In general, the Swedes are a polite, hospitable people. But doing business with Detroit is enough to test even the patience of a people who discovered good manners on a pillaging run back in 795 C.E. Automotive News [sub] has a lengthy feature on Sweden’s auto business, focusing on the deep disappointment locals feel with Ford’s management of Volvo. One worker says the mood in Volvo’s Swedish assembly plants is “depressed;” people are ready for a little change they can believe in (TM). “People just want Ford to go,” he said. “Ford is not making that much money, and neither is Volvo. Ford needs the money, so everyone expects Ford to sell.” “Ford has not been a good owner,” opines another assembly worker. “I think another owner would be better.” The locals say that whomever ends up holding Volvo ownership, they must keep Volvo’s inherent “Swedishness.” )Husker Du?) “Volvo is very much based on Swedish culture, and that would make it almost impossible to move it to China or somewhere else,” says a local chamber of commerce type. Volvo is crucial to the local economy, and Ford’s plans to bring Volvo downmarket betrays Dearborn’s lack of faith in the brand’s core values. Whether it stays with Ford or moves on, Volvo- and it’s Swedish workforce- are at the mercy of the market. And you thought Michigan was the only locality that stands to lose big from the decline of The Big 2.8.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
At least they’re not in the General’s army. I seem to recall one Swedish soldier with some major problems…
Is it just me, or do the gullwing doors in that picture latch WAY too far from center? They would need a lot of clearance to open, thus ruining any practical point of having gullwing doors…
The Swedes are generally polite?!
Well, maybe.
But look, I’m married to one!
Cold as ice.
Emotionless.
Clinical.
:{)
Just attend a funeral for a Swede?
I have. And there was one loud, emotional crying Italian in a church full of stoic, straight faced “you live, you die” Swedes!
Yes, Yes…but really beautiful and blonde.
And this sounds like the average allways bitching factory worker in every company.
Ford’s plans to bring Volvo downmarket betrays Dearborn’s lack of faith in the brand’s core values
No, it doesn’t. It’s a statement that Ford finally gets it. Volvo is not and will never be Mercedes, BMW, Audi or Lexus, and it should stop trying to be.
Volvos (and Saabs, Subarus or Acuras) are what you get when you want something with a little more design forethought than a Camry or Accord. A modest car with a little bit extra. Slightly nicer features, more robust construction, smarter ergonomics, different packaging. The Apple Macintosh of automobilia.
The problem Volvo et al need to address is how to build a product that justifies an Macintosh-style price premium, because Accords and Camrys are very, very good cars these days. Subaru gets it, the rest don’t seem to have a clue.
The problem is unless Volvo moves upmarket to compete with Audi and BMW they won’t be able to continue to build in Sweden, if they are going to compete with Ford and VW they’ll need to move production to Eastern Europe or the even the Southern US…
US becomes the low-cost site of the moment for manufacturers http://tinyurl.com/financialtimes
Article requires registration but the jist of it is that states are throwing money at anyone who will build a plant…
A senior executive at Fiat, the Italian industrial conglomerate, said: “With the amount of money US states are willing to throw at you, you would be stupid to turn them down at the moment. It is one of the low-cost locations to be in at the moment.”
This is what you get when you buy four separate brands like Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston-Martin and try to manage them all. It reminds me a lot of GM.
Chevy, for example, and Ford are competitors. Mercury and Pontiac. Lincoln and Cadillac. Volvo and Saab. Jaguar and, say, Audi. Etcetera.
I thought Ford was trying to compete with Toyota. If it always was, trying to imitate General Motors was not a smart move.
Actually, Ford buying Volvo is a very Volkswagen-ish move (think SEAT or Skoda.) I’d say they’ve been great with Volvo… Ford has improved the quality of its products and the fruits of that relationship *DID* produce the #1 Vehicle in TTAC polling. I say Volvo’s just feeling emo due to lack of sunlight.
@psarhjinian : Subaru Gets it? Really? The only decent product they *have* right now is the very nice Legacy, which has been riddled with quality glitches uncharacteristic to the brand (but it’s still a nice car, don’t get me wrong.) They have killed off/defiled every single other worthy product they have (Forester, Impreza.) Subaru *did* get it, but those days are over- they’re going to be rebadging Corollas to stay afloat in 10 years if they don’t clean up.
Ford shouldn’t give up on Volvo, but they need to market them better.
“… that relationship *DID* produce the #1 Vehicle in TTAC polling …. ”
Not exactly. The Mazda 3 is indeed based on Ford’s “C1” platform which had engineering input from Ford, Volvo and Mazda … but it is hardly a Volvo based design. Volvo never had a home grown vehicle which competed effectively in the Mazda 3’s size category. The prior generation small Volvos were based on a Mitsubishi joint development project. The Mazda 3 owes more to Ford Europe’s Focus development team and to Mazda’s team than it does to Volvo.
The current Ford Taurus, on the other hand, owes a lot to the ongoing development of the platform which evolved from the Volvo 850 and S80.
“The Swedes are generally polite?!
Well, maybe.
But look, I’m married to one!
Cold as ice.
Emotionless.
Clinical.”
Two of the places I’ve long wanted to visit are Sweden and Ireland. My wife and daughter voted strongly in favor of going to Ireland this past summer … and boy am I glad they did! The Irish impressed us as fun, communicative, passionate and delightful. Most unlike your description of Scandinavians!
Subaru Gets it? Really? The only decent product they *have* right now is the very nice Legacy, which has been riddled with quality glitches uncharacteristic to the brand (but it’s still a nice car, don’t get me wrong.)
They** get it in that they have a product that can justify a premium over an equivalent Camry or Accord. People get, in acceptable numbers, why they should pay more for an Impreza versus a Corolla/Civic, or a Legacy versus a Camry/Accord. The Forester–either this one or it’s predecessor–or the Tribeca are weaker cases, but that’s no so much their fault as that they’re not in possesion of a unique raison d’etre: everyone makes all-wheel-drive tall wagonoids and/or seven-seat crossovers, so why buy a Forester/Tribeca when a RAV/Pilot are as good?
Volvo and Saab need something, anything, like Subaru’s differentiation. Both could play up interior design, ergonomics, utility and safety, rather than trying to be makers of Swedish Benzes or BMWs. Think about the current S60: why on earth would you buy it over a Camry XLE V6 on the low end, or a C- or E-Class on the high? You wouldn’t, because the S60 offers nothing compelling over either car.
Think about the a hypothetical future V70 (because there is a good reason for the V70, though perhaps not the S60) for a minute: visualize it with a ten-year warranty, seats so comfy they cure the common cold, all Volvo’s safety gizmos standard and a centre stack that looks like textbook implementation of Ergonomics 101 instead of the usual switchgear-shotgun-blast. Now, imagine it stickering ten to fifteen percent over a Camry XLE V6 (heck, maybe sell a cheaper version with a dull-but-solid four), but perhaps with a slightly less powerful engine than Toyota would ship, and perhaps not with leather seats.
Now, imagine Volvo marketing the car not as some kind of luxury plaything, or whoring out their former glories, but on the features that the abovementioned V70 offers. I think it stands a chance because, quite frankly, it’s an unexploited niche.
** On Subaru: I wouldn’t say that their cars have been defiled as much as they’ve been dequirked, which isn’t neccessarily a bad thing for them, or for Volvo. Quirky for quirkiness’ sake isn’t helpful, you need a virtue to justify it–just ask Saab. The old Forester XT was fast and sporty, sure, but so is a RAV/4 and the RAV isn’t a cramped little bastard of a car; ditto the Impreza, which is no longer “a nice car, pity about the mid-nineties interior” but legitimately as nice as a Civic or Corolla inside while still giving Subaru buyers a reason to shop with them.
The real trouble with Volvo is what an earlier poseter alluded to: they are built in Sweden and Belgium. The economics are terrible. One of Volvo’s challenges is that its cars really aren’t BMW level either in perception or design – but many cost nearly BMW levels. Their designs are “old.” Not that the S80 isn’t new, but it looks the same as the last S80 to an untrained eye.
So, based on their recent moves, it looks like Ford is about to do two things: introduce a slightly divergent design theme from their current boring suite and set Volvo up much like Mazda is where the group will collaborate with Ford proper on platforms and then make its own upgrades and changes to accommodate its customers’ needs. But I think Odell’s appointment also signals that Volvo isn’t going anywhere, which will allow Ford to work it into its manufacturing supply chain – ie, build in the US for NA where the cost base is, in a strange twist, lower.
Ford’s external signals say they’re making the right moves. It’s quite late, unfortunately, but the brand is still good – it’s just not Audi/BMW/Lexus/Merc good. Too bad it took them 3 years to piece that together.
My v50 was build in Ghent. How do the Belgians feel about Ford?
Being that Volvo prides itself so much on its Scandinavian roots and, in turn, its ergonomically correct designs, it would be best for Volvo to be owned by a Sweden-based company when it inevitably breaks away from Ford. What I’d like to know is if Volvo has the will or the funds to just run the company itself? That would be nice, and though it seems impossible that they’d be able to take control of their own company (sounds weird) something like that happening could possibly force them to super-downsize and concentrate all of their talents on creating just the right products in an economical way w/o sacrificing quality. Downsizing is good!~~Helps to bolster focus w/o lots of baggage.
@Mekira:
Maybe Volvo Trucks has some cash to burn on the car brand it used to own.
They could even buy it back for less than they sold it to Ford for, not even considering inflation.
How do the Belgians feel about Ford?
Probably pretty good as there is also a Ford factory in Belgium but the centre of gravity of the European car industry is shifting East as plants are built in lower cost places like Romania where Ford is building a plant atm.
The problem for places like Belgium is they can’t offer much in the way of incentives to manufacturers because most state aid is illegal in the EU.
@Justin Berkowitz:
I didn’t even think about Volvo Trucks! But it’s true…there’s really nothing wrong with the name “Volvo” taking over Volvo. It’s probably perfect timing for a purchase. We’ll see what happens…
@ psarhjinian – I don’t mind Subaru’s dequirking (in many ways the newest Legacy represents their best attempt) , but I think what Subaru has done goes well beyond dequirking- they’re now just ‘cheap.’ And bland. And still not 100% there (4 speed auto I’m looking at you.) That doesn’t make them bad automobiles, but it keeps Subaru from being a pioneer in any category (see the Forester) and ensures them becoming an “also ran.” If you ask me, it’s a damn shame, because the mainstream has suddenly shifted right into the territory Subaru *was* occupying all along.
Other than AWD, what’s a legitimate reason to pick an Impreza over the competition? A Forester over a Rogue? Pretty much zip- other than “Subaru Reliability,” which ain’t been so hot lately.
Volvos are at least competitively executed….
Yes I can understand the folks at Volvo. The bureaucratic bullshit that these big company’s (Ford/GM) inflict on smaller, more profitable companies in order to make them a “global” company (read North American) means they cease to retain their true identity and ability to perform efficiently and with excellence in engineering great cars that people want. The big company’s just don’t get what makes great cars. That’s why they’re broke. Too many managers and too many bullshit processes. I agree. Tell Ford to piss off from Sweden and tell GM to piss off from Australia!
To keep Volvo competitive, affordable and high quality, they could be sold partially built in a crate with a set of wrenches needed to complete the assembly… :-)
What ever happened to the “durable” Volvo? It was a major selling point, no doubt diluted by Ford’s “genes”.
What ever happened to the “durable” Volvo? It was a major selling point, no doubt diluted by Ford’s “genes”.
Volvos were never really durable in the sense that Toyotas were. Gearheads have a different definition of “durable” that’s based on theory and engineering, rather than end-user costs.
They had potentially-million-mile engines, true, but they were still comparatively expensive to keep up for the “normal”, end-user lifetime of the car.
Of course, that’s before they started chasing the Germans. Once they went down that road, the electronic gremlins got worse and the million-mile engine became a moot point: no one cared that the block could survive a trip around the world six times when the accessories or electronics would render the car useless long before that.
Ahem, as has been said, Volvo should be thanking their lucky stars that GM wasn’t their American overlord. I think Ford did a good job with Volvo and was extremely hands off for a coporate “partner”. In fact, Ford copied more from Volvo than they changed. The fact of the matter is that Volvo lost its key selling point, safety. Now that all vehicles are safe Volvo needs to re-define the brand. Ford doesn’t have the money or time for that so I see Volvo getting their wish. Wether Volvo will exist after that is another issue.
How to kill off foreign competition – buy them out, run them into the ground and then sell at a loss and absorb it. Ford cant manage themselves so how did they expect to manage a profitable company