Comments on: Ford lowers value of its Volvo brand

By: Veda

Veda — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:12:29 +0000

The problem with Volvo isn’t their decent product lines but rather their pricing scheme in which they are between the Japs and the Germans. It is as if they still think they’re more prestigious even when equipped similarly than Lexus or Infiniti. If the difference is only 2-3K for top of the line fully equipped models, then people will opt for the more powerful japs.

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:05:40 +0000

Anyone who buys any european car expecting long-term bulletproof reliability is kidding themselves. Over half the time I see cars crapped out on the road they are european (usually bimmers or VWs). They are good short-termers to rotate out of at 36 months.

On a long-term basis, most basic Fords actually do quite well. Yes, they are not too pretty and have some major gaps and all that, but they are pretty relaible overall. Mazda seems to be holding their own and expanding also under Ford ownership, so yes maybe Ford’s ownership of Volvo hasn’t helped, but I doubt it has hurt. Volvo is more likely hurting themselves.

By: TomF

TomF — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:50:40 +0000

Affliction wrote:

“I love Volvo…They have built some reliable cars in the past. Not so sure about now.”

There’s the problem in a nutshell. They build some BULLETPROOF cars in the past that stood out from the pack… back in the day when it was a religious miracle for cars to make it to 100k miles.

Volvo is still riding on that heritage, but today’s cars do NOT fulfill those expectations.

They have average build quality at best. And it is no longer a wake-the-neighbors accomplishment to run a car 100k or 150k miles. Kias do that.

I am an 8+ year Volvo owner who was bitterly disappointed in our ’99 V70 AWD’s quality / ownership costs. Too late did I realize that while you still see 25-year-old Volvos chugging around, you don’t see a lot of 10-to-15-year old ones. They’re flimsier now.

The cars NO LONGER FULFILL THE LEGACY BRAND PROMISE, and while Ford may not be totally responsible, Ford ownership sure as hell didn’t help.

By: SwerveEarly

SwerveEarly — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:14:21 +0000

Your all soooooo high!

By: moto-racer13

moto-racer13 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:39:31 +0000

Ford is on a downhill run. Its so sad to see Volvo associated with a brand like Ford. But Ford needs Volvo’s technology and quality to keep itself afloat. If it wasn’t for Volvo, Ford cars would be alot worse than they already are.

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:08:13 +0000

Selling fewer Volvos??? Yeah … it’s hard to believe people don’t want to part with over 30k for a decently equipped C30 when they can get a balls-out Mazdaspeed3 for 6k less.

Now Ford, where’s my Donald Trump Edition Ford Focus with an in-dash Toupée-holder.

By: autonut

autonut — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:14:10 +0000

affliction, I think volvo is still has decent quality. Their problem is Ford, you are right on that. We don’t see it in US, but I would not buy Volvo in Europe, if I could buy Ford with all Volvo technology in it for much less coins.

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:11:59 +0000

Fill- F-series has competitive engines, no argument there. Mercury has marginal profits, and is good for Lincoln dealerships for many different reasons. China WILL be the market of the 21st century, but once again, Ford won’t be able to keep all those profits. India however, will be a very huge future market if all goes as planned, and Ford could also keep most or all profits made there.

By: autonut

autonut — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:11:17 +0000

Ricardo, your suggestion is very valuable. DO you think this Mustang should be drop top or glass bottom? Should Ford also produce Bronco for Lohan to promote or ride?

Ford product management

By: affliction

affliction — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:43:02 +0000

I love volvo…They have built some reliable cars in the past. Not so sure about now (seriously, I have no clue can someone fill me in on this?) I think Volvo and Mazda deserve their dignity by not being associated with Bord errr I meant to type Ford.

By: AdibzumbaAbihganulah

AdibzumbaAbihganulah — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:18:31 +0000

RicardoHead: yep… or the S.E. Paris Hilton with integrated Breathalyzer for free.

By: TomF

TomF — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:14:56 +0000

Mercury is obviously dying. There’s NO new product announced. I just wish they’d hurry up and issue the press release.

The Volvo brand has been mismanaged by Ford, so Ford itself helped drive its value south. They’re nice cars but their key differentiators, safety and reliability, no longer resonate in the marketplace.

Plenty of upscale cars are as safe as Volvos (watch where they place in the crash tests; usually middle of the pack). And Volvos can be real hangar queens — finicky, expensive to fix, stuffed with junky vendor parts that Toyota wouldn’t allow on a $14,000 Corolla. Quality has not been a Volvo priority for a long time — ever since Ford made a jihad out of jacking up sales volume.

Some of this devaluation is the natural result of being overexposed to the weak dollar while building all your cars in expensive places like Belgium. But a lot of it is Ford’s failure of vision.

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:11:36 +0000

You all have it wrong. What Ford really needs to do is get
the Special Edition Britney Spears Mustang out asap.

By: DrFill

DrFill — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:07:30 +0000

F-150 has engines, just not competitive engines
Mercury is a loser. If it makes dollars, it makes sense. Think of how much money Ford puts into it.
China is THE MARKET of the 21st Century.
Ford IS DEAD, and will be acquired, if they can’t hit here, or there.
Right now, they’re 0 for 2
DrFill

By: jayjc08

jayjc08 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:39:53 +0000

Fill… The F-150 has enough engines as it is, there’s no need for any more. You in your immature mind may think so, but then again I doubt you own one.

Mercury shouldn’t be dropped. Once they get rid of Land Rover and Jaguar, Lincoln will have more room to breath, and that will result in Mercury also having more room. As it is though, Mercury is being toned down until it’s sale, or demise which seems almost as likely.

And I wouldn’t put China second on that list. China’s a fast growing market, and a good investment, but Ford won’t be able to keep all, or even most of those profits or company for that matter.

By: Htay9500

Htay9500 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:34:42 +0000

drfill has a neat list there that Ford should be paying attention to.

By: corvette

corvette — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:23:46 +0000

^ true.

By: DrFill

DrFill — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:29:54 +0000

And they need to drop Mercury.
Keeping that dog alive is quite a respirator bill as well.
Ford should have 3 priorities
Get Ford US back (Priority)
Get Ford China moving with a purpose (#2)
Get Lincoln off the mat and into the game (#3)
Everything else is crap. A waste of time and resources.
DrFill

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:08:26 +0000

…not quite sure if a wholesale bailout is the answer, DrFill. It may come to that out of necessity the way they’re going, but obviously the first thing they have to do is pinpoint why they aren’t selling. A poor exchange rate, while certainly contributing to the problem, cannot by any measure be considered the only factor causing Volvo’s decline in sales. It’s easy to say this is just Ford being Ford, and that only they could screw up a free lunch, but whatever niche the Volvo brand may have occupied in the past has shrunk to the point where they are almost invisible on the automotive map. I don’t know what they do. They’re good cars, but then so are most of the others they compete with.

By: DrFill

DrFill — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:43:05 +0000

Ford should sell everything they have, and invest in fixing their US Operations, and get moving FAST in China.
Get the Verve here next year.
Get the F-150 some engines next year.
Cut or Redo Ranger next year.
Get Eco-Boost done next year, and introduced on Explorer.
The list of problems is impressive.
DrFill