Reuters reports that Ford is developing a new business plan for Volvo, which would require allow the Swedish subsidiary to operate on a more independent basis. Citing slides posted to the company's website– which will accompany a presentation to analysts at the Geneva Auto Show– the report indicates that Volvo's return to "sustainable profits" is "the top priority." Not a bad plan, considering the persistent rumors that Ford had shopped Volvo around without garnering a single serious purchase offer. Whether the "appropriate business arrangements" can really improve Volvo's lousy recent performance remain to be seen… especially if this moves turns out to be some kind of accounting shell game. Jaguar and Landie sale in trouble. Volvo hung out to dry. Will no one relieve me of these brands?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
At least Volvo seems to have fared better than Saab in maintaining its overall identity. If GM did this to Saab it would be like tossing a quadriplegic in the water and telling them they’re on their own.
So Volvo has to operate independently? Does this mean Ford will have to develop their own chasis and saftey equipment now?
I thought that Volvo was at least in the black?
They still have a pretty strong brand, although their large sedans compete more with upscale fords and chrysler, or VW, than with Audi or MB.
Also, depending on sales of large SUVs is not good for an environmentally-minded company.
I really have a hrad time understanding why people have such a h–d on for Ford’s use of Mazda and Volvo engineering and design. Word of news people—–they own these assets and would be idiots if they didn’t leverage them. While I lamet the fact that Ford’s US based engineering is a shell of its former self (decades long issue)—-I do not condemn Ford for their “leverage our assets” strategy (just wish that strategy applied to the Focus !)
umterp85: Amen to that!
Profits down? My guess is that Volvo’s biggest success under Ford’s watch is competing against itself… too many new models eating off of each other’s plate.
Does this new freedom extend to allowing Volvo to use high tensile steel in the roof and roof pillars of their cars? Or, does it still mean that Ford overrules Volvo engineers when they try to spend a few bucks and prevent a few rollover fatalities?
Does it mean that it will allow Volvo to once again sell their 6speed manual transmission in the U.S., instead of forcing us to drive their crappy slushbox?
Volvo’s demise is due to selling big, fat, V8 Fords. Bring back some small, durable, all wheel drive or rear wheel drive cars with decent load carrying capacity and lots of sporting feel.
Gee, Ford, is there something new about that “top priority” being “sustainable profits”? Are we to suspect the previous top priority was “sporadic profits”? And since Reuters apparently forgot to ask follow-up questions, could you let us know exactly how the previous less-independent status kept Volvo from doing well? Has Dearborn been a ball and chain for Volvo? Or is Ford trying to wash its hands of the Volvo tar baby? (Note: a writer can never use too many metaphors.)
So Volvo has to operate independently? Does this mean Ford will have to develop their own chasis and saftey equipment now?
That’s exactly what I thought of when I read this.
Ford’s car line up:
Focus- 100% American (and crappy)
Mustang – 100% American
Fusion – Mazda
Taurus – Volvo
Taurus X – Volvo
Edge – Mazda
The bread and butter cars are all from its business affiliates.
That’s exactly what I thought of when I read this.
Ford’s car line up:
Focus- 100% American (and crappy)
Mustang – 100% American
Fusion – Mazda
Taurus – Volvo
Taurus X – Volvo
Edge – Mazda
The bread and butter cars are all from its business affiliates
I think the answer to that question is very simple: MONEY !!!!!!!!! When your in the deep trouble Ford is with very little sign of getting out anytime soon, badge engineering ( or cloning as some call it) and using affiliate parts to cut corners in development is a cheap way of getting product out on the showroom floor. By using Volve and Mazda chassis and componets FoMoCo is saving a truck load of money and then promptly burning through it every single month. I just wonder how far Frod will sink till it hits bottom or files for bankruptcy protection??? The money has to run out sometime. Can a sale of Ford’s chunk of Mazda and Volvo be too far off and be going to the highest bidder??? Unless they start selling the mansions of the Ford family, the property on which the closed factories sit or sat or cut the big shits hugh and excessive pay (which we know WON’T happen !!!) FoMoCo is out of assests to hawk to the highest bidder.
umterp85,
Well, I’m not going to troll around the site looking up quotes but it seems to me there’s been no complaining about Ford “leveraging its assets” between Mazda, Volvo and Ford. The variious platforms under the various cousins are doing a good job.
The problem I recollect hearing is too much overlap. I’m not sure I entirely agree but that’s the charge I recall. And then there’s too much badge engineering within the traditional Ford/Lincoln/Mercury brands. The MKZ/Fusion/Milan are a nice car. That’s A nice car. The three flavors business is overkill. The cars are practically identical. Not quite as identical as, say, a ’99 Cutlass and a ’99 Malibu but still too damned close.
ford`s car line up:
Focus- 50% japanese mazda/50 % german engineered.
Mustang- American.
Fusion -mazda6 based
taurus -mazda6 based.
taurus x – mazda6 based.
Edge-mazda6 based.
Its not badge engineering, people! Hello? How many of you have worked engineering Mazda or Volvo platforms for Ford cars? Show of hands? Okay. So, here’s the deal.
Taurus X/Taurus/Sable/MKS are all built from the Volvo “D” platform. It’s called a platform because it’s just that — a starting point. Every vehicle is unique (except the Sable, which is mostly the same at the Taurus, It’s a Mercury after all and Mercury is as Ford does)
Fusion/MKZ/Milan/Edge are based on the CD3 platform (BTW, all of this information is available on wikipedia.com and is fairly reliable.) Again, it’s just a platform — the engineering is unique for each vehicle.
Volvo needs to be a Swedish company with a Swedish point of view on what makes a great automobile.
The Ford years have not been good for the brand.
In Volvo’s heyday they sold extremely sturdy, efficient, safe cars priced at about what a mid-range Buick was selling for. It was an alternative car for people who thought differently about their automotive purchases.
Now Volvo means exactly what? The safety angle is old because everyone is using it. Modern Volvos are no where near as tank-like in build quality as the 240 and earlier cars were. The next time you come across a 240 check out how hefty the body panel metal is. Volvos used to be an engineer’s car, now they are just trying to be hip and trendy like all the other wannabes.
Volvo should have built the ultimate family minivan 15 years ago … but no, they built the stupid C70 pseudo-sport-coupe instead. Idiots.
The last thing the world needed was another V-8 powered SUV ugly box, but that is where Volvo invested it’s money. Chasing money without any real core principles ALWAYS leads to long term disaster. Just ask GM.