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.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next