Volvo's fatal flaw

Long Onion · 14-08-2009 2:18pm #1

Hi Folks,

Just struck me today that Volvo are never destined to top any manufacturer league tables for one simple reason - they only make half sizes!

For example, the s40 is mid way between the 1 and 3 series, the s60 is mid way between the 3 and 5 series and the s80 is midway between the 5 and 7 series.

It's kinda like a shoe company that only makes half sizes - there'll always be a few for whom it works but the rest will never consider you.

Am I the only one who thinks this?

Cookie_Monster · 14-08-2009 2:20pm

It's cos they have reputation for boring cars

Hellrazer · 14-08-2009 2:22pm

No their fatal flaw is that they try to sell Fords at overinflated prices with a different badge on the front

gibbon75 · 14-08-2009 2:25pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

No their fatal flaw is that they try to sell Fords at overinflated prices with a different badge on the front

I agree

mickdw · 14-08-2009 2:40pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Hi Folks,

Just struck me today that Volvo are never destined to top any manufacturer league tables for one simple reason - they only make half sizes!

For example, the s40 is mid way between the 1 and 3 series, the s60 is mid way between the 3 and 5 series and the s80 is midway between the 5 and 7 series.

It's kinda like a shoe company that only makes half sizes - there'll always be a few for whom it works but the rest will never consider you.

Am I the only one who thinks this?

Why not look at it a little differently

S60 could be a 3 series competitor with extra space
S80, a huge a6 & 5 series competitor

S40 trying to mop up a few sales from the higher end of mid family saloon sector. I dont know what volvo prices are like though so that might make no sense.

Zonda999 · 14-08-2009 2:40pm

Long Onion wrote: »

Hi Folks,

Just struck me today that Volvo are never destined to top any manufacturer league tables for one simple reason - they only make half sizes!

For example, the s40 is mid way between the 1 and 3 series, the s60 is mid way between the 3 and 5 series and the s80 is midway between the 5 and 7 series.

Nor so sure about that. I would think the s80 is the A6/E-class/5 series class, the s60(Lord the replacement to the current one better be a damn fine car) to be in the A4/3 series class and the s40 to be just a posh alternative to a focus saloon(which it is basically) or a vw jetta.

They are kinda messed up alright though, probably because of the pricing. They cant really charge the same as the Germans.

BTW, on the S60, apparently the replacement will look like this:

Hellrazer wrote: »

No their fatal flaw is that they try to sell Fords at overinflated prices with a different badge on the front

I sense this thread will descend into why Audi can do this more successfully than volvo:)

Mr Benevolent · 14-08-2009 2:46pm

Zonda999 wrote: »

I sense this thread will descend into why Audi can do this more successfully than volvo:)

Easy. The Volvo is very obviously a Focus. There's a world of difference in looks between the Golf and A3.

Zonda999 · 14-08-2009 2:50pm

Confab wrote: »

Easy. The Volvo is very obviously a Focus. There's a world of difference in looks between the Golf and A3.

is the same as this

Not very obvious now to be fair

Saab Ed · 14-08-2009 2:56pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

No their fatal flaw is that they try to sell Fords at overinflated prices with a different badge on the front

Like the same way Seat sell Audis at over inflated prices and Opel sell Saabs

..... but seriously I think you're being a bit hard on Volvo saying something like that. Not everybodies cup of tea but bloody good cars in their own right. And anyway most Fords are better in their respective classes than what the so called "premium" brands offer.

Now to the original comment by th OP. Why does everything have to be shaped around the German sausage ,Short / middle / long. Not everything has to be pigeon holed as one size or another. Is'nt it great that somebody out there is still doing their own thing and making something different and not just what the mob consider to be a car of a certain class. Like in fairness you wouldnt buy a house by thinking do you want a small sized , middle sized or big sized house. Its so much more than that and I think that people in general need to open their eyes and look past the mundane ordinary offerings from the middle of the road brands. Personaly im not too keen on any of them except the C30 which I love but Im delighted Volvo is there....;)

Alun · 14-08-2009 3:05pm

Long Onion wrote: »

It's kinda like a shoe company that only makes half sizes - there'll always be a few for whom it works but the rest will never consider you.

.. or alternatively, it's like all the other shoe companies who only make shoes in whole sizes, and screw anyone who wants a half size?

Am I the only one who thinks this?

I'd say so. Who says that cars are only allowed to be built in a discrete number of sizes or classes?

Long Onion · 14-08-2009 3:10pm

Alun wrote: »

.. or alternatively, it's like all the other shoe companies who only make shoes in whole sizes, and screw anyone who wants a half size?

I'd say so. Who says that cars are only allowed to be built in a discrete number of sizes or classes?

Woah there snowy, I never said that Volvo were doing anything wrong, in fact i like that fact that the swedes do their own thing a build quirky and individual cars (had an s40 and a saab) - i was merely saying that perhaps this is the reason that they don't sell more units.

VolvoMan · 14-08-2009 3:20pm

The S60 and S80 are perfectly positioned to take on the 3 Series and 5 Series. It's just the S40 and its estate variant over the years that confused things. Volvo are going to rectify this with the S40 being replaced by a 5 door hatchback to take on the A3/1 Series and the next V50 is going to become the S60's estate variant.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's cos they have reputation for boring cars

That's a load of stereotypical horsesh1te to be honest.

Hellrazer · 14-08-2009 3:21pm

Saab Ed wrote: »

Like the same way Seat sell Audis at over inflated prices and Opel sell Saabs ..... but seriously I think you're being a bit hard on Volvo saying something like that. Not everybodies cup of tea but bloody good cars in their own right. And anyway most Fords are better in their respective classes than what the so called "premium" brands offer.

While I might sound a bit hard on Volvo---I have my reasons.The "real" Volvos(anything pre-ford) are excellent cars and go forever.The newer stuff just annoys me.

Firstly I see so many of them through the workshop with ridiculous problems that Volvo should have sorted before they left the factory.

Then theres the Spare parts side of things--Since we became Ford aswell I see the total rip off that Volvo are doing to the consumer.
Heres an example---Couple of weeks ago I was stuck for a rear trailing arm for a Volvo s40.Not available from Volvo so I took the part off and noticed a Ford part number on it.Typed it into Ecat and the price amazed me--I think it was 176.03 + vat from Volvo and 83+ vat from Ford for the same part.
Eveb for filters the price difference are stupid for the same part with the same part numbers on both.

Then theres the Kuga/xc60--They are the same car.Having driven both I can see no difference except the price and the badge on the front--I think theres something like 10-15k between the Ford and the Volvo.

BrianD3 · 14-08-2009 3:26pm

Volvo has been hit by the erosion of its main selling point i.e. crash safety. Independent EuroNCAP testing has shown that other makes are (now) just as good as Volvo when it comes to safety.

Pre EuroNCAP, Volvos were probably better than most in this area but were also heavily marketed for their safety. There was little or no independent information available to consumers.

VolvoMan · 14-08-2009 3:28pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

While I might sound a bit hard on Volvo---I have my reasons.The "real" Volvos(anything pre-ford) are excellent cars and go forever.The newer stuff just annoys me.

Firstly I see so many of them through the workshop with ridiculous problems that Volvo should have sorted before they left the factory.

Then theres the Spare parts side of things--Since we became Ford aswell I see the total rip off that Volvo are doing to the consumer.
Heres an example---Couple of weeks ago I was stuck for a rear trailing arm for a Volvo s40.Not available from Volvo so I took the part off and noticed a Ford part number on it.Typed it into Ecat and the price amazed me--I think it was 176.03 + vat from Volvo and 83+ vat from Ford for the same part.
Eveb for filters the price difference are stupid for the same part with the same part numbers on both.

They share chassis/suspension components all right but that's where the similarity ends. The floorpan in each car you will find is substantially different.

Then theres the Kuga/xc60--They are the same car.Having driven both I can see no difference except the price and the badge on the front--I think theres something like 10-15k between the Ford and the Volvo.

The Kuga and XC60 aren't in the slightest bit related and I'm sure Volvo engineers would be pretty pissed to hear you say that. The XC60 is based on a similar platform to the Freelander and was actually largely developed independently by Volvo at great expense. It doesn't even share a single engine with the Kuga either.

mike65 · 14-08-2009 3:32pm

Volvo need another 850 T5 type talking point.

Hellrazer · 14-08-2009 3:37pm

VolvoMan wrote: »

They share chassis/suspension components all right but that's where the similarity ends. The floorpan in each car you will find is substantially different.

True--but the point Im trying to make is that the components they share come from the same factory and same warehouse and yet the price differences are ridiculous.

The Kuga and XC60 aren't in the slightest bit related and I'm sure Volvo engineers would be pretty pissed to hear you say that. The XC60 is based on a similar platform to the Freelander and was actually largely developed independently by Volvo at great expense. It doesn't even share a single engine with the Kuga either.

Actually I have to argue with you over that one.
I was at a training course on the XC60 and Volvo told us it was being made in conjunction with Ford which was being released as the Kuga.
I think the Kuga is modeled on the Focus platform and the xc60 on the Mondeo/s80.The only reason they dont share an engine or so were told was that Ford didnt want to use a 2.5 petrol or diesel because the "Kuga wouldnt sell with too big an engine in it" And guess what--They were correct.I dont think we`ve sold one XC60 here.But we`ve sold a few Kugas and engine size was the deciding factor.

VolvoMan · 14-08-2009 3:40pm

mike65 wrote: »

Volvo need another 850 T5 type talking point.

Very much so, but people will just forget about it again after a few years and think of Volvo as the boxy sensible estate car. It seems that they will never be able to shake off that image they gained during the 70's and 80's.

VolvoMan · 14-08-2009 3:47pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

True--but the point Im trying to make is that the components they share come from the same factory and same warehouse and yet the price differences are ridiculous.

You do have a point, but I suppose money has to be made somewhere.

Actually I have to argue with you over that one.
I was at a training course on the XC60 and Volvo told us it was being made in conjunction with Ford which was being released as the Kuga.
I think the Kuga is modeled on the Focus platform and the xc60 on the Mondeo/s80.The only reason they dont share an engine or so were told was that Ford didnt want to use a 2.5 petrol or diesel because the "Kuga wouldnt sell with too big an engine in it" And guess what--They were correct.I dont think we`ve sold one XC60 here.But we`ve sold a few Kugas and engine size was the deciding factor.

I thought the Kuga's relation to the Focus was like the VW Tiguan's relation to the Golf Plus, with the Kuga being similar to the C-Max. They both seem to share the same dashboards anyway.

Anyway, if you had bought an Autocar issue that was released about a year ago you would've see the development work that Volvo independently put in. I will agree with you on the relation between S80/V70 to the Mondeo, etc., but the XC60 was a genuine Volvo showcase of new safety technology that currently can't be found on any Ford produced today.

Saab Ed · 14-08-2009 3:51pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

.

Then theres the Spare parts side of things--Since we became Ford aswell I see the total rip off that Volvo are doing to the consumer.
Heres an example---Couple of weeks ago I was stuck for a rear trailing arm for a Volvo s40.Not available from Volvo so I took the part off and noticed a Ford part number on it.Typed it into Ecat and the price amazed me--I think it was 176.03 + vat from Volvo and 83+ vat from Ford for the same part.
Eveb for filters the price difference are stupid for the same part with the same part numbers on both.

Ah but they all do that. Even Citroen bits are cheaper than Peugeot bits. And I know from the Renault / Nissan / Opel van alliance that depending on how the stars lined up in the sky or something was the reasoning behind why from week to week one or the other was selling the same part at 3 different prices...go figure!!! You can bet that Skoda bits are cheaper than Audi bits and so on and so on.

Hellrazer · 14-08-2009 3:54pm

VolvoMan wrote: »

but the XC60 was a genuine Volvo showcase of new safety technology that currently can't be found on any Ford produced today.

That new showcase of technology probably accounts for the difference in price

biko · 14-08-2009 4:29pm

I don't see the reason to compare to BMW OP?
You think BMW rules the saloon segment?

No their fatal flaw is that they try to sell Fords at overinflated prices with a different badge on the front

...and so it descends into another platform thread.

Aye, but it's true - boring cars.

bazz26 · 14-08-2009 7:52pm

I recently bought a used 06 Volvo S40 for almost the same money as a simlar year Ford Focus. They are great value second hand, leather heated seats, 6 disc in dash cd changer, cruise control, dual zone climate control, etc. Hard to find this spec on a similar sized car for that money once you are ok with the restrictive rear leg room and boot access.

Incidently I had a Focus before it and both cars drive differently, the Focus drive is way sharper especially in the bends but the S40 is a quieter more refined cruiser due to better cabin/engine bay insulation. Having had experience of owning both cars my opinion is that while they share alot they do have different positive and negative attributes.

Volvos tend to suffer from terrible depreciation but as a second hand buy I think they are great and the fact that they are not all over the place is a nice bonus too.

Mr Benevolent · 14-08-2009 8:01pm

To be fair, a Focus that depreciates like a stone (aka a Volvo) is not a bad thing if you're intent on keeping it. I'd happily drive a Focus, but if I could get a luxury version for the same price I'd go for that. They just have that dull, leaden, Sunday-afternoon-and-you're-68 image. Oh well, I'd probably get over it. Maybe rebadge it as a Focus Titanium Plus or something. That'd confuse people

gibbon75 · 14-08-2009 8:21pm

Hellrazer,

My favourite is the price of the 1.8 S40/V50 alternator compared to the Ford one

maidhc · 14-08-2009 8:25pm

Having just bought a driveshaft for a focus alternator @ €190 i dread to think...

pred racer · 14-08-2009 11:15pm

gibbon75 wrote: »

Hellrazer,

My favourite is the price of the 1.8 S40/V50 alternator compared to the Ford one

and the price is???

gibbon75 · 15-08-2009 12:14am

Volvo is around 330-350 + VAT (used to be around 460,but Volvo dropped the price last week

)
Ford is 155-160 + VAT :rolleyes:

The exact same alternator made by Denso.

AugustusMaximus · 15-08-2009 12:29am

How can people say the S40 and the Focus is the same car.

They don't share much. The floorpan and prob other small parts that truth be told, won't affect the quality of the car that much.

gibbon75 · 15-08-2009 11:02am

They use the same engine,gearbox,electronics,steering,suspension,brakes.
So that leaves you with the body and the interior being different...

Saab Ed · 15-08-2009 11:13am

gibbon75 wrote: »

They use the same engine,gearbox,electronics,steering,suspension,brakes.
So that leaves you with the body and the interior being different...

Ah look lads everybody has a head , shoulders , arms and legs but we're not all the same. Houses all have windows and doors but they're all different too. So the component parts you cant see are the same , fact is the S40 and Focus are totally different cars. They drive completely different, they look completely different , they are completely different. An Audi TT shares it engines are flooplan with a Seat Leon....Are they the same!!!

Rosser · 15-08-2009 11:24am

gibbon75 wrote: »

They use the same engine,gearbox,electronics,steering,suspension,brakes.
So that leaves you with the body and the interior being different...

and the Focus is one of the best mass production cars of the past 20 years so that's not a bad start now is it ?

Zonda999 · 15-08-2009 11:29am

I'm sure most people on this forum would agree that the s40 is a fine car. A few regular posters have them. To be fair, for a car that is based on a focus, it is remarkably different and most people who dont know about cars would be none the wiser. Anyway, the first gen S40 was based on a Mitsubishi Carisma so a Focus base is a decent step up!:)

road_high · 15-08-2009 12:45pm

I have a 2005 S40 1.6 D, I really think they are a nice car, could have had a320 or A4 with bit higher mileage/slightly older but choose the S40.
The spec won me over at the time, as well as the running costs, and think the car is very neatly styled indeed. People are always admiring it at work and that. I think the size is very good and just right for me.
The interior is nothing fancy, but is very well laid out, simple and functional. In a word, very Swedish I guess.
Their reliability record appears good too.

itarumaa · 15-08-2009 3:47pm

Zonda999 wrote: »

Anyway, the first gen S40 was based on a Mitsubishi Carisma so a Focus base is a decent step up!:)

I own a 98" Volvo S40, I think it is a nice car, way more interesting than Carisma, only problem is that it does not actually have a suspension, when I drive in the back roads the cd player has tough job to stay in the right track:)

ninty9er · 15-08-2009 4:05pm

Saab Ed wrote: »

Ah look lads everybody has a head , shoulders , arms and legs but we're not all the same.

But ours weren't made in the same factory (so to speak);)

This is nothing against Volvo. 20 years ago an 850 was the same size as a 5 series. The S70 that replaced it was at the time too...the S80 replaced that at the same "general" size, whereas the moves in the car industry over the last 20 years have seen a situation where a Yaris is now bigger than the original Corolla and a Corolla is the same size as a Carina II.

While everyone else has been gaining weight, Volvo have maintained the diet.

gibbon75 · 15-08-2009 7:55pm

Rosser wrote: »

and the Focus is one of the best mass production cars of the past 20 years so that's not a bad start now is it ?

I didn't say that's a bad thing (my daily driver is a MK3 Mondeo).
As I deal with these cars every day (so as Hellrazer),I can't see how does a different bodyshape justifiy the hefty price difference.
Just see my previous post about the alternator,or Hellrazer's about the suspension arm.

gibbon75 · 15-08-2009 7:55pm

Saab Ed wrote: »

An Audi TT shares it engines are flooplan with a Seat Leon....Are they the same!!!

The Seat is better

Max_Damage · 15-08-2009 8:49pm

Bring back the boxy old Volvo's that were built like tanks!

Now they were proper cars.

Although leave out the 340, they were shíte!

JHMEG · 15-08-2009 8:57pm

itarumaa wrote: »

I own a 98" Volvo S40

That's a good bit smaller than the standard one.

ninty9er · 15-08-2009 9:01pm

JHMEG wrote: »

That's a good bit smaller than the standard one.

:D:D

Well spotted. Missed that.

VolvoMan · 15-08-2009 11:38pm

ninty9er wrote: »

But ours weren't made in the same factory (so to speak);)

You don't mean the cars in general do you? Because Volvo's are still produced in the same factories in Ghent in Belgium and various locations in Sweden.

This is nothing against Volvo. 20 years ago an 850 was the same size as a 5 series. The S70 that replaced it was at the time too...the S80 replaced that at the same "general" size, whereas the moves in the car industry over the last 20 years have seen a situation where a Yaris is now bigger than the original Corolla and a Corolla is the same size as a Carina II.

The 850 is a hard one to understand regarding its market position. It was 3 Series rival in some ways, yet nearly bigger than a 5 Series.

When Volvo's range started to become confusing was when the 700 Series came about in 1982 as an intended replacement for the 200, with the smaller 300 Series already being in production at that stage. The 200 remained in production for just over a decade more, as it was still selling well and was offered as a cheaper alternative to the 700 in the range, a sort of similar situation to the SAAB 900 and 9000.

At the start of the 90's the 700 Series was revised and renamed the 900, so technically it can be said that the older car outlived the newer one. Then in 1992 the 850 arrived as a replacement for the then ancient 200 Series, with the 400 Series being the smaller Volvo at the time. The 440/460 were replaced in 1996 by the S40/V40 and the 850 was revised, becoming the S70/V70 and lasting until 2000 when replaced by the V70 and S60 in succession. The 900 Series, with 6 cylinder models later having became S90/V90, was replaced in 1998 by the S80.

The above is my best attempt at what is a somewhat long-winded and confusing explanation of how Volvo's range became such a mess today. I know it is a bit baffling but I don't think I can narrow it down any more. I hope it has given people a better understand of the range at least.

alexmcred · 16-08-2009 12:51am

I think the current s40 is a great looking car espescially in R format also the xc60 looks good imho

Big Nasty · 16-08-2009 1:18am

To me I always considered Volvo in the same category as Audi - slightly above your average Ford, VW, Toyota but below Merc / BMW Prestige. Audi changed all that in the 90's when they introduced the A-series cars and pushed themselves into the prestige bracket. It's taken Volvo a long time to catch up but over the last few years they have become a lot more 'sexy'. Volvo would have never been a consideration for me before but I would quite happily drive an S80 these days.

Volvo's fatal flaw

Comments