Your Volvo has dirt cheap parts. As for electrical glitches, that’s usually either connections that get loose with age or cheap bulbs that need to be replaced.

That Volvo may indeed last 300k whether you like it or not ;)

With the recent purchase of a MINI, the Volvo is now the second car, and might be able to squeak out another 6 months to a year, as long as nothing big comes up. Maybe our mechanic will give us a good deal on the brake job. My only worry: The MINI has all those gizmos…

But, next time I need a car, I’m not sure Volvo has something for me to move into, so from a brand-retention strategy, they’re not doing too well. The V70 is very nice, but the mileage is worse and its not that much larger inside (granted, I could overlook some of that if they brought the T6 version or a nice diesel), the S60 is ancient, the XC90 is too SUV-y and long in the tooth, the XC60 is an unknown quantity at this point, but doesn’t appear to offer much more in the way of practicality or space than my current car.

I’d love to see a return to ’substance’ for Volvo – i.e. I’d rather have good outward visibility than a Blind-spot Information System. People have noted the ‘Green’ strategy, and I think that would work with the Scandinavian aesthete; cradle to grave environmental focus, high-mileage powertrains, beautiful design, active safety.

If Ford would capitalize by making economical luxury cars, it would have a product. Using Volvo to bring diesels, turbos, and more Ford Europe pieces to the U.S. at a reasonable price point would help. Right now, all the other Euro companies are doing bigger (size, engines, power, etc.) and that is not good considering the economy and the rising state of gas prices. Instead, those who shop this market, are left with little and move to things like the Prius. Is that hard to figure that the ‘rich’ didn’t get that way by being stupid and nobody likes a big bill at the pump.

I never thought I would say this but I do think that the main problem for Volvo at this point is the lack of marketing and advertising. I don’t remember the last time I saw a Volvo commercial.

Saw one last night. Some blond-haired babe in an evening gown caressing a sedan of some sort (and I’m a pistonhead). All I remember was the word LUXURY repeated several times.

I’d buy one just for the seats.

The nearest equivalent model, the S80, is a beautiful car. I saw one pulling up behind me last summer and thought, ‘you know, I’d almost give up my BMW for that’- and there’s the problem right there. The S80 starts at about $38k, for just over $40k you can have a 5-series. The 5-series is better-handling, has a better quality interior, and of course, comes with the prestige and high resale value of a BMW. With newer serious competitors like Infiniti and Lexus (which have somehow managed to make themselves prestigious overnight), Volvo’s still stuck with it’s old ’safe, boring and reliable’ image- now in a higher price bracket.

Ouch!

They crash cars that are better than some of the cars I’ve owned over the years…

After 20,000 miles I can only say it has been trouble free so far. It is quick, very solid, excellent seats and well put together. I love the sculptural centre stack interior. It is also very surefooted in the snow and slush.

(It could use a better gearbox though.)

Choices at the time were an A4 or a TL. Audi were not in the mood to deal (arrogant actually)and the TL was only FWD and there are just too many of them.

There is a value to individuality. Whether it is distinguished by design and/or engineering there is room in the market for something that is not German or Japanese.

They can do it. I hope they get the chance.

“Some good points, but I’m sick of these “brand” editorials. I was born in 1986 and I don’t want my Volvos, Cadillacs, Pontiacs, or whatever to conform to some “image” established in 1960.”

What the world needs might be a decent Volvo, and there aren’t any about I can see. In 1967, I was your age, and when I and my rally buddy (who owned the 544 we blasted through mud and snow) saw that new boxy Volvo 144, we puked. We thought we were East Africa Safari rally drivers stuck in a Canadian diaspora. WTF is that bus? we wondered. A rally car it is not!

There was already a fat bloater of a Volvo called the 122S Amazon, and the really neat 1800S which cost a fortune. But the new 144S was a car for the family man who still wore black shoes and a trilby. It was seriously uncool. I tried to love the seats, the first ergonomic designs on the market. I failed.

My friend flogged his oil-burning ‘63 544 in ‘68 (6000 rpm for miles at a time in second gear through mud will wear out even a B18, only the valve-guides though), and got a Barracuda 340. Now THAT was fun.

I got a ‘65 544 which died in a crash, but never bought another Volvo again. And say what you will, all those 144, 164, 244, 242 GT, 740, 760, 960s of the late 60’s through the 80s weren’t real Volvos, and they rusted to nothing in short order around here in the Canadian Maritimes. Eleven years seemed to be the max before the strut front suspension crashed through the fender sheet metal or the lower A arms tore off the non-existent mounts. Hell they even assembled the things here in Halifax for decades. I still wouldn’t buy one.

Onwards and upwards! I do find these hand-wringing editorials about how car manufacturers have lost their way a bit repetitive. Who really cares? Other than for a light read and a bit of reflective head-nodding as one toasts one’s feet before a cosy wood fire and sips tea, I don’t.

Sure, I feel annoyed when a car manufacturer loses the plot, IF I own one of their progeny. About the other manufacturers plights, I could care not one jot. Other than the intellectual interest of course, which is why I read TTAC.

There’s always someone else coming along with something half-decent. I’ll buy that next time. Meanwhile, I can’t believe what a screamer my new LGT is. Whoee from an oldster.

My, that was a good cup of coffee this morning……

Many of the changes which resulted in a much less sturdy Volvo arrived with the 850 and before Ford got involved. Thin metals, self-destructing plastics, leaking engine blocks, short-lived ABS controllers, expensive A/C evaporator failures and self-destructing trim adhesives all arrived before Ford. Post Ford things just got worse. Ford also seemed to imbue Volvo’s customer service “advocates” with the same Warranty Cost Minimization Tactics which are all so common from the 2.8, VW and others.

I still think the best results would be if some uniquely Swedish, or at least Nordic, minded people grabbed a hold of Volvo and Saab and set on a course of producing vehicles with a truly Nordic point of view. Something different and special which can find it’s market. The bottom line is that today’s Volvo offers nothing you can’t find elsewhere and thus, it’s an irrelevant brand.

It is also noteworthy that Ford’s Volvo based vehicles have …. flopped. Ford’s Mazda based vehicles are doing very well. Hmmm.

” So what is the deal with the Volvo transmissions?”

Volvo buys it’s automatic transmissions from other companies. For years their main supplier has been Aisin-Warner (AW), part of the Toyota keiretsu. GM has also been a supplier of some. One of the big problems with Volvos and modern AW transmissions has been Volvo’s declaration of “lifetime fill” status for the transmission fluid. Oddly enough, the same family of transmissions when installed in Toyotas call for fluid changes every 30k miles.

Some of Volvos newest models are using Ford sourced six speed automatics. Time will tell how that works out.

Another consequence of these multi-sourced transmissions is that getting the correct fluid into the vehicle can be problematic. The GM, AW and Ford transmissions all call for a different transmission fluid. Wanna bet how often the wrong stuff gets into one?

When the lease expires in 2010, I’ll probably buy (or lease) another. Maybe the XC60 or a C30.

Such is the pitfalls of such a narrow branding strategy.

I would seriously consider a used V70 as my next car, but these transmission issues worry me. Another thing I don’t like…the requirement for premium gas. Lots of newer Japanese cars require this, also. I like to drive something that runs on 87 octane.

The 1982 Honda Accord that was our Volvo 740’s stablemate was a subcompact. The 2008 Honda Accord is a full sized car.

V70 base MRSP – 32.5k
S80 base MRSP – 38k

I think there three main reasons for the relatively poor performance of Volvo in the US: 1) poor marketing by Volvo US/Ford. 2) lack of R and D investment by Ford — the s60, XC90 are pretty long in the tooth, and the brand is missing or is late to the party with some halo goodies. 3) lack of a reputation as a driver’s car, which hurts on blogs and in certain pubs. If Volvo’s were marketed agressively in the US, they would have better sales. I suppose that Volvo is also hurt by being a “tweener” brand behind high end luxury and the mainstream — not much to be done about that other than marketing.

It is important to note that Volvo sales globally are growing in most markets. So in general they make a viable product — it just needs better investment by Ford. And is still viable/salvageable. We will see if Dearborn can make it work, though….

With Audi winning more safety awards, with Toyonda et al owning “reliability” Volvo *could* be the company that made sensible, useful, Eurostyle, green cars.

I disagree – Volvo needn’t expend the energy in developing and marketing an image as a “green” automaker, at least in the manner Toyota and Honda have done. The outlay of resources would exceed the return; at some point, the “green” image is going to be about as useful as the “safety” image has become. Eventually the playing field will level, and at some point perception of Toyota as a “green” corporation will weaken in favor of another automaker, just as (at least in Europe) Renault has become lately synonymous with “safety” over traditional marques like Volvo, Saab, and Mercedes. I don’t think Volvo’s safety reputation has suffered as much in the United States as it has in Europe – after all, Renaults aren’t sold here – but the playing field definitely isn’t as skewed in Göteborg’s favor as it once was.

Volvo needs to go back to the core reputation as a maker of durable, practical automobiles. Reliability and durability are distinctly different attributes, and Volvo could cultivate that difference while still providing an interesting fleet to choose from. Even the vaunted 240s weren’t the appliances Hondas are – but there are more similar-vintage 240s on the road than Accords, I would imagine. Volvo has plenty of rich corporate history to draw inspiration from in drafting a new model lineup. They just need the freedom to make it happen, and I think that’s unlikely if Volvo remains under Ford’s control.

However, having said that, I don’t think that Volvo will get my business when I get my next car. They’re too expensive, and there are too many electrical issues. The Subaru will probably get my vote. Plus with the added bonus of AWD, it’s a hard offer to pass up when I live in Minnesota.