volvo started going downhill precisely when bits and bobs from the Ford parts bin began cropping up in their new models.
Not to disagree, but I’m disagreeing… :)
The only product they really got from Ford was the S40/V40/C30 platform (Focus), and that was a MASSIVE upgrade over the skanky original Mitsibushi-sourced V40. If anything, I think it was Ford who raided the Volvo parts bin, not the other way around.
I think Volvo’s mistake was threefold:
1) Sticking with designs too long. If memory serves, the old S80 was actually a good seller (and a darned good car) until Volvo let it get too long in the teeth with basically no change. Same for the S60. They’re doing the same with the XC90 – a great design for 2003, but way too old to be competitive today. Back in the days when Volvo was an independent company, I could understand this, but with Ford’s deep pockets, what excuse did they have?
2) Loss of performance focus. The new S80 is so bland to drive (and to look at) that when I asked the salesman which S80 I’d want if I was performance oriented, he pointed me to the turbo six, not the V-8. There’s something way off if your performance model is duller than the midline model.
3) Pricing. Not to kick the S80 around, but when you option the thing up, you’re looking at a $60,000 sticker, and now you’re into BMW 5-series / Mercedes E-Class / Audi A6 territory. Good luck cross selling the S80 against THOSE cars. Ditto for the new XC60 – it’s a very cool car, but option that baby up and you’re looking at 50 large.
It’s a shame – I own an ancient Volvo, so I have some investment in the brand. It’s tough to see them decline like this.
FreedMike: In a FWD car, you don’t really need the AWD system unless it’s got over 200 hp – mainly, it’s to stave off torque steer. That’s why all the high-performance Audis – which are all based on FWD platforms – have it.
Last time I checked, the C30 had over 200 hp :P
I would have bought one last year if it had better gas mileage and didn’t require premium, and cost about $2000 less. If they smack a 1.6 turbo in there and lower the price accordingly, I’ll suck up the premium requirement and buy one. In my opinion, those front-end changes are exactly what it needed.