Comments on: Sweden to guarantee Volvo loan?

By: Ring-Taxi

Ring-Taxi — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:06:47 +0000

Great move for the Swedes. Volvo has always been the dominant of the two brands. Saab has an edge in Aerospace but then again Volvo is usually the supplier for the jet engines.

By: Borat

Borat — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:49:00 +0000

angelo, the engine was sourced 15 years ago (give or take) and updated (or not) internally. Obviously VW was running on its own schedule with the same engine. That is why they are different today. I am not sure that VW motor is more economical, but it is different.

By: Borat

Borat — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:46:38 +0000

Tom, you said well!

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:25:47 +0000

Still guys, to be fair, Volvo is in a much better shape than Saab, so I can see why the Swedish Government would want to place their bets on the “safest” option.

By: angelo

angelo — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:54:09 +0000

I don’t think that the Volvo T5 is related to any VW engine. The VW 5-cylinders are way more modern and economical.

By: Zcarsales

Zcarsales — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:51:51 +0000

Guys! Its Volvo. I never knew that this much trouble or interest can be derived from Volvo. However, there is no other car I’d accidently run into a moose with.

By: miket

miket — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:36:11 +0000

I didn’t know that the T5 was a VW design….

Since Ford purchased Volvo, the “ugly box” designs that Volvo was known for were shed, making them (at least to me) appealing designs for a fairly basic sedan. Their interiors are well executed as well. Much more so then older volvos. I wouldn’t put them up against Audi, but they are very well done.

When you look at a volvo, you know pretty much what to expect. It does not matter if you are a fan of Volvo, but you can’t really argue that they don’t still have a unique identity, even today. You can’t say that for the Saabs out there. At least when Volvo does some platform sharing, they put their own spin on it, not just sheetmetal.

By: Borat

Borat — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:25:11 +0000

MikeT, what style Volvo acquired under Ford ownership? All of their cars are the same as they were 15 years ago (before rape and pillage). The only new shape is C30 (in 15 years. What so different between V70 and X90? One is a bit taller and twice heavier with the same engine? And if we to live in Europe we could buy Fords with Volvo stuffing for less coin. FYI, 5 cylinder in Volvo is sourced from VW group and Volvo own design is I6. BTW, Volvo historically co-developed engines: V6 was co-developed with Renault and Ford in 60’s.

By: oldraven

oldraven — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:24:16 +0000

Vovo and FoMoCo don’t share platforms? I beg to differ.

Let’s look at the platform lineup for Volvo.

XC90, S60, S80, V70, XC70 (FoMoCo D3 or D2 as Volvo calls it.) Shared with Taurus, Sable, MKS, Five Hundred, Montego, and Freestyle.

XC60, S80 (EUCD(F)/P2(V)) Shared with Mondeo, Freelander/LR2, Galaxy, and S-max.

S40, V50, C70, C30 (C1(F)/P1(V)) Shared with Focus C-max, Focus, 3, 5, and Kuga.

Well, that’s everything they have for sale now and for the last few years. Not one car built on a dedicated Volvo platform. They don’t have unique engines, transmissions, or AWD systems. They are just as integrated into FoMoCo as Saab is into GM.

By: TomF

TomF — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:20 +0000

Ford is guilty of cheapening Volvo products and making them more ordinary in an attempt to double US sales volume. Remember than ten years ago (1998-99) there was no Volvo SUV, no Volvo 30- or 40- series, no C70… the lineup was dead simple, dull, and durable: S60, V70, V70XC, and the last of the RWD barges. That was it. Supply in the US was well-matched with demand. There wasn’t much discounting off the sticker (unless you did European delivery). Screaming drive-off lease deals, such as you see advertised today, were unheard of. The cars were expensive but people believed in them. Volvo was making money.

Today Volvo US markets a huge mess of indifferently built, way overpriced, unsuccessful models and the buying public is rejecting them in spades (and not just because of the economy; Audi had a pretty good 2008, but Volvo sales totally cratered). My family’s independent Volvo mechanic forbids his friends to consider a post-2000 Volvo because of the cr*p ingredient parts and the cost of upkeep.

All this goes to support johnnycanuck’s post above. GM may have ravaged Saab to the point where it’s totally unsalvageable. But Ford pi**ed away a hell of a lot of Volvo cachet, brand equity, quality and value over these past ten years, and ought to answer / pay for it. In short, $573 billion (heh heh) seems like a lot for Ford to ask, given the damage it’s done to Sweden’s most prestigious export brand.

By: miket

miket — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:05:27 +0000

I would say Volvo has double the personality they had before Ford took over. Their cars have a style which they definitely did not have before Ford ownership. Ford left them alone to keep using their 5cyl engines. Even the V8 that the s80 uses is sourced from Yamaha. They took technology they needed, provided some cost cutting by sharing some platforms but Volvo kept their identity.

By: hummah

hummah — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:34:36 +0000

Saabs are mostly built on GM platforms, so a 9-5 is like a $45K Vectra and a 9-7X is like a $50K Trailblazer- it’s a complete waste of money for an inferior product. Volvo and Ford don’t share platforms nearly as much, so Volvo is more like its own company. In fact, the new Taurus uses a modified Volvo S60 chassis, so a Taurus is like a $25K Volvo.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:31:38 +0000

global, at least you know I’m just being facetious, but I’m more of the opinion that Ford’s just as guilty of raping Volvo for what they want as GM is of raping Saab. I defy anyone to say either brand has even half the personality now than the day they were taken over.

By: global_lightning

global_lightning — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:26:47 +0000

02WRXPSM:
SAAB Aerospace and SAAB Automotive have been two separate companies since the 1990’s. That whole ‘Born From Jets’ line is pure marketing.

By: global_lightning

global_lightning — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:24:02 +0000

Johnnycanuck:
As a Volvo driver, just for you I will today make an extra effort to drive in the left lane 5 MPH below the speed limit AND leave my right blinker going.

By: Tritonpower5.4

Tritonpower5.4 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:02:20 +0000

^^^^Freak^^^^

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:30:29 +0000

Volvo must die. All Volvos should immediately be taken off the road and turned into playground equipment for special needs children. All Volvo drivers should be forced to submit to experimental brain surgery to remove the part that tells them to be in the left lane at any time.

By: 02WRXPSM

02WRXPSM — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:24:51 +0000

SAAB has their military engines/jet fighter contracts to fall back on, they can exit the auto business and still do just fine as a military contractor.

By: idrinorbarsaku

idrinorbarsaku — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:17:42 +0000

haha that funny, i just picked up on the 573 billion, i automatically read it as 573 million. LLN really needs to proof read this sh!t

By: A4

A4 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:12:01 +0000

yeah i think your exchange rates are a bit off, LLN.

By: Tritonpower5.4

Tritonpower5.4 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:57:48 +0000

Yeah Ford has treated Volvo much better than GM treated Saab. Saab’s were just rebadged GM products and Volvo’s were actually nice lookin automobiles with their own personality. I dont blame the Swedish government for supporting Volvo in all of this.

By: golfcar

golfcar — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:56:10 +0000

$573 Billion – that is almost as big as the incentive program for the US. Should be $573 million.

In my opinion Volvo is worth saving. Ford took the good from Volvo and let them do what they do best. GM ruined Saab.

By: idrinorbarsaku

idrinorbarsaku — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:55:21 +0000

If i was Sweden, i would bank my money on VOLVO too! Saab is no where near volvos level imo.

By: miket

miket — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:22 +0000

Discrimination? Its plain business. GM has treated Saab like garbage for years and already declared bankruptcy.
Lemme see….which business should I invest in if I want at least a glimmering hope of getting my investment back? Is it the abandoned bankrupt one, or the one with owners that will see a sale through?

By: E90

E90 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:43:38 +0000

Ouch!! The Swedish gov’t must be reading Need More Oil For GMs blog!!

By: Borat

Borat — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:24:12 +0000

From point of view of Swedes working for SAAB, it is discrimination.

By: cire_1wb

cire_1wb — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:02:43 +0000

I don’t blame the Swedish government for favoring Volvo. Ford has done a better job of supporting the brand than GM has done with Saab.