Now that Ford has put the remainder of its Premier Automotive Group (PAG) on eBay, it's time to evaluate the soon-to-jettisoned divisions' prospects. As "going concerns," Land Rover and Jaguar are like a cartoon character who just ran off a cliff; the only thing that keeps them from plunging into oblivion is [momentary] ignorance that they're about to plunge into oblivion. Business wise, Volvo is the Daffy Duck of the group: a major star that somehow graduated to the role of successful sidekick. As brands, well, that's a different matter. Or, as it turns out, not.
From a branding perspective, Land Rover is an unmitigated disaster. No surprise there; the brands' products have earned their manufacturer a worldwide reputation for bad engineering and poor reliability. A brand can only get so far playing the snob card. An off-roader that's destined to leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere (or the Neiman Marcus parking lot) is a less coherent brand proposition than a $250 McDonald's Happy Meal.
Sad but true: Land Rover's imperious off-roaders are only marginally more reliable than a love-struck teenager. In 2005, Land Rover was third to last in JD Powers' Initial Quality Survey. In the following year, Land Rover fell to last place– and then stayed there for '07. Engine power problems, exploding gearboxes, inaccurate fuel gauges, electronic gremlins– Landies live at the bottom of every automotive reliability survey conducted in the last six years.
The implications are clear. Given the depth and severity of these self-inflicted wounds, Land Rover's resurrection would require at least a decade of flawless [re]engineering and manufacture, and an epic warranty.
Why bother? SUV's are a dead genre guzzling. Land Rover's barely double digit mpg mules are both dead AND damned. And the competition's kicking Land Rover's arse in mud plugging (Jeep, FJ), price and reliability (from Hyundai to Toyota), fuel efficiency (you name it), and on-road performance (Porsche, BMW, Infiniti). There is nowhere for this go-anywhere brand to go– save the dumpster.
Jaguar. As The Bonzo Dog Doh-Dah Band would say, dear dear dear oh dear dear dear oh dear dear oh dear no. While Ford gets maximum props for banishing most of the most egregious mechanical gremlins bedeviling Jaguar, Dearborn's darlings have all-but-destroyed the British automaker's mission critical cachet.
It's bizarre. Sir William Lyons left clear instructions for his brand: pace and grace. Under Ford's stewardship, Jaguar has fashioned a lineup of vehicles that can only watch their German equivalents disappear into the horizon, whose sheetmetal displays less grace than a meth-crazed mosh pit dancer. A Ford Taurus nose on an XK? Puh-lease.
Much has been made of Jag's ruinous move down-market. But the success of BMW's, Audi's and Mercedes' entry level machines proves that Jag screwed-up in X-ecution, not concept. The X-Type was an under-engineered mini-me version of the XJ sedan, which was an aluminum-skinned clone of the previous XJ, which was an "homage" to the XJ that preceded the model it replaced. You can't make this shit up.
Ostensibly, Jaguar could return to Sir Billy's formula. Unfortunately, Jag's non-Teutonic competitors have filled the pace and grace mindspace. Maserati and a resurgent Alpha have nailed it. More importantly, Lexus' L-Finesse style has given their products something very much resembling sex appeal. Equally disheartening, Jag's last shot, the new XF, only gets it half right: it's pace without grace. Nope, Jag's day is done.
And so to Volvo, the sensible Swede that sells safety. Despite Ford-sponsored attempts to add speed (racing station wagons?) and sex appeal (convertibles?) to the brand, Volvo remains a fundamentally boring proposition: the automotive equivalent of nurse's shoes. Well, there are a lot of people out there all looking for the world's most comfortable shoes, and plenty of people who'll buy a safe boring car over a less safe boring car.
Volvo's safety shtick has such a powerful hold on the public imagination that the automaker could arrive unfashionably late to America's jam-packed SUV party tendering a woefully underpowered model- and STILL clean house. Seventeen years after Chrysler launched the Town and Country, a properly constructed Volvo minivan would perform the same feat.
As Volvo customers don't expect frequent model updates, a new owner could take their time to improve the marque's models' reliability. And there's no reason why Volvo couldn't or shouldn't move down market, to become a full-line manufacturer of dull, safety-oriented automobiles. Anyway, the fact that Volvo is the only member of PAG banking bucks tells you all we need to know about the brand's strength.
In sum, it's no wonder buyers eyeing-up Jaguar and Land Rover are [allegedly] insisting on some sort of Volvo bundling deal; Volvo is the only PAG brand with any life left in it. In fact, there's so much life left in the brand Ford should consider keeping it and selling off Mercury (as if) or Lincoln instead.
A Ford Taurus nose on an XK? Puh-lease.
I suggest you do a little automotive history review. The Tauras nose came from Jaguar starting with the D-type (XK-SS) through to the E-type.
“Hello, sweetheart, gimme rewrite…”
>>Maserati and a resurgent Alpha…
Alfa. Sheesh!
A Ford Taurus nose on an XK? Puh-lease. I suggest you do a little automotive history review. The Tauras nose came from Jaguar starting with the D-type (XK-SS) through to the E-type. And the XK nose came from the Taurus, starting with the 2000 model through the end of the product run. Here's a side by side showing what he's talking about.
In Europe we reacted with dismay back when Ford acquired Jaguar, and shortly afterwards we saw Ford launch their Mondeo warhorse sporting a jag front. (Contour in the US). Would you believe it made car of the year in 1994?
Fun trivia. In the first Grand Theft Auto game the car was called Mundano.
@ roadtrip,
Whats the difference?
I cannot see how Ford could separate Volvo from itself right now. Everything from IT infrastructure, CAD, Simulation — Everything is all mixed up and high dependent on Volvo. The only way it would work is if the new owner of Volvo were to enter into a partnership with Ford for Volvo.
Ok, I own a Land Cruiser, but I love to see Land Rovers. Hope they don’t die. Are they all that bad, or is it just the engine? Couldn’t the new buyer just put in their engines? Isuzu maybe? It seems to me that the brand has EVERYTHING going for it except this one problem (the real SUV is not dead, only the SUV as wagon. People who want a real SUV will keep buying them).
I had been hoping that Jaguar would somehow get some quality improvement from Ford. How did they not manage to get beautiful Jaguar sheet metal and suspensions on a Ford without making them break constantly? Ford has never been a quality winner in my book, but they aren’t THAT bad.
I would love to see an article on why these buyouts failed in more detail than just panning them. Was it politics? Is a buyer unable to pull production out of the UK, and thus doomed to repeated failure because of labor, supplier, or other difficulties? What is it?
Both companies have some great capabilities and value. What is the REAL problem that keeps them from executing?
Jag has great looking cars IMO so why arent they selling enough to turn a profit? Do they also have to use overpaid union workers and deal with the high employee health care cost? Not sure where their vehicles are assembled…
Land Rover alone has 4 of Ford’s 30+ platforms – the old Defender, LR2/Freelander on EUCD shared with Ford & Volvo, LR3/Discovery/Range Rover Sport, and finally the Range Rover. Yikes!
Volvo minivan? Even if there was enough money to develop one, would the intenders of the Sienna Limited and Odyssey Touring put up with Volvo’s subpar reliability? I see that the rest of Volvo’s US isn’t selling all that well; perhaps it is time to cast off all of PAG before Ford loses any more money.
I have to disagree with the assessment of the brand equity of Land Rover. Annual worldwide sales between 1999 (the year prior to Ford acquiring it) and 2006 increased by about 8.3% (about 15,000 units), while furthering its reputation as the maker of the consummate uber-yuppie SUV’s of choice.
That’s not a bad performance when you consider that during that timeframe, oil prices increased by roughly 250%, and the largest market for these vehicles slid into its 9/11-tech-bubble recession and currency devaluation.
And while the build quality may be dubious at best, the demographic that is buying these vehicles doesn’t often prioritize reliability. For some, it’s better to have a Land Rover in the garage than a Toyota in the driveway, I suppose.
Still, Mulally is wise to dump these badges, as the need to manage these niches diverts money and management resources away from the bread-and-butter products where the money is going to be made, if anything is to be earned at all.
For a niche marketer, Land Rover and Jag have terrific brand potential, but for a mass consumer products company such as Ford, the fit is all wrong. The fact that Ford has been chronically incapable of running its own “luxury” division Lincoln should tell you that the outcome of these acquisitions was not destined to be good.
Ford had as about as much business buying these brands as would K-mart buying Cartier and Tiffany. Higher-end luxury is a very different game, and Ford does not have the prowess or temperament to play it over the long haul. The margins might have potential for growth, but the overall revenues of these niches are too small for a company of Ford’s size to manage them properly.
A friend bought his wife an X-type; she and her friends gush over it and take every opportunity to be seen in “the Jag”. Another friend bought herself an LR2 having dismissed other similarly priced Utes as “too common”. I think there’s some life left in the brands if they can get the cars right.
Jaguar and Land Rover’s problems stem from building in pounds but having their biggest market in dollars. At $1.50/pound a 20k pound car can sell for $40k at a profit. At the current $2/pound, the same car at the same price is pushing a loss. Ford could have used their stewardship of the brands to pull some production stateside to offset this, but then they’ve enough problems with manufacturing over here as it is.
I could see a future owner pulling out of the US market altogether (with the current exchange rate) and running a smaller but more profitable company. Judging by the number of X-type’s I see in Europe, it was quite successfull over there.
I don’t think the future is as bleak as this article makes out. All of the brands have their distinct pros and cons to survival.
Jaguar: I reckon this brand does have a future but it needs to align itself with the right owner. If Jaguar go to a private equity company or another mass car manufacturer with more money than foresight, then we can safely consign the big cat to the history books along side Oldsmobile and Rover. However, there is ONE player who could save Jaguar. Sir Anthony Bamford CEO of JCB. He, in the past, has expressed considerable interest in Jaguar and considering he comes from a long line of petrolheads he may install the missing component which Jaguar was missing for years…..passion. I reckon Sir Bamford could restore Jaguar into a niche player and possibly make a play for super car status with the right image. Interestingly, Sir Bamford has made it clear he wants Jaguar and nothing else, including Land Rover! I for one would like to see Sir Bamford get Jaguar to give it the passion injection it so desperately needs and, on a more personal level, give the UK a car industry of it’s own. We may have got Aston Martin back, but it’s not enough! ;O)
Land Rover: I agree with Mr Farago, here. Ford believe that this brand is the one which has the brightest future and this could be a clue into what kind of mindset Ford management have. Ford believe that the brand with poor reliability and who’s expertise is in a market which is diminishing quicker that George W Bush’s popularity still has a future! Yep! Ford still believe in the SUV market! I am, however, hyper confused about Land Rover. In its British Leyland days, Land Rover was unstoppable. They were built to last and was the standard that all 4×4’s wanted to achieve. What happened? I don’t think Land Rover is wholly unsavable but it will need more work than Jaguar. In fact, a very good buyer for this brand would be Renault. They are currently moaning about lack of profitability and they don’t have any SUV’s in their line up. If Renault bought them (which they won’t because their cash flow is very limited), they could have a whole wealth of SUV’s and a profit laden cash flow. Plus, they could use their owner/partner’s experience in reliability to sort Land Rover’s engineering problems out. Also, since Renault and Nissan are hot on platform and component sharing, they could add Land Rover to the mix and spread the costs out further and get bigger discounts on parts from suppliers. The only downside to this scenario is that I can VERY easily see Renault ceasing production in the UK (high labour costs) and moving production to idle plants in France (Sandouville, for instance which was meant to make the Laguna, but poor sales has meant less work for them) because it is harder to lay off French workers than UK ones. This would damage to the Land Rover brand, a British SUV, engineered by the Japanese and built by the French!
Nearly done!
Volvo: This brand does have some minor problems, but nothing that can’t be fixed. It shouldn’t be marketed as a luxury brand, because most people associate Volvo with blandness (not a bad thing) not luxury. Volvo should go for the mass market and reinvent themselves as Europe’s answer to Toyota. Steady, reliable and safe cars, like they used to be. Trouble is, to achieve this, they’d need to either:
A: have a REALLY agressive market strategy
or
B: Find an owner/partner which will give them the freedom to work that vision.
I can’t think of anyone who’d want to partner up/take over Volvo. I could see Volvo being a good suit to Honda. Honda need to expand further and Volvo could do with Honda’s engineers and Honda could do with Volvo’s capacity. I would like to see Volvo go back to the Volvo parent company, but I can’t see that happening because, it was they who cut the car division loose. However, I do know that Renault own a 20% stake in the parent company and they could move to take back Volvo cars with Volvo’s money and Renault would have that luxury car division they so desperately wanted! In a masterstroke, Renault don’t spend any of their money and still acquire a luxury car division which they’ve been hunting for! Once again, more costs are spread around and more parts would call for bigger discounts from suppliers.
Anyway, that’s my 2 pence worth. Feel free to tear it apart! I can see Mr Farago foaming at the mouth right now! ;O)
These editorials are fun to read.
“And while the build quality may be dubious at best, the demographic that is buying these vehicles doesn’t often prioritize reliability. For some, it’s better to have a Land Rover in the garage than a Toyota in the driveway, I suppose.”
I don’t know who these people are, but I doubt many of them are Americans. North Americans who’d like a luxury SUV to crawl over speed bumps at the mall will probably opt for a Lexus with it’s combination of not for the masses pricing, and Toyota quality. If LR has a future – and there is absolutely no reason it should have (C’mon folks, wise up, buy a Toyota/Lexus)- then that future will be in the UK and perhaps some parts of Europe.
Jag, I dunno. Still has some cache left, maybe. It’s never been the equal of it’s competition, but if someone wants to try injecting the company with vigor and panash, have at it.
Volvo could end up wearing a T-shirt reading “I survived ownership by Ford”. Refocusing on their traditional reliability/safety niche, they would seem to have a future ahead of them.
I have to disagree about Honda buying Volvo. Sure Honda needs to expand, but they seem content to do that by building quality cars and taking more market share, not by pretending to be Billy Durant and buying up auto producers.
The best news here is that Ford, just possibly, might be refocusing on being in the mass market automobile business.
Oh I hope Jaguar doesn’t die; and is taken over by someone for whom it will be a labour of love. I wonder how many people on this site have ever actually driven a Jag. I am a guy who usually buys 3 or 4 year old luxury cars and lets the original owner take the hit on the depreciation. I can miss the thrill of driving it first to drive them at all. Over the last 20 years I have had 2 Audi’s a 2 BMW’s and a Jag XJ6. That jag had something special. I remember reading once you don’t get in a Jag, you put them on. And that is so true. Something about Burled Walnut that came from a tree, not an oil well. Leather that is worth looking after and real wool carpets. I once drove that sweetheart from London, Ontario to Halifax Nova Scotia non-stop and was sorry that I got there and the trip was done. That straight six engine was so smooth and powerful and the ride so comfortable that I just ddin’t want it to end. I am keeping my eyes open for a nice XK8 convertible 2 or 3 year old. I tend to find that people that owned these cars before me could afford to look after them well. Looking for another gem.
I love the look of the Jag S sedan and was tempted by their extremely low used prices. Then I checked on the net for reliability issues – folks have devoted entire websites to diaries of their experiences with Jaguar service departments…..
Land Rover is, for all intents and purposes, dead. If BMW and then Ford couldn’t improve quality, what makes anyone think that some venture capitalist can?
Land Rover is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Sales are growing and the brand enjoys strong cachet value within its niche, so I don’t quite understand these proclamations of death.
The brand clearly has value, just not in the hands of a behemoth mass marketer such as Ford. It may not be worth what Ford originally paid for it, but a good management team should be able to extract that brand value, and make it a profitable venture if the purchase price of the company is more reasonable. Ferrari, Bentley, etc. are not exactly known for reliability or fuel economy, but that doesn’t bar them from being successful in their respective, albeit limited, markets.
Dynamic88:
Sure Honda needs to expand, but they seem content to do that by building quality cars and taking more market share, not by pretending to be Billy Durant and buying up auto producers.
Honda is more than just cars, they are the world’s biggest manufacturer of internal combustion engines. Think of them more as an engine company that builds cars (and motorcycles, robots, etc, now even jets and solar panels). Honda can certainly afford to take the slow and steady route in the auto market – especially since their auto branch is quite profitable.
Katie is right, Jaguar has been lacking in PASSION, and strong direction from the top. Ford has paraded a succession of bean counting morons through the gates at Brown's Lane. Nobody with any sort of understanding of Jaguar's heritage or true place in the world. As such Jaguar has been a stumbling zonbie for almost two decades. J CB's Bamford is likely the only hope for a jaguar revival, but I don't hold out hope there. Jaguar died with Sir William. Land Rover should have nothing to do with Jaguar, and Volvo is capable of standing on its own four wheels. As for AlFa Romeo, I can't wait for them to return to the US. Perhaps they'll bring that Spider with a Diesel engine! –chuck
This article/editorial is spot on. I love the “move downmarket” comment about volvo. Imagine if Volvo was selling on par with toyota’s pricing? I’ll take an enlarged S60 over a Camry thank you. But wait, instead they jack up the price and sell a coupe and R series. Ford figured volvo wouldnt be threat to them that way.
Couldn’t agree more with Pch101. Apart from the reliability issues (which i havent heard much about, apart from reading survey results, never heard any complaints personally). We dont see peole complain about ferraris or bentleys because they are not big bad suv’s despite having a lot more similarities than we would comfortably admit, because perception wise we dont want to spoil our dreams of owning one.
Land Rover is a very strong brand thats adapted to the changing world of the SUV market. The majority of people who buy it will never take it off road (like most people) so why proclaim “wheres the mud plugger” its there but now wears Hunter outdoor boots. Its gone upmarket where the money is, and played to the onroad crowd, look at the advertising where the Range Sport was taken through an urban environment but with the twist of using the urban landscape as the world of offroading to show its capabilities. Not everyone wants to go offroading, it still has the heritage and ability, it definately has the looks and soon will have the technology in body materials and powertrain to address the fuel consumption problems. If you really want to go offroad, get a defender, it’ll kick ass. Just like an LR3 would if you really wanted to push it.
People will always want to buy a perception of luxury and a British marque gives you that, look at the Range Rover, look at Aston, understated elegance, that HAS lots of brand equity, you aspire to wanting one of these. The only thing that needs fixing is the reliabilty, but this is still better than previous models so it is getting somewhere.
The brand in the future ideally needs to offer smaller vehicles, maybe even a crossover to further the evolution, but i’m sure thats in the pipeline. As for worrying about engineering a brand elsewhere, it has a state of the art facility in Warwickshire with a team of talented designers and engineers, i think at least designed in Britain will still be on the label just as it will with the Jag. Look at Bentley and Rolls, they remained with studios in the UK for that very reason, the backlash would have been too much for their market to bear.
As for Volvo it should never have been PAG it should have been positioned between PAG and Ford a link between the 2, providing a progression through the company portfolio, helping your aspirations and perceptions of luxury!!
Dynamic88
Volvo could end up wearing a T-shirt reading “I survived ownership by Ford”. Refocusing on their traditional reliability/safety niche, they would seem to have a future ahead of them.
Does that niche exist anymore ? In their days, when Volvo’s were built (and looked) like Sherman tanks, they were alone in the safety arena. Now with computer designed crumple zones, double digit count airbags and enough electronic nannies to hold their own convention, every econobox can match or surpass the safety of a Volvo of old.
Therein lies the problem with all three brands, they were niche players and all the niches have evaporated.
I have to disagree on the assessment of LR and Jag being dead brands. The Range Rover has a presence that neither MB or BMW suvs can match. The same can be said for the XJ-L (although that is certainly a little more arguable…).
But then again, I think the Land Cruiser (classic lines) makes a simple, subtle statement as well.
I think Ford has done a credible job keeping both these charity cases alive, for I do not believe they’d be around without Ford’s deep pockets. That said, I have to agree that its time to move on and let someone new instill the passion back into these storied marquees.
Look, ford has had I think since 1989 with Jag, and a little less with volvo and rover. If money hasn’t been made yet with competition getting even fiercer they will never make money. We are almost 20 years of continuous false starts with promises of better this time. Ford couldn’t keep America’s best selling car on the road (taurus).how can they operate in a strange for them mfg. base? The answer has been logged for the last 15 years, it’s they can’t do it. As to staying the course, this is a terrible rational to keep pouring money desperately needed here in the U.S. for product. In fact, ford must put a lot more money into a lot fewer products and quickly. It will soon be questionable whether mercury and lincoln can survive if the products that are on life support now don’t get re-engineered.I am thinking of Towncar, grand marquis, . Ford has no plans read no money to get on with these projects, and I submit they will be a lot smaller specialty manufacturer in the near future, unless they fix the big cars. If they get nothing from the sale of the overseas fiasco, they at least can stop injecting and start trying to save whats left of the US operation. If you think this is rhetoric, ford produces very few more vehicles than chrysler and less than toyota. All the tough talk and the few thousand sales from these premium group cars will not close that gap or stop the bleeding, only new product will.
I know a dude with an old Volvo 240 wagon with 385,000 miles on the odo. The entire vehicle is rusting around an engine and transmission that still run smooth. Whoever buys Volvo should bring back the 240 wagon–I swear those were the most indestructable vehicles on earth. But make sure they make it indestructable again, of course…and safe…and affordable…and boring.
Concerning the XK nose, the N.Y. Times (and other buff books) related this story:
“IAN CALLUM, who designed the new Jaguar XK, has a framed letter on the wall of his office in England. “Whoops!” the letter begins. “I am SO sorry!”
Emotion is more likely than pricing to seal a deal in the premium sports class. In that regard, the XK would seem to have an edge.
The apology came from Mr. Callum’s younger brother, Moray, who is also an auto designer. (Moray recently became design director for Ford, Lincoln and Mercury cars in North America, after serving as head of styling for Mazda.)
In 1995, Moray Callum had just started to restyle the Ford Taurus. To add what he considered a sporting touch to the otherwise staid family sedan, he borrowed the elliptical grille opening of some classic Jaguars. He set Ford’s blue oval emblem in the middle of it, atop a stripe of chrome.
That decision by Moray, now 48, loomed large when it came time for his brother Ian, who is 51 and Jaguar’s director of design, to restyle the British automaker’s 10-year-old sporty coupe and convertible.
“Everyone wants to know why the new XK has a ‘Taurus nose,’ ” Ian lamented in an interview. “Done in by my own brother!” “
Unless Land Rover finds a way to crack the cute ute/cross over market, their continued existence is more akin to life support than life. Large SUVs = Archie Bunker. Politically Incorrect and increasingly unwelcome, even if they’re no worse than some of the vehicles around them, just more blatant about it.
Jag isn’t dead. Audi and Mercedes have both taken their hits on reliability and seen their reputations sullied, only to turn things around and maintain their “prestige” even in the face of, in some cases, very competitive offerings by Japanese luxury brands. Jag still has snob appeal, and getting away from Ford can only help.
Volvo is a viable brand that needs a home…and I have NO clue who could take it in. I shook my head at the BMW suggestion, but honestly in retrospect it wouldn’t be THAT bad of a fit. It would give BMW a chance to go after the Camcordia crowd on their home turf, rather than hoping to poach off of the high end models with their bare bones lower range models.
I'm with the folks who see passionate, independent owners as the only possible saviors for these brands. As Mr. Neidermeyer's five-part series on GM branding proved, as Ford's failure highlights, automakers must not offer products that overlap on price. Period.
Ummm, Nothing was said of Ford’s controlling interest in Mazda. Certainly that should be mentioned, also.
Folks, you have to realize that what you see around your town or neighborhood is NOT a good picture of the national market.
Living in Houston, it would be easy to wonder who buys subarus. At the same time, living in Denver, you might wonder where all those large SUV’s and pickups are getting sold.
Landy is HUGE (for a niche player) in both these markets for different reasons except that the mystique sells. Around the pricier neighborhoods, they are common. These cars offer a feeling of adventure you don’t get in other SUV’s. All they need to fix is the feeling that the adventure may be caused by the cars failing on you!
BTW, if you are wondering who buys domestic sedans, just go to a small town.
Well, Mazda’s not for sale-yet.
As for the PAG trio, Jag is burnt toast on a shingle. Land Rover and Volvo are borderline.
All three are on the 46th month of a 48 month walk away lease, the warranty expires at 48 months. Its been a spotty ownership experience, and Ford is trying to find the “residual value” to convert them to money, and move on.
The challenge is to find the “entity” that not only identifies the “residual value” but more important sees some form of “upside”.
The “residual value” at this stage should or will transcend the brand.
Says sitting@home:
Does that niche exist anymore ? In their days, when Volvo’s were built (and looked) like Sherman tanks, they were alone in the safety arena. Now with computer designed crumple zones, double digit count airbags and enough electronic nannies to hold their own convention, every econobox can match or surpass the safety of a Volvo of old.
Volvo’s niche absolutely still exists. Perception is the reality. Whether or not a Volvo is now equalled by the safety scores of a Honda Civic is irrelevant — the mass buying public thinks Volvo = safety. Volvo has moved away from emphasizing IIHS and similar crash tests to their philosophy of car engineering as a “way of life” (e.g., Volvo For Life). Safe cars, clean cabin air, eco-friednly materials. They are tailore moade forhte Whoel Foods crowd. They still have boatloads of brand cachet as the safe, comfy, durable family hauler manufacturer. Their cars feel substantial where a GM or regular Ford do not; they have luxury touches that Hondas/Toyotas don’t have, and god bless ’em — they are among the few remaining manufacturers who still sell wagons on US soil. Sure they have kowtowed to the SUV lovin’ crowd, but half the families in my yuppie neighborhood who have Volvo’s have a V70 or XC70.
Me? I have the V70R. :)
Volvo has a strong lock on safety — even when other cars score as many points in crash tests, Volvo has made itself synonomous with building fanatically safe cars. You don’t see horrendous crash stories about Hondas or Toyotas or Audis — but you can find plenty of stories online about the volvo that rolled down the embankment into the tree, and everyone walked away from i one piece.
I think there was an XC90 commercial where Volvo showed it being rolled on its sides — mind you, they also advertised that it was next to impossible to roll — to show their dedication to safety. There are always going to be plenty of people who will pay a permium for what they believe is the safest car on the road they can afford.
Volvo’s pricepoint is pretty good — they offer fairly attractive, stylish vehicles for a premium; sitting in the new S80, it’s a car that for it’s price is a reasonable alternative to the competition, and Volvo has been closing the gap on interior quality, one of the places it has lagged behind the competition the most (seat design being an exception).
I’ve been surprised by Ford’s restraint — A volvo minivan would sell, but harm the brand’s cachet. I have a feeling most volvo drivers tend to have smaller families to begin with. Many volvo drivers want something nicer, something european and luxury, but can’t show up to the office driving a Benz, or would just feel uncomfortable with that level of flair. These are the people that VW though existed for the Phaeton at a higher price, I think.
What has really surprised me is that Ford has preserved Volvo’s name — the urge to start badging their minivans and other family cars with “Safety by Volvo” must have been hard to resist. The Chrysler dealer is only too happy to mention the 300 is underneath a Benz — I imagine a ford saleperson would love to be able to say “sure, that toyota is nice, but Volvo’s done the safety on ours.”
Yes, I would say that Volvo is the only one of those three apples I’d care to pick. The others can fall to the ground for next years compost.
The only hit Jaguar had during the Ford tenure was the XK8. After that they brought us the S-Type (Jag’s tribute to the Dodge Dynasty), and the X-Type, which singlehandedly resurrected every ‘Jaguar’s nightmare reliability’ ghost, and an XJ8 that simply does not sell and depreciates at a pace that would make a Cavalier blush. Hard to tell what would have happened if Ford had let them be.
Land Rover exists solely on one thing. Snob appeal. That’s a pretty spindly peg to hang a car company on. Even rich, stupid people will eventually get tired of a car that always has something wrong. Or fashion will change and the nouveau riche/perenially stupid will discover something else with snob appeal. In these parts Lexus SUVs are muscling them at the lower end of the LR range (price wise) while the Bentley seems to be eating ye olde English lunch at the top end. (I saw to two GT convertibles in one day today!).
As much as I will miss the marques, I don’t think they can be resuscitated.
The indestructible Volvo’s were the 122S and PV544
Fun trivia. In the first Grand Theft Auto game the car was called Mundano.
Let me guess,
The game failed because nobody stole the car.
I have to agree with the points that KatiePuckrik made on Renault-Nissan. If there is going to be a fire sale of some kind, Carlos Ghosn is going to be there. The French are desparate to get back in to the lucrative luxury market (Citroen C6 et al.) and have a real complex vis-a-vis their German counter parts. Renault, Peugeot and Citroen are brands that have long histories, but don’t have the cachet to make it back to the US. To me a Renault-Nissan-Volvo partnership seems quite possible
Have GM split off Saab and Ford split off Volvo to anyone that would want to combine them into one car company. The Saab 99 I had in college was a great car in many ways, much better than anything the domestics had at that time (late 1970s through the early 1980s). If they both could go back to those roots, they would be very successful. Volvo could be the luxury division and Saab could be the sporty division.
jolo: I wish Volvo/Saab would do that (in fact, IIRC, they did talk about that wat back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s). Of course, as independent companies, both were losing money hand over fist in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, so I don’t know if there is any reasonable basis to assume that they wouldn’t tank again. Saab is particularly afflicted — its brand DNA having been diluted by years of losses, indifferent and in many cases bad management (both by GM and by the needlessly conservative Swedes) and gradual decline of customer base. Now with the AeroX one can see glimmers of hope, but it’s probably too late given that the 9-5 isn’t competitive, the 9-3 is on the low end of the competitive range in its bread-and-butter sedan form, the 9-7x is a bad idea finally killed and the 9-2x eliminated. Saab would sadly be an albatross around the neck of any potential acquirer or partner. They are fast becoming Rover.
Bah! Naysayers!
Perhaps I am blinded by love, but I think I could turn Landy around.
I feel like an outsider here. The criticisms of LR and Jaguar are pretty harsh. I own Land Rovers for the past 10 years (currently own a Range Rover Sport) and I plan to buy a Jaguar XF.
I’ve heard the horror stories but have yet to experience them. I’ll just say this: They do have a niche in a sea of mediocracy.
I love my RR Sport to death. As far as reliability is concern, Ford
has definitely improved them. Land Rovers are much more reliable than in the late 90s.
You guys have to remember something; Land Rover has the highest customer retention rate. I have the source somewhere. I believe it was JD. 55% percent of Range Rover owners buy the same model when it comes to buying a new vehicle. I read an article stating we are like abused spouse coming back for more. There is something special about their cars that I can’t seem to articulate with words. I rather have a Range Rover in my driveway than a LX570, escalade or any other SUV.
I don’t mind the little stuff. As long as the powetrain is good, I don’t care for the little gremlins that I have yet to experience. And at this price point, most buyers don’t care for reliability. I’ve never been left stranded. My dealer has all kinds of cars. Heck, they would let me take a Lotus Elise as a loaner when I take my car in. These are not our primary vehicles.
Landcrusher:
What would be your plan?
It just became more difficult, the Defender failed the roll over test in Germany (and at a very low speed).
This was published today and it must be a new model because they say that it just went on sale there in May.
Huge criticism because they don’t even offer ESC as a option and also about the extremely long braking distances.
As a 30 something professional, I’d say that Jaguar still has a certain cache. I wouldn’t say they are on a par with Porsche, but were they ever? Despite a reputation for being overpriced and expensive to own, there is still a draw to owning a Jaguar. I too hope that they can be rescued and once again fill the nitch of luxury sports car.
For Ford’s sake I hope they can hold onto Mazda, one of the few carmakers offering responsibility in a sporty wrapper at a price people can afford.
Yeah, I know used BMW. Let the refrain begin.
i remember i saw a range rover sport slowly be engulfed in flames in a traffic jam on I-95 in miami. i always thought the new xk was ugly but nobody else agreed
If Ford can find a way to sell Jag and LR without Volvo I think they will jump on it. They need some sort of partnership with Volvo at the very least to sell it. Lots of platform and tech shared between them.
I wonder if there are any implications for Mazda. Ford seems to leave them well enough alone and they have coexisted for quite some time.
Ford Desperately needs to dump LR and Jag, however, I think selling Volvo would be extremely shortsighted, so undoubtedly they will sell it too.
I’m all for ford just selling trucks and the mustang, letting mazda do small cars, letting volvo do mid-sized cars, and letting lincoln go way upmarket. But that just makes too much sense for anyone with pull in detroit to consider.
Renault, Citroen-Peugeot or Fiat picking up Volvo all are reasonable ideas. I can’t see any of the Japanese companies wanting it.
I also agree that Volvo should be selling the world’s best minivan. Years ago I argued on Volvo discussion boards and even once with a Volvo USA manager that this should be done. At the time Volvo was all excited about becoming a trendy fashionable brand and leaving behind it’s stodgy image. Why do marketing people so often want to have their brand be anything other than what it already is? What idiot figured that Oldsmobile was just the brand to make into the American car for import intenders? What idiot green lighted the coupe and convertible versions of the 850/S70 family but couldn’t see the point in doing a minivan version? The Toyota Sienna van used the Camry as it’s platform starting point. If the Volvo S80 could morph into the XC90 there is no reason the world best and safest minivan couldn’t be built of the same platform. But minivans don’t appeal to hipsters, so Volvo wanted no part of it. Toyota and Honda have kept moving the top trim levels of the Sienna and Odyssey ever higher up market to the point where you can spend nearly $40k on one.
Then again we have the mystery of why the real inventor of the minivan, VW, has staid out of the game.
I’m afraid that whenever I see a new Jaguar XK my first thought is “it’s a Hyundai Coupe”.
I still feel that there’s hope for Jaguar.
Looking at Jaguar’s history with Ford, the reason I feel that they haven’t had any success is that the cars have too much retro styling and that while the concepts were sound (I’m thinking “X” Type here), the execution wasn’t there.
The “X” Type should’ve used a rear wheel VOLVO platform from which a real challenger to the BMW 3 series could be built. At the same time, Ford could’ve used a larger version of the MX5 Miata platform to resurect the “E” Type sports cars; the type of cars that put Jaguar on the map back in the day.
It goes without saying that knock out styling should’ve been part of the equasion as well.
@mcfeeny: Splitting PAG from Ford would follow the Ford/Visteon spin-off. Initially all shared functions are held by Ford, with a roadmap to pull the plug on supporting the spinoff. My guess is, it would take 1 to 2 full release cycles — 2 to 8 years — to complete the spinoff.