Ford Is Selling Volvo !!!

Porsche - smaller
amount of high quality cars made the right way.

Yeah but Porsche parts cost like hell. $$$$$$$

If Ford has any sense they will leave the building of good cars to the
Volvo Engineers.

The day I find a dashboard control equivalent on a Volvo to a Ford, I will
quit them for good.

FYI

 

Well not exactly. I just returned from visiting several auto manufacturing
facilities in Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium, Sweden, and Shanghai. All of
the facilities use modern assembly methods and look like they can turn out
cars at about the same rate. Production, however was not flowing in a few
locations. The demand for certain cars is down. There is discussion in some
facilities of seeking alternate automotive products to manufacture.

Which brings me to the Subject topic.

Word is out in automotive circles that Ford is not happy with Volvo sales
and is not sure what to do about it. The dominant belief is that Ford wants
to sell Volvo. Some also say that the original Volvo Group is considering
buying Volvo (cars) back with some backing from the Swedish government and
also possibly oil money from Norway. This is just a rumor - but it I heard
it from several disconnected sources.

Is this new news - or is it well known?

 

God I truly hope so. Volvo should turn into another Porsche - smaller
amount of high quality cars made the right way.

 

I have no idea whether Ford wants to sell Volvo or not, but your facts about
sales are wrong. You stated in your opening paragraph that Volvo sales
are down. For the first half of 2003 (the last figures that I have access
to), Volvo sales in the US was 23.8% higher than the same period of 2002.
The figures for Canada was 12.5%

However, in the long run I anticipate that Volvo sales will dip perhaps by
the end of 2006, as consumers recognize the Focus-based S40 for the TPOS
that it will turn out to be. Unfortunately this will have a negative effect
on the other models.

 

This rumour pops up from time to time.

Volvo Cars sales, esp the XC90, and profit margins are very good.
Volvo is actually the only company in the group that turns a profit
right now.

Fords other brands in their PAG (Premium Automotive Group which
consist of Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo) are using
Volvos expertice and safety research facilities.

The companies in the PAG are also developing a common platform
together, that the next generation SUV and premium cars will be built
on.

Volvos integration in the Ford group has been very successful, and
Volvo have expertise in areas that other Ford group companies benefit
from. There is no signs that Ford is planning to sell Volvo.

However, if you look at manufacturing some Volvo factories may very
well be sold. Ford wants to cut production costs, and one way is of
course to assemble their different car-brands in the same factories.
/Patrik

 

GO BACK TO REAR WHEEL DRIVE as the only people who say FWD is any good are
the guys selling the darn things as wheel as the spare parts guys .The
latest Volvo looks so much like any other auto .

 

"God I truly hope so. Volvo should turn into another Porsche -
smaller
amount of high quality cars made the right way."

Ditto!!!! Our S60 is such an awful example of a car, let alone a
Volvo. After years of driving Volvo, we are being pushed away by a
philosophy of putting fluff over value, quality, and safety - typical
of so many manufacturers these days. Very sad state within Volvo.
They are enjoying high sales now, but that has a lot to do with the
SUV and the R's, not the mainstay they used to produce.

 

You are quite right in that the Volvo doesn't look like a box any more.
The 850 was the first Volvo since the P1800/1800E/1800ES that was
considered to be styled better than a shoe box. They were mighty sturdy
and reliable shoe boxes, but boxes they were. At least now they have a
chance of getting some aerodynamic efficiency, much more than the
previous shoe box Volvos. And the aerodynamic efficiency of the non-XC
models has proven to be quite high. They have more power and use less
fuel. That is a good combination.

Regarding RWD, I wouldn't go back. The old Volvo RWD models were the
only vehicles in their class that didn't go to independant suspension.
I guess that is why they had so much body roll and their cornering was
never very good. I am very pleased with the FWD and AWD models. They
are a giant step forward.

 

Exactly. Consider that a S60 is about the same price as a base
Boxter. It need not be a handmade luxury car, but it shouldn't be
a rebadged Japanese car either.

 

The things is, a shoe box will save your life while the supper dupper
aerodynamic fuel efficient car will kill you. Bigger (physically
speaking) vehicles are more safe than smaller vehicles. There's
plenty of data around you can search for to demonstrate that fact.

I prefer a shoe box, if this is what it takes to have personality. I
don't need to drive a car that looks like a mazda, a nissan, a KIA, a
honda, etc. .

True luxury cars are RWD. And I won't drive a FWD. I'm doing darn
well with RWD no matter the road conditions. Plus RWD offers better
weight distribution.

To each his own.

 

Further to my previous post:

"Bigger is safer

"A vehicle's size and weight are two of its most important safety
features. Small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each
year as large cars, in relation to their numbers on the road,
according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). And
collision injuries consistently decrease as vehicle size increases.

"One reason: Most new cars have one-piece, or unibody, construction,
with built-in crush zones that fold up like an accordion in a crash.
These crush zones are designed to absorb crash forces before they
reach the driver and passenger. The larger the crush zones, the lower
the crash forces that reach the inside of the vehicle. Translation:
Bigger cars are safer cars.

"With the increasing popularity of sport utility vehicles and pickups,
the average weight of vehicles on the road is increasing these days.
That makes lighter and smaller vehicles even more vulnerable in
multi-vehicle crashes. (Note, however, that sport utilities are twice
as likely to have rolled over than cars in fatal crashes, according to
the NHTSA.)


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BUZ/1999_Annual/56203065/p2/article.jhtml?term=


This is not the document I recently read. But in the one I read
(which I cannot find right now), you could clearly see that size
matters. In fact, the pick-up truck like the Ford F-150 had among the
smallest number of deaths.

 

I drive a RWD Volvo, ummm, its terrible in snow. TERRIBLE!! I got stuck near my sister's
house, went to her place, got her 850 FWD out, and PULLED OUT MY 760!!!!

4WD is a better option, or AWD, not just RWD. Look at Audi, (Audi Canada doesn't sell FWD
cars here, do they even still make a FWD car?)

 

The later 760 (1988) had rear independent suspension.

 

The new Volvo's are safer/as safe cars as the old ones were, due to modern
technology.

I think the V70 is a gorgeous car, tho... yea.... I think I prefer the old
1993 965 tho, the interior in in, considering its age is damn impressive
even now... and the exterior is holding up like it's been in a showroom all
its life.

About RWD handling...... I've cornered the 960 doing 80ish around an
intersection.... from turning lane, to the left lane (well the ass end was
in the right lane)... but the car felt very much stable and in control...
with a front wheel drive the car would have been in the bushes. It's been
proven that RWD are better in emergency situations, even better then AWD
cars, just because an AWD will still understeer... whereas controlled
oversteer can be very usefull.... and you have FULL traction at the front
wheels to turn/brake with.

 

Yes they make FWD.... and I believe you can still get a FWD A4, and A6 in
Canada, or at least you could a few years ago (I follow VW, as we have two
in addition to the Volvo, but I don't follow Audi as much, too much $)

Our 960 isn't too bad with snow tires... Most important the car STOPS in the
snow... but yes it can fishtail if the 200 horsepower have there say in
things... but still, even if the rear end slides there is good control on
the wheels that are doing the steering. - if you can't make it in a rear
drive, you really shouldn't be going out anyways, a rear drive car has as
much cornering/braking grip ;-).

 

I agree.

You have that problem because the 760 have too much weight on the front
wheels as the engine is too heavy and the wheight balance is disturbed.
Put some wheight into the trunk, (50 - 100 Kg, You must experiment a
little) and the car will fly thru the snow...(almost)

Hah! My -69 Amazon is almost as good in the snow as those really heavy
Audi's, but then I have an anti-spin rear axle. I feel that the Amazon is
best
wintercar, "she" have excellent wheight balance, not too heavy, not too
light,
the wheelbase is perfect to the wheight and lenght of the car, and she have
a pretty small steeringcircle also. But even an 245 with the right
suspension
and dampers isn't that bad. Much better than any Ford Sierra, Mondeo,
Opel or any Japcrap with independet suspension. I think that the worst
wintercar ever is the Ford Granada (or maybe the Ford Taunus was even
worse), and the Granada had independent suspension.
But then, I live in Norway, and maybe our bad roads make us best at
driving with tractors?

Have a nice weekend!

 

I disagree. Volvo sales are leading Ford's premier auto group, way ahead of
Jaguar - X-types are not selling well at all.

The S60s and XC90s are doing very well, Volvo bumped up production of the
XC90 to meet extra demand in the US. In fact, a V8 version is on the way,
probably to power the S80 too.

Ford paid a bundle for Volvo and it would look foolish to bail. If it were,
it would have sold Jaguar long ago, since it was never a volume capable
company, ever. Volvo group did not have the resources to develop the
products it needed to stay competitive. Ford gives it those resources.
Besides, two new Ford models are using Volvo platforms - the 500 and the
Freestyle, I believe.

Ford is shutting down current S40/V40 production because the platform is
shared with a Mitsubishi - DaimlerChrysler. Ford does not want to build
cars with the competition only an hour up the road.

Ford has its new platform for the European Focus, Mazda3 and Volvo S40/V50
ready to go.

I though I saw that Volvo had one of its best years, if not the best, last
year. I would check Google news for that info.

At any rate, if Volvo Group bought Vovlo back, it would mark the death nell
for the company. It takes huge resources to develop new models, especially
with the new pedestrian impact standards in the EU for 2005. Volvo Group
would have to hit a home run with every new product, and like 850 saved
Volvo before, Volvo without Ford would be one miss from going away.

At least Volvo is helping Ford with safety testing and development. Saab
and GM is another story. Look at what Saab is getting from GM - a subaru
WRX rebadged and a Chevy Trailblazer rebadged! I'm not talking about a
platform, the whole vehicle.

Ford has shown it will not give up on a marque, look at the work and money
poured into Jag and Aston Martin.

I think Ford and Volvo will continue to live long and prosper, especially if
the Swedes stay determined to be as independent as possible. It helps that
Volvos are selling, sending that cash back to Dearborn.

Anyhoo, that's my 2 cents.

 

Exactly I agree with you 100%, i'm not afraid of Ford owning them... The new
S40 is built on a brand new chassis shared with Ford and Mazda, I swear some
people here think of the old Focus too much when they hear it's based on the
new one, and the old focus has a decent frame... its the rest of the car
that had issues, and apparantly the european ones weren't too bad at all.
The Mazda 3 is already out and tested, it's one of the most respected small
cars on the market (tho i'd still buy a Golf or Jetta over one, because I am
a Volvo/VW guy... two of the most die hard fans probably).

Ford is learning things about building cars, they are using the P2 frame to
make three cars actually, the 500, the Freestyle, and a Mercury model for
the US only. I am glad that people who want to "buy American" might be able
to get a good car.

When I saw was GM did to SAAB at this 2004 Toronto autoshow I was upset, the
9-2 is a joke... If I wanted a shitty Subaru i'd buy one.

The only bad thing about Ford owning Volvo is that Ford has its own
financial issues... oh well, doesn't everybody these days... Government will
probably bail them out if they get in too deep.

 

Sounds good to me. I liked Volvo when they were all about long product life
cycles, rock solid engineering and sturdy construction. The "New"
trend-chasing Volvo is a real turn off and there is less and less which
truely distinguishes Volvo as a brand any more.

Personally I think they made a huge mistake joining the front wheel drive
bandwagon. In all fairness that happened before the Ford marriage.

I don't really see what Ford gets out of owning Volvo. Ford has let it's
Lincoln and Mercury so called premium car brands really languish while they
chase dreams with Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin.

Let each go their own way!

John

 

But weren't Volvo '02 sales down quite a bit, which makes '03 at best
getting back on par?

John