My next door neighbor is one of those classic 'car traders.' He buys, fixes, drives, fixes, drives, fixes, etc. When the repairs finally get to be too much time and hassle, he sells the car. I've seen a lot of nameplates come and go through his driveway. Hondas and Nissans stay for a while. Saabs require constant weekend tinkering. And Volkswagens need more plastics than a Barbie factory. Only one brand has stuck around, for nearly a decade now: his family Volvo wagon. And therein lies the tale.
Back in the day, older Volvos were [rightly] known for their long list of standard safety virtues: side impact protection systems, whiplash protection, four wheel ABS disc brakes and traction control. Only an S-Class Mercedes or a few good friends from my home state of New Jersey offered more protection… and both required a lot more scratch.
These Volvo's of Yore were a lot more than just glorified safety barges. They were luxurious in a way that no Toyonda of the time could touch. The 'safest car on the road' was supremely comfortable, with Goldilocks perfect seats and terrific visibility. These thrones of near-luxury beatitude came complete with CD changers, turbochargers, all-wheel drive and a narrow girth. The combo made the Volvo wagon a favorite for buyers seeking a safe, European-style family car with a modicum of sporting character.
For a while, Volvo stood alone in the marketplace. Throughout the eighties into the nineties, while the Japanese and Americans followed the herd that became the SUV and minivan stampede, Volvo maintained its traditional virtues: a wagon (and sedan) that offered protection, build quality and comfort at a family-friendly price. It was a good bet– that unfortunately gave way to lots of bad bets.
In 1999, Ford bought Volvo. It wouldn't be fair to say that Volvo had jumped the shark by then. But you could say they'd lost their mojo. Or, more accurately, their competitors had found it.
At the turn of the last century, gas was [still] inexpensive, luxury was trickling down and, worst of all for Volvo, safety regulations had leveled the playing field. The Camry and Accord– once distant pretenders to Volvo's safety throne– released legitimate alternatives that cost thousands less than the mostly built-in-Europe S60's and V70's. Traction Control, standard ABS braking, side-curtain airbags, in-floor frame rails (used to move energy to the car body instead of the occupants) and new design architectures made these mainstream vehicles comparable to the sedan versions of Volvo's FWD models.
All of the sudden, Volvo's safety 'statement' became a debate. Still, if Volvo had simply progressed with the times in terms of product quality, the brand might have remained a serious contender. Unfortunately, Volvos were becoming expensive propositions for their soon to be disloyal customers. ABS modules, evaporator cores, severe engine throttle body issues (which required multiple recalls) and low-quality interior glues made virtually all the pre-Ford Volvos high dollar propositions for the automotive novice. The majority of whom represented Volvo's traditional conservative clientele.
The post-Ford 2001 refreshing of the V70 wagon resulted in numerous electrical glitches and transmissions that eventually went from a firm smooth ka-thunk to a $3000+ kaput. Volvo's clean competitive advantage gradually became a bit more hazy in the marketplace. J.D. Power reflected this new, less appealing reality when it released sub-par customer retention ratings for the Volvo brand.
By this time, Subaru had gained enormous traction amongst the Volvo crowd by offering cheaper and better made Foresters and Outbacks. In 2002, Volvo unleashed its XC90 into the American market. While the late-the-the-party SUV garnered tremendous sales success, the upmarket vehicle solidified a move away from Volvo's sensible, lower middle-class roots.
Despite its brand-faithful, class-leading safety, the thirsty XC was a "me too" vehicle with LOTS of lower-priced competition: compact SUVs with room, safety and features aplenty. Escapes, RAV4's, and CRV's posed a question for which Volvo didn't have an answer. "Why do we need to spend more for a Volvo?" At the same time, luxury brands' compact SUVs crowded Volvo from on high.
Today's Volvo is hanging in there. Sales have fallen 8.3 percent (to 106,213 units) year-to-date, but that's not bad in a generally down market. The bigger question is this: what is a Volvo? The revised V-wagons are an admirable attempt to recapture the old magic in America's post-SUV landscape, but the brand's defenders have positioned Volvos too high in the price ladder for its traditional clientele. The chances that Volvo can compete against the established luxury brands are, still, slim.
The term "Volvo wagon" as a phrase synonymous for affordable durability is dead. In the meantime, cars like my neighbors pre-Ford 1996 Volvo wagon are still running strong, giving serious street cred to a brand that really hasn't lead the field since 2001. Now what?
I can’t remember the last time I saw a volvo commercial. With all these people complaining about gas prices and stepping down to CUV’s, why doesn’t Volvo get in the mix and tell people that their wagons are actually more fuel-efficient and practical than a Compromised Utility vehicle? I feel like Volvo has given up on trying to sell wagons in America, and is content to be a niche seller.
Also, the death of R models doesn’t help in terms of public image.
I drive a 1993 940 wagon. It does everything I ask it to and has for the last 162,000 miles. While I expect at least another 40,000 or so out of it. The problem for me is what do I replace it with that will give me the same economical do anything transportation I enjoy now? Honestly has to be the best car I have ever owned.
No easy answers. I think Volvo is between a rock and a hard place. What made Volvos once (rugged, RWD) desireable has changed. I see them as Fords with a Scan-design interior. They’re fighting with Mercury as a step-up Ford. They hold zero thrall for me. European assembly means losses on US sales. If I had a good answer to your question, I’d be calling Mulally for a job. On to the next answerer…
Good editorial. A lot of people think Volvo missed the boat by not offering a minivan for its established clientele. There is certainly a market for $35-40K people haulers, although the R-class, Freestyle and Pacifica missed the boat.
Side note: I find Ford’s expectations of selling 100K Flex per annum laughable. It’s a Magnum without the hemi.
Ford held on to Volvo becuase their product plans were so tightly linked. But if Ford’s big American sedans go RWD, then the linkage is gone, so why bother?
Now that safety isn’t a differentiator, Volvo’s positioning (and reason for existence) is imperiled. It’s hard to postition yourself in Entry Luxury. The Accords are too nice and CPO 530’s too good. Like Acura, Buick, Lincoln and Audi, Volvo seem to be on a downward slope, following Saab and Oldsmobile.
I think Volvo will be alright. They’ve changed, but not for the worse. I think of the current day Volvo more like the Audi of the 1990s.
They’ve increased prices, but the average TTAC ratings for their vehicles is very high, so the product is good. The interior quality is right with the top luxury brands (even if the engines do need updates.)
Safety-wise, they still heavily market to that segment, and offer things like a heartbeat sensors and high-powered safety lights for the chronically paranoid.
Volvo has always been a niche player, they just gave up their old “reliable wagons” spot to Subaru.
It seems that Ford has not understood Volvo, or that Volvo never fit in the Ford family.
Unfortunately Volvo is inexorably trending downward and Ford does not seem to have the desire to do anything about it.
Could it be that Ford is purposely pounding Volvo into the ground…for whatever reason.
Good Op-ed.
My parents still use an ’89 Volvo 740 diesel wagon. 180,000 miles and it runs like a dream. Never had a problem beside running out of freon for the A/C, great to hoon (RWD with torquey 5-cyl disel provides for lots of fun), hauls 3 people + 2 newfoundlanders + 2 cats + the luggage.
You can see how solidly built it is, with thick A, B, C- and roof pillars.
Great car.
And since that one, the C30 is the first Volvo I really lust for.
S60-S80 don’t seem distinctive enough, despite good styling. The wagon versions are good, but you need the XC versions to get AWD, and I don’t like big, heavy FWD cars.
The XC 90 is just as Steven describes.
The S40 is too expensive for what it is.
That leaves the C30.
Volvo lost what made it different a while back, and now Subaru is going the same way. Incidentally, both have been bought by large automakers. I still think Volvo should have accepted that alliance with Renault before Ford bought them, the brands were very complementary.
So, what happened with all the Volvo-based cars that Ford has spawned since the takeover? Ford 500/Taurus/Freestyle/Flex etc? Seems like Ford has made every other vehicle from that once Volvo-engineered platform. Couldn’t Ford have given something back to Volvo? Like a decent R&D budget? A Decent PR-budget? Or have they ransacked the place, and will scrap the rest, as Daimler-Benz did with Chrysler? I feel like Volvo has been raped…
My first car (x5 years) was my parents’ used 1985 740GLE sedan – a spacious creased box with comfy seats, a well-laid out dash, and nice interior materials. Many fond memories – but the electrical gremlins never did get sorted out, and repairs were costly. I was told later by a mechanic that 1985 was a bad vintage – 1st year the 4cyl engine was mated to the 7XX.
A Volvo 240-driving co-worker coined the term “Square Cars for Square Guys” back in the mid-90’s. Mine was followed by a Miata, his by a Passat – neither of us found a compelling reason to get another Volvo.
I agree that Volvo was a donor for Ford’s other offerings, but that is not a bad thing.
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. I just want those companies to make great cars. In the past decade Volvo has made some beatiful cars and greatly grown its company and its appeal. Does the writer of this editorial really think Americans want ugly box cars instead of the iconic Horbury-designed S60? Are you seriously saying you think Volvo should cater exclusivly to the hardcore “volvo guys” that have 700,000 mile 240s and complain about how VOlvo hasn’t made a good car in 10 years? This article reminds me of the one condemning the new CTS because it’s not a “real” Cadillac, i.e. a poorly made barge.
Now that safety isn’t a differentiator, Volvo’s positioning (and reason for existence) is imperiled. It’s hard to postition yourself in Entry Luxury….Like Acura, Buick, Lincoln and Audi, Volvo seem to be on a downward slope, following Saab and Oldsmobile.
Exactly (except for the Audi reference; Audi does compete in the right segments.) Volvo’s days are numbered unless it can move up the ladder into BMW/ Lexus territory, which is pretty crowded as is.
At one time, “safety” had a certain stigma to it that allowed a company like Volvo to build a niche around serving those few people who really wanted it. Now that everything is expected to be safe, Volvo has to compete on the same turf that everyone else does.
I doubt that Ford has enough money to invest to get there. The products are good, but good just isn’t good enough.
tvrboy: You miss the point. Volvo had a value, a meaning, a purpose. Any car maker can make a car, only Volvo could make a Volvo. If Volvo doesn’t send that cachet anymore, there’s no meaning for anyone to buy a Volvo. Or for Volvo to make cars.
Nowadays, there are lots of makers that make “a car” better than Volvo makes cars. If it doesn’t even have the Volvo quality, why bother?
This strikes me as very true. I would have been interested in the C30 which IMHO is a nice MINI/GTI like competitor.Then I saw the Base price at $600 dollars north of a MazdaSpeed 3, who are they kidding? & Mazda starts out pricing for its car built on the same chassis at 13,895. That C30 is just not worth the that kind of price premium over its platform-mates. And when you throw that Ford Focus’s automatic transmission,. I’ve personally seen two die B4 45k miles. And a really attractive car becomes . . . a big why ?
The old Volvos (2/7/9 series) are the focus here despite the 850R photo – while the engines were basic (8v fours for the most part) and the interiors not that stylish, the overall driving experience was consistent with what was considered European luxury at the time – smooth ride, quiet cabin, the aura of safety, frugality and durability.
The shift to the FWD platforms and the idea of growth and expansion of the brand under Ford hurt Volvo’s reputation for quality, both statistically and in perception.
It is just my opinion at this point, but I think Volvo has realized their mistakes and while it has taken nearly a decade, worked out the bugs that all of the changes in the 90’s introduced.
They have a consistent product range and image of European modern design (especially in the B&O-esque center stack on the S40). This is backed up with modern engineering, safety and good if not excellent build quality.
While some people may lament the lack of a RWD Volvo and the hooligan fun that created (in the turbo wagon form – ah, I miss mine) there are many others that recognize the positive qualities of the modern Volvo and embrace it.
My parents just bought one – they’re normal middle class people in their late mid to late 50’s – wanted a quiet, safe, economical and COMFORTABLE, emphasis noted in the caps, car. BMW and Mercedes are trying to out-sport each other resulting in hard suspensions, jumpy throttles and hard seats and in their opinion, inflated owner images. They cross-shopped the Mercury Milan, Lincoln MKZ, VW Passat, SAAB 93 and Acura TSX… and the winner was a base, non turbo Volvo S40. They said it felt like a luxury European car should, and had the best seats.
Count me as one of the die-hards. Been driving old-school 240 wagons since forever. Current ride is a 1984 240 Diesel wagon. Not fast, but 35mpg around town sure feels swell these days.
But a FWD Volvo? Not me. If the supply of 240 wagons ever dries up, I’ll go to something else.
Not that I’m convinced that 240s will *ever* go away – they’re just too sturdy.
OK — what’s the Volvo brand kernel?
You could say, simple, staid, stodgy, reliable; based on the 240 / 740 experience.
But there have been other Volvos. The Amazon was sporty and unburstable — with engines you could rev off the limiter without damage, and an exactness of the human-machine interface that feels fine even after four decades.
But I digress. I propose that Volvo still has capital in the public mind in the form of these brand elements:
– Reliability and easy repairability to 250k miles.
– Long-distance seating comfort bettered by none.
– A small turning circle despite large-ish exterior dimensions.
– Family-friendly abilities and demeanour.
– Swedish style within and without (no kitsch, no Kraut techno-fetish, no Japanese living-room ambience).
– Best safety ratings, best safety statistics within its class.
Some of these qualities are USPs, some are not. But in sum, they are a compelling, unique argument for a Volvo (if indeed a contemporary Volvo had these properties, which of course is another discussion altogether).
“In 1999, Ford bought Volvo. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Volvo had jumped the shark by then. But you could say they’d lost their mojo. Or, more accurately, their competitors had found it.”
This statement ties right in to my own experience with Volvo. Coming from a Ford and Volvo family, I could find no reason to buy a Volvo in 1999. I had already ruled out Ford since a disintegrating Sable with only 60K miles was the car I wanted to replace. I ended up with a Passat since it was better looking, less expensive and more rewarding to drive without giving up safety features and test scores.
My take is that Volvo’s safety schtick was only the nominal reason for buying one. I think people just wanted to buy a somewhat expensive-ish, European near luxury car (at a time when European luxury was “In”). I think they just wanted the snob appeal of a car that marked them as having a somewhat above average income without being blatent materialists, and the safety features gave them the rationale they needed.
The near luxury and real luxury fields are crowded now, and safety is for everybody. Volvo still makes good cars but there is just no hook anymore.
Martin:
I’m not sure about Volvo reliablity. The marque doesn’t rank too high with Consumer Reports.
I recently test drove an S80. The S80 had hands down the most comfortable car seat I have ever sat in.
I would quibble with the writer’s assertion that Volvos were budget priced. AFAIK they have always been on the expensive end of the car market, relatively speaking. Perhaps not as expensive as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, et al, but certainly above VW in price and quite a bit above the Japanese and American competition.
Now, the notion might have been that yes, you pay more for a Volvo but you then get a vehicle that will give you 200,000+ trouble free miles, and while that may be a fair statement if a person doesn’t intend to keep the car that long the point is somewhat moot.
I think of the old Volvo 240 as the quintessential Surfer car, formerly the quintessential College Professor car (now replaced by Subaru.)
I just recently bought a C30 and I love it. I graduated from college in December and I have a long commute to my job, and it is a great ride. It is very comfortable, I got a good deal on it, and it looks amazing. I didn’t start out intending to buy a Volvo, and looked at Subaru, VW, Audi, and Nissan dealerships before I made my purchase, but there was just something about the C30 that made me want it. I think a lot of people have notions about Volvo’s that are just inaccurate, and I blame a lack of advertising for it. Case in point, I saw zero ads for the C30 before I bought it.
I think the style doesn’t have nearly as much character as it used to. The old boxes were exactly what they looked like. And the 740 and 940 were done very cleanly. Those are cars that you’ll see at Hershey and carlisle in ten years.
Still, I kind of like the V70 wagons. Just not as much. And I wouldn’t see any reason not to get a less expensive subaru if I were shopping for a wagon.
I’m nearing 267k in my 240 Wagon. Best car I ever bought. If anything horrible should ever happen to it, it will undoubtedly be replaced by another 240 Wagon.
I suppose I’m not Volvo’s ideal customer…
Casualty.
Funeral soon.
A two-for-one special, really. Sharing a casket and headstone with Saab and all that.
Shared fates, our beloved, blonde, quirky Swedish brands.
When small and independent, they each embodied something unique in the world’s market. And people who discovered Saab and Volvo found out that these were lovely, well-built, safe cars.
But being small, neither could keep pace with the change and innovation dictated by world-leaders like BMW, Benz, GM, Toyota. Nor the pace of new model introduction (buzz). So Saab and Volvo had to either be purchased or buried.
Each chose to be purchased, hoping their new conglomerate owners would bestow upon them the technology and innovation that put each further and further behind (pre-merger).
And Saab got some, now and then, from GM. And Volvo got a little from Ford, when it could be spared.
What our Swedes became were for the most part, clones of their new parents, losing their distinctions that made them unique in the first place.
And Volvo and Saab learned another painful lesson. Their new parents had to juggle all their brands’ needs. Which meant sometimes Saab and Volvo were given enough to be competitive (even against their new siblings — cannibalizing them), and many times, not given anything (becoming lunch themselves).
Yeah, yeah. World economy. New world order. Whatever. The truth (about car brands) is this. The small, independent manufacturer of every-day transportation is becoming extinct. They can’t make it on their own, and when acquired, become another blandmobile, losing whatever mojo they used to possess.
Volvo is dead. Long live Volvo.
Before anyone jumps on the “Ford ruined Volvo” bandwagon (I’ll come to that later), it’s important to go back to the beginning and put this case together, piece by piece and slowly, one starts to realise that Volvo has been in a downward spiral for some time and it’s gone under the radar.
In the old days (circa 1980’s), Volvo cars was the best mix of car. It had the appliance nature of any Toyota or Honda but had a quirky charm about it. Its build quality was the stuff of legends and the option packages were pretty good, too. Firstly, it started to lose that “boxy” look, which was a Volvo’s charm, the fact that it stood out from the crowd, but with a purpose. The boxy design was to safeguard the passengers in a crash. I’ve seen old Volvos crash into walls at 40mph and the bonnet looked barely dented. But Volvo, moved away from the “boxy” styling and started to create designs which were instantly forgettable.
Then, Ford picked up Volvo cars (N.B: Ford DID NOT pick up Volvo, they picked up Volvo’s car division) and the build quality started to suffer. I know it’s a cliche, but it’s true. Since Ford took them over, the build quality was never as robust as the old Volvos.
But Volvo still stood for one thing, that it could be proud of, safety. Unfortunately, they lost that, too. Renault crept up behind Volvo and are now the new kings of safety and Volvo never really caught up.
Ford then, repositioned Volvo as a mid-luxury marque, despite it being an “everyman’s” car. Families bought them because they were the best all rounder and affordable, too. Now, it’s trying to compete against, Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, BMW, etc.
Now their sales are falling, they are trying to prop them up, by jumping on the SUV/CUV train (XC90).
Now, I know these points have been made before (and probably more eloquently than me!) but, there is a reason as to why I’ve laid them out in this fashion. Remember what I said earlier? “…put this case together, piece by piece….”, well, let’s look at the salient points:
Volvo loses its quirky styling that it was famous for and now designs cars which are pretty bland and forgettable.
Volvo loses its “safety kings” crown that its marque stood for.
Volvo loses its robust build quality that it was famous for.
Volvo is repositioned as a mid-level luxury brand.
Volvo starts making cars/SUV’s/CUV’s to appeal to anyone, rather than a specific demographic.
Volvo’s brand is unfocused and stands for pretty much nothing.
In conclusion, Volvo is Ford’s “Buick”…..
Back in the good ole 1970s and 1980s Volvo and Mercedes Benz had built up reputations for building some of the best designed and assembled cars one could buy.
Back than folks were will to pay a premium for a car with less features and equipment because they were actually puchasing a better cars than what you could get from America, Japan, England, Italy, or France.
On a whole we did not expect much from cars back than. Power windows, AC, and an FM radio were a big freakin deal!
It is almost safe to say that every automaker had its own niche at that time. If you liked serious no-nonsense RWD cars with a European flare Volvo and MB were your only bet. Remember until 1984/5 there was no 4 door 3 series in the USA at least.
With the exception of the Toyota Cressida, Supra, and Datsun 280xz no Japanese cars could claim a level of build quality that came remotely close to a Volvo.
The car foretold the eventual doom of Volvo was the Acura Legend of 1986. A Japanese brand had finally designed and built a “serious” car for mature folks. A car that had “international” Honda ergonomics, clean germanic styling, a safisticated v6 engine, and a choice between a manual and automatic transmission. It also split the difference in price between a 240 and 740 Volvo but gave you car that was more powerful, better equiped, just as well built if not better, on top of all that it handled like a charm!
Wither, as in withering, is right. Since the PV544, the Amazon and the P1800 disappeared, Volvo has been on a downward slope. One knew that things were getting bad when every movie director depicted the middle class, conservative family car as a Volvo wagon. When every movie that featured a university lecturer as the main character, also featured a Volvo as his ride of choice. Fun was not in, but safety was predominant and the big yawn began. It hasn’t stopped since. A shame, really, because they are basically good cars, when they run properly, even though they’ve been completely overwhelmed of late by their electronic gremlins.
tvrboy:
Does the writer of this editorial really think Americans want ugly box cars instead of the iconic Horbury-designed S60? Are you seriously saying you think Volvo should cater exclusivly to the hardcore “volvo guys” that have 700,000 mile 240s and complain about how VOlvo hasn’t made a good car in 10 years?
I think to suggest not catering to the enthusiasms of “hardcore ‘volvo [sic] guys\'” is an erroneous argument. Volvos were intially designed to be capable of dealing with the harsh Scandinavian environment of their genesis, and the durability observed in less-rugged areas was simply a by-product of this over-engineering. At the same time, this characteristic became Volvo’s first (and best) brand image – the “Iron Strong” cars symbolized by the alchemist’s symbol for iron on their snouts. Safety, while perhaps foremost in the consciousness of more contemporary buyers, was merely augmented into this image, particularly in conjuction with the development and debut of the 100 and 200 series cars, and continued well into the 800 series.
This considered, for Volvo to not continue to serve a loyal market of brand enthusiasts who focus around the brand’s core identity would be, as Ingvar stated, a loss of that identity.
This, I believe, has been one of the major problems with contemporary Volvos. The brand’s focal shift from iron-strong, generally accessible transportation to pseudo-luxury and R&D-budget-sucking me-too platforms (XC90, XC60) is the real culprit. Safety was bound to become largely a game of statistical manipulation in commercials, but durability and the resulting word-of-mouth marketing can’t be faked.
A case study:
I was adopted into a family of die-hard Volvo enthusiasts. There hasn’t been a period in my life where we haven’t had at least one Volvo in our stable. The initial 145 was replaced by a 264, which was followed by several 240s of all body styles, and including one diesel. Today my step-father drives his fourth 240 that he’s purchased for under $200, my sister drives a ’89 245, and my nearly problem-free 850 Turbo is approaching 300,000 miles. My brother, a decade my junior, is working on making road-worthy a 240 of his own for his 18th birthday. Living in the nearest thing to Scandinavia as the US can produce (Minnesota), we’ve long appreciated Volvos for the very things which give them their identities.
However, when my fiancee recently totaled her Toyota Camry, I lobbied hard to replace it with, not a Volvo, but a new Subaru Outback. While she’ll never turn a wrench on it, the Outback should be every bit as reliable as the Camry, but without the transportation-appliance driving controls that isolated her from road conditions and drove me nuts every time I had to take the wheel. As others have said, Volvo’s botched up-market move and de-emphasized attention to durability put us in the Subaru dealer’s lot. I managed to snag a lifetime drivetrain warranty when we purchased the car last month, and considering that we’ll likely own the car for over a decade, I don’t much care about the cost of depreciation. The only thing which concerns me is the gas mileage, which has been no better than my 850s through 2500 miles. At least the Subaru doesn’t require premium fuel.
OK, I get the headline now. Volvo is “Withering on the vine.” … not “Whither goes Volvo?”
In the early 90’s the Volvo 850 was a successful car, and quite popular it embodied the “essence” of Volvo at an entry level luxury price.
Volvo for whatever reason when it replaced the 850 with their S series started losing sales momentum which it has not regained.
Is it the quality of the cars, some of the tactics that Volvo uses to sell its cars, a combination of both…
KatiePuckrik
Comparing Volvo to Buick is doing both makes(brands) a disfavor,
The move to FWD was the smart move for the majority of the models. The simple fact is you get better fuel economy and traction in FWD vs RWD. The trend Volvo is in however to keep upping displacement is the wrong one tho. Volvos are supposed to be fuel efficient. While the five cylinder engines were a nice compromise if a little thirsty, the new sixes have lost their roots.
Volvo claims that they choose to avoid minivans as the sliding doors buckle unsafely in crashes. Perhaps a Rondo type vehicle built on the C30/S40/V50/C70 platform is in order. It seats six or seven and has no sliding doors.
Finally bring over the D5 from Europe PLEASE!!!!
I hate to be a nitpicker, but shouldn’t this article technically be in the Ford death watch series?
CyberNick :
I hate to be a nitpicker, but shouldn’t this article technically be in the Ford death watch series?
Good point. Done.
dasko:
The simple fact is you get better fuel economy and traction in FWD vs RWD.
That hasn’t been my experience, at least in regard to Volvos. My 850 Turbo generally gets around 24 mpg in mixed driving while chugging premium fuel, while my old 242 was around 25 mpg in the same cycle on regular fuel. Traction, particularly in snow or on ice, was significantly better in the 240 than in the 850, which is partially due to the power difference between the two, and partially due to the increased power of the 850 going through the steering wheels. The selectable Winter mode does quite a bit to eliminate this from a stop, but at speed during a snowstorm I’d much prefer my old 240 to the 850. During Minnesota winters I could get by with all-season tires on my 240, but the 850 definitely wants snow tires five months out of the year.
I never thought of the 240 as particularly fuel efficient, though I suppose it was by comparison to the 850, particularly as a significantly older car. The new sixes are actually pretty nice, but any mill Volvo makes is going to likely pale in comparison to the B20-series (except in the power department). Volvo got caught up in the recent V8 cachet marketing binge when they should have stuck that money in making the good six they already have even better.
The real reason for their switch to FWD wasn’t traction; it was all about interior packaging and impact zones.
I remember the 240 turbo. Big, comfy, and quiet. The car had two modes. Quiet cruise around town, and when the turbo came up, it didn’t go onto boost…it got MAD; and then went like hell. Many 3 series BMW’s underestimated the Battlecruiser. We ran NY-Buffalo in under 4.
Fast forward to the XC90, which my wife suggested as a replacement for our old 9-3. BMW price with not BMW dynamics and quality. Trendy in our neighborhood, but a non starter for this geek.
Friends had a 240 wagon. It went 260k before they got rid of it. The front seat wore out before the rest of the car. The simple fact is that it was not built for planned obsolence. The engine in that car defined “underpowered”, even with a 5 speed. Still, more like a permanent car than a fashion statement.
Lots of good comments on this cogent editorial. Volvo’s best days are definitely behind it.
But no one has mentioned one of the nails sealing the coffin lid: exchange rate. Not only is Europe an expensive place to build cars, the decline of the dollar against the Euro means Volvo has effectively suffered a thirty percent price cut on US-bound cars. So, Volvo, you’ve lost your unique marketing pitch, you’re too small to stay in the race on your own, you’ve raised prices to the point of diminishing returns, and you’re getting clobbered by the exchange rate. What’cha gonna do? (No, slapping a Volvo grill on a Mexican-built Fusion is not a winning idea.)
Volvo had a market niche. The cars were so ugly that they made a statement. It flipped a bird to the rest of the population. The message was “I choose to drive a car that looks like a refrigerator because I am an utterly rational individual”. The cars were safe and durable, if a bit crude. I still think there is a profitable niche there. Subaru owns it now. I think Volkswagon and Saab going upscale hurt too, there are too many players in the Euro just-below-near-lux space.
Update:
When I was in business school, we learned that there are four kinds of businesses.
Only a diversified company with a balanced portfolio can use its strengths to truly capitalize on its growth opportunities. The balanced portfolio has:
* stars whose high share and high growth assure the future;
* cash cows that supply funds for that future growth; and
* question marks to be converted into stars with the added funds.
And dogs that have declining share and low growth. Those you get rid of. No question Ford has used Volvo as a cash cow to fund the rest of the company. That’s why their designs are so darn old, XC90 excluded. Starved of investment.
I ended up with a 2005 XC70 wagon out of default. The criteria were an all wheel drive vehicle that had a rear hatch, was large enough for a small family, and was not an SUV. The Subaru family of wagons were too small, the Freestyle was too long for my side of the garage, leaving the Volvo as the winner. Note that the new generation of V70/XC70 wagons would have been excluded, as they are longer than the previous generation.
Volvo tries to position themselves as “green.” Now imagine if they dropped the hybrid drive train from the Escape into a V70, or gave us the ethanol engine or the diesel that they have in Europe… I would drive a Prius only there is less cargo room than a Rabbit in that hatch so I drive…a V50. My point? With Audi winning more safety awards, with Toyonda et al owning “reliability” Volvo *could* be the company that made sensible, useful, Eurostyle, green cars. Which is going to be VW in what-2 years? Still, I do love my fiddy. Hope it lasts 15 years.
My mom has a 1998 V70 GLT and it is still going strong with 160k on it. I love that car so much, and wouldn’t mind getting it now as I know it will run for a long time to come. When we got it two years ago, she had always wanted a Volvo or Subaru wagon and this one came along. It, like many others have said, is probably the most comfortable car I’ve ever been in.
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.
veefiddy:
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.
We are a two Volvo family (s60, xc70) and neither of us lusted after Volvos growing up — so we have become converts to the brand after the switch to FWD, Horbury designs, etc. And we both love our cars and wouldn’t switch. Why? Great seats, good cars to drive in everyday conditions, lots of power with the turbo with reasonable gas mileage, high level of interior quality, competitive pricing against other premium marques…I could go on. My wife also commented the other day that she really likes it that Volvos are immediately identifiable as Volvos — unlike so many cars on the road today, the brand has a distinct image.
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….
Why is the V70 wagon thousands cheaper than the S80, when it’s basically the same car, except a wagon version?
V70 base MRSP – 32.5k
S80 base MRSP – 38k
One other thought: Japanese cars have grown up in size since the introduction of the Volvo 200/700, both mid-sized cars, and became both a better bang for the buck as well as direct competition, i.e. Acura Legend and everything else that followed, as another poster mentioned.
The 1982 Honda Accord that was our Volvo 740’s stablemate was a subcompact. The 2008 Honda Accord is a full sized car.
So what is the deal with the Volvo transmissions? Did they fix the problem or update the V70 transmission sometime this decade, or are they still churning out transmissions that are blowing up?
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.
Volvo, like Subaru was a one-trick pony. Where the only thing Subaru had going for them was all-wheel-drive, the only thing Volvo had was safety. That works fine until everbody else got hip to their game. Now that the gig us up, they have nothing else to lure buyers in with.
Such is the pitfalls of such a narrow branding strategy.
Volvo’s original hallmark was rugged dependability. Ford value engineering blew that away. Why pay a premium for a Volvo when Asian cars are more reliable and less costly?
I lusted over 240s as a youngster; I remember test driving a used gold 242 Turbo that was probably 8-10 years old. Always wanted an R wagon. After 20 years I finally bought my first Volvo, an XC90 Sport. It’s been flawless for 7k so far. I love the way it drives and I think I made a good decision. The sport seats are incredible. The lease price was about the same as a BMW. A 3-series, that is (with leather).
When the lease expires in 2010, I’ll probably buy (or lease) another. Maybe the XC60 or a C30.
Thanks for the interesting article. I’m a once Volvo fan-boy who has moved on, like so many others. One small nit, the Volvos of old didn’t offer all-wheel drive as the article implies, that didn’t arrive until the V70XC of 1997.
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?
Saab and Volvo both made much better cars when they were independent. The first thing to go when they were owned by bigger companies was the build quality.
Ah tvrboy, you are so right:
“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……
I agree with wmba, enough already.
The early Celica was better than anything since
The Datsun 240Z was a great little car.
The Valiant was just that.
And who can forget those muscle cars. Not Hollywood. Gone in 60 Seconds, The Fast & the Furious, XXX, The Dukes of Hazzard all had good old muscle cars in them. But they are gone. So are carburetors, running boards, (except on tricked out pick-ups and vans), and rumble seats. Get over it. Now we have On-Star, Nav Systems, systems that make your old home stereo sound tinny, We aren’t going back. And the car companies can’t go back
Anyway, there are too many auto manufacturers in the world today. My 85 year old father said it. “We used to have this many car companies when I was a boy, but we ended up with the Big 3. It is going to happen again, Porbably more than 3 though. The question is who will be behind Toyota and Honda” There will be rationalization of the marketplace over the next 20 years and some of our favrite brands will disappear.
C’est la vie
As the very satisfied owner of a V50 T5 AWD I will say that Volvo have it in them to be successful.
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.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
Ouch!
They crash cars that are better than some of the cars I’ve owned over the years…
The 940/960/S90’s were wonderful cars, very comfortable, large inside, and rock-solid. A friend of mine drove his for 250k miles before he got rear-ended by a woman on a cell phone (and this was *after* they outlawed them!). I know someone else that had one which they kept until it was in an accident at almost 210k miles.
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.
A Volvo minivan could really garner a lot of attention – minivan buyers are the most safety conscious of ’em all, and Volvo is still associated with safety first and foremost in people’s minds.
I’d buy one just for the seats.
Lots of good points raised. 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. When S80 came out last year there was hardly any marketing support. This for a car that looks to be a winner with lost of very good reviews, Dan Neil actually saying that this was the best luxury mid size car and the one he would buy over an Audi, BMW, Mercedes etc. I think that’s a pretty good indication that there is nothing much wrong with the Volvo cars in general that a good marketing campaign couldn’t fix.
raq_pro
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.
Honestly, Volvo’s previous niche has really gone. The left wing/college professor/social acitivist niche has been split by Subaru and the Prius. Safety is no longer a valid reason to buy one either. Volvo needs to be reinvented and I think that Ford is in a good postion to do that. However, they continue to make bad deicisions. Why does the S40 get a woefully underpowered NA I-5 rather than the turbo unit found in the Euro Focus ST220? At least the interior is starting to move from high end Ford parts bin to a bit of actual luxury.
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’ve had a great few years with my V50 T5 AWD. Decent power, great in rough weather, hauls the wife and kids and buggies and trailers and roofboxes in rapid (and perceived) safety, and I think it’s the best looking wagon on the road. But I didn’t buy it because it was a Volvo, I bought it because of the features I needed/wanted. Believe it or not, the Volvo was cross-shopped with a Prius, a Honda Element, a WRX, and a 325 Touring, but it checked the most boxes, and got the nod. I custom ordered it too, and got it for thousands less than typical on-the-lot models.
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.
Man I’m going to chime in here and be the minority. We had a (back then brand new) Volvo 240 wagon and it was completely unreliable and expensive to repair. The car was constantly being towed, suffered numerous electrical gremlins, and handled terribly in cold weather. Buying a Volvo was like buying a Volkswagen- you buy one and it lasts forever, or you buy one and it’s a money pit.
I agree that Volvo missed (late 1990’s) and is missing (late 2000’s) the small-UV crazes. It should be a cash cow. The XC70 could be eating everyone’s lunch, but it’s up-market or down-market in all the wrong ways, and, according to the last review here, is getting worse. The R-wagons were ideal…just not to Americans. I was raised in Volvo’s, and I drive a 740 wagon now, though for different reasons than my parent’s did–namely, with upgraded shocks, torsion bars, and turbo-trickery, I can have a good-looking, good driving car that doubles as a moving van. When it dies, if it ever does, I want something else that toes the line between Mazda and BMW, with toyota-like reliability, but I’m not sure Volvo still makes it. Or maybe they do: does anyone out there have a 2008 C30 with 200k miles on it…how’s the leather holding up?
Our ’95 850 no option Volvo is nearing its practical life. After a very reliable 245,000 miles, it needs brakes and there seems to be no end to new electrical glitchs that dont disable the car, but just annoy the hell out of you. Good news is that when we bought it “new” with 5000 miles from the dealer, we were too broke to afford one with more gizmos. Those Sunroofs and power seats and door locks would now only be joining the chorus of little failures.
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…
Most shops will charge $90 to $100 per set (front / rear) on replacing the pads and machining the rotors.
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 ;)