Questions About Volvo's US Sales

So many cars; so many choices!!! I'm researching different makes as
possible car replacements for my Volkswagen. Volvo is one brand on my
short list. I noticed that Volvo's US sales dropped some 11% in 2005 over
2004, and that they're not off to a good start this year, either; -12.5%
Jan '06 from Jan '05....Is this an ongoing drop that has been happening
for awhile, or is this a fluke? Volkswagen of America dropped 4 years in a
row, but now they're finally going back up. I've heard many good things
about Volvos; i.e, they will last forever. Are they expensive to maintain?
I've heard that they are a profitable brand for Ford Motor Company. I have
noticed that every other semi-truck on the Interstates are Volvos. Why are
they owned by Ford? Were they in trouble at one time? I can't seem to find
the information I'm looking for about Volvo. Can anyone answer some of
these questions?

 

Ford bought Volvo's car division for $6.5 billion about 7 or 8 years ago.
Volvo continues to build construction equipment, marine power drives,
standby power generators, air craft jet engines, and trucks. It is one of
the world's largest truck builders. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
automobiles today.

I own a 2001 Volvo S80. It's not very good.

Pat

 

I bought a new 1996 850 Turbo in late '95 snd was highly dissatifisfied
with it. Lousy handling, unfixable rattles, high price.

I soon sold it, and did what I should have done: bought and restored an
'82 244 Turbo: nice car, very happy with it.

Both Volvo and Saab have committed suicide so far as I am concerned by
becoming part of an American company.

Saab in particular, but Volvo, or "Fjord" as I call it, is imploding
too.

If you've looking for a new car with sporting pretensions and good
quality, I'd consider Audi (the new A3 seems a good deal) and Acura
(particularly the TSX).

 

Gee, by your reasoning, every Chrysler is really a Mercedes. Of course
Volvo still makes cars. there is some sharing of technology between Ford and
Volvo, but Volvos are still Volvos. It's not like Ford fired all of Volvo's
workers and brought in UAW labor from Detroit.
To help Sills out- I bought an '05 S40 T5 and absolutely love it. The only
pricey maintenance issue is that is uses synthetic oil. I would, however,
stay away from pre '07 S80s since those particular cars seem to be earning a
less than stellar reputation. I can't speak to the sales issue, but I do
know that sales are cyclical.

 

No. by the reasoning stated
Mercedes is really a Chrysler
Volvo is really a Ford
Saab is really a Chevy

The idea of the Corps was to save cost. So the lowest common denominator
wins. .

Howard
Owner of both Fords and Volvos

Of course

 

The S60 and V70 and S80 are all getting a little older now... S80 is being
replaced for 2007, S60 and V70 probably a year or so after... The S40 was
just recently re-done, and seems to be doing well... their SUV got a new V8
and sales of that derivative are suppose to be climbing.

Their cars are long lasting... but the new ones are more complex then the
older ones... but all new cars are more freakin complex then older ones, I
don't get why people are so scared of this fact. In the 70s and 80s cars got
way more complex then 50s and 60s cars... Its evolution.... They are rated
better for reliability then most other European makes, major issues are
software related.

They are, in general more boring to drive then German cars, but they ride
better over bad pavement, and they handle competantly, compared to a lot of
other cars out there... You don't see too many Volvo's screaming down the
highway, or with their tail ends hanging out around corners... but it's more
because the owner group is more mature and the cars don't beg to be driven
hard.

They aren't that expensive to maintain (but you will pay for the high
quality parts in the way of H or V rated replacement tires, brake pads, and
possibly synthetic oil in the turbo models)... actually cheaper then a lot
of other Euro brands tho... Your VW was costly for what it was... I know I
had a 1999.5 Golf TDI, very expensive to maintain... My parents' have a 1993
960 wagon with 170K Kms on it.... it's been comparatively cheap to operate.

Volvo trucks are a separate entity

Volvo was bought by Ford because they (Ford) thought it was a good idea,
Volvo was profitable, and are still making a profit... they also had a brand
new chassis (P2) and excellent engine ranges (that Ford isn't really using
right now)... Volvo was lacking funds to develop as quickly as they wanted
and needed to... but was doing alright on its own.

Volvo has an agreement in their contract with Ford, that basically states
that Volvo's will always be Volvos... I think that means they will run the
company the way they see fit, and build the cars they want to build.

 

Volvo is now using Mazda technology, thanks to pollination by big daddy
Fomoco.

Saab sells rebadged Chevys and Subarus.

About the only thing of decent quality made in Scandinavia these days
are anti-Islam cartoons.

 

How nice for you.

I'm having trouble understanding your opening paragraph though, about
Chryslers and M-B's. I made no reference to either brand. If you're trying
to draw a link between my dissatisfaction with my 2001 S80 and the fact that
Volvo was bought by Ford in 1999 and that there is cross-pollinization at
work that takes "bad" Ford ju-ju and sprinkles it on the precious Volvo
product, that's specious. The S80 was designed before Ford entered the
picture. Ford had very little if anything to do with my car.

To expand on my dissatisfaction - part of it stems from the poorly designed
and built car, but most of it stems from the incompetent dolts who work at
the two Volvo dealerships I've dealt with.

Pat

 

I can't answer all your questions but I can say I am the owner of a 2000 S80
T-6 that has been nearly flawless since new. I did have one small "aspirator
fan" replaced under warrantee during it's 7,500 mile service and a strut
lost it's dampening after I rallied the car over some really rough roads at
high speeds but, other than those two things, nothing but scheduled
maintenance. IMHO it's a tough, well designed car. And the chassis is really
strong and rigid unlike it's American designed counterparts.

Spanky

 

For the S40 chassis, Mazda mainly concentrated on the business end of
things - getting suppliers, making sure it could be produced in a timely
fashion, efficiency etc...

Ford worked on the suspension

Volvo did the main work on the crashworthyness and the structural stuff....

Volvo's are still great cars, you don't like em' drive something else.

 

Thanks for all the responses. The inept dealer service that Pat mentioned
with his Volvo is a very commom problem with Volkswagen, although my local
VW dealer is top-notch. I love VW's, but I am very interested in the S40,
which has styling that many potential Jetta buyers feel should have been
used by VW. Instead, the New Jetta has been criticized for resembling a
Toyota Corolla. Another downside to VW's is that they are very expensive
IMO to maintain; about $1000/year, not including oil changes. Then again,
I could just be living in the past, but I had a 1986 Ford Escort that cost
about a fifth of that per year. (But that was 20 years ago when Labor rates
were $35 an hour, too......)