How has Ford helped/hurt Volvo

[1Lieutenant]

Every now and then I see comments (mostly negative) on how Ford has 'cheapened, hurt, etc' the Volvo name. I would really like to see specific examples....positive or negative.

I will start with initial quality control. I have seen a distinct improvement since Ford became involved. I have owned a 1987 245 GL, 1989 745 GLE, 1999 XC, 2002 XC and now a 2005 XC. The 2002 and 2005 XC have been the absolute BEST Volvos I have owned in terms of initial quality and long term reliability. The 1999 XC was the absolute worst.

Big improvements:
1. Brakes. I no longer replace at 10-15K intervals.
2. Electrical. Far fewer glitches, bulb replacement, electrical socket replacements.

So far I do not see a downside.

Steve

[littlewaywelt]

As I understand it, RSC Roll Stability Control was a product of Ford. Teh development timing was such that it ended up in the XC90 before being able to go into any Ford vehicles.

That's a pretty substantial safety system.

[philosophicaldreamer]

Every now and then I see comments (mostly negative) on how Ford has 'cheapened, hurt, etc' the Volvo name. I would really like to see specific examples....positive or negative.

I will start with initial quality control. I have seen a distinct improvement since Ford became involved. I have owned a 1987 245 GL, 1989 745 GLE, 1999 XC, 2002 XC and now a 2005 XC. The 2002 and 2005 XC have been the absolute BEST Volvos I have owned in terms of initial quality and long term reliability. The 1999 XC was the absolute worst.

Big improvements:
1. Brakes. I no longer replace at 10-15K intervals.
2. Electrical. Far fewer glitches, bulb replacement, electrical socket replacements.

So far I do not see a downside.

Steve


There is no doubt in my mind that my XC70 has been the most reliable Volvo I have owned. Some people talk about 240s as though they were the most reliable Volvos, but after owning one I have no doubt that newer Volvos are much more reliable; and I used to own a 960 and a V90 Volvos, which used to be considered to be Volvos to avoid, and they still were much better than 240.

Ta-ta, janusz

[Hozer]

I must disagree. My 240's were boring but built like rocks. My XC70 2001 is beautiful and exciting but expensive to maintain like a young mistress. [pico] :eek:

[Willy]

I am not so sure that there is a big difference in the reliabilty of the various Volvo models.
Knowing the upgrades and changes in the XC70, this aspect has to be taken into account when judging the reliability of any given model.
First production year(s) will certainly be found to have more difficulties.
Willy

[XCSwedie]

Bouncing off Hozer's idea, I tell this to my son all the time-

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with high maintenance women [cars]; they just have to be worth it."

The XC70 is similar. Would I rather have a nice driving, suberbly safe, comfortable, luxurious, all-weather vehicle at the expense of a problem or two, or a boring Honda/Toyota/etc that never has a problem???

Keep in mind my XC has treated me EXCEPTIONALLY!!!

[CTXC70]

Just, think what we would have to talk about….

Everyone says the want the reliability of a Camry but how many car enthusiasts drive Camry’s?

Not that there is anything wrong with that….

At the end of the day I own a Ford Mustang Cobra, XC70, and a S60 AWD.

I like working on cars and I find the engineering of these cars to be interesting. I mean have you looked at the old vs. new engine mount, very interesting solution.

These cars are unique and have many characteristics that we love and some that we hate.

So how has Ford hurt Volvo, it hasn’t because at the end of the day all our cars are sourced from suppliers of components and with global expansions it is arrogant to think that the proven concepts from on company will not find there way into another division, it’s called best practices. Just think how many companies suffer from the not invented here mentality. Ford is not all bad and Volvo is not all good, the just happen to both make cars.

[birddog]

Just, think what we would have to talk about….

Everyone says the want the reliability of a Camry but how many car enthusiasts drive Camry’s?

Not that there is anything wrong with that….

These cars are unique and have many characteristics that we love and some that we hate.

So how has Ford hurt Volvo, it hasn’t because at the end of the day all our cars are sourced from suppliers of components and with global expansions it is arrogant to think that the proven concepts from on company will not find there way into another division, it’s called best practices. Just think how many companies suffer from the not invented here mentality. Ford is not all bad and Volvo is not all good, the just happen to both make cars.


Well said, you!

I don't think I am in a position to compare the difference since Ford's takeover. Our XC is a MY'01. We've driven Volvos since 1974 and have found most of them to be very giving cars. I feel the XC has become my favourite yet. So many more bells and whistles than any other Volvos we've owned. I do miss the utilitarian, indestructable feel of the older models because this one cost so much more and is trickier to tinker with. That's why I still have the 245 (to pacify my need to tinker). ;)

[Edmonds17]

I must respectfully disagree with several of the posters on this thread. Ford has, in fact, damaged Volvo. The damage is severe and gets worse every day.

The best illustration of the damage is the ETM defect in post '99 Volvo XC cars. The engine dies unexpectedly somewhere over 50,000 mi. Must be towed or limp-in to a Volvo dealership. (May be hundreds of miles.) Repair cost is about $1,000. Dealer puts in another defective ETM and the poor owner waits to be stranded again. Volvo (now owned by Ford) has refused to recall, re-design, and fix this defect. Class action defendant in California. NHTSA is now investigating to determine if a safety recall should be mandated by the Federal government.

This is not conduct that Volvo (pre-Ford) would have tolerated. I believe Volvo (pre-Ford) would have tested the cars better, would have recalled and fixed the defect, and would not install new ETM's with the defect. Unfortunately, Ford takes a different view. Nothing will be done unless NHTSA mandates a safety recall. Volvo (post-Ford) will do only the bare minimum.

Owners of defective '99-01 XC's are left driving defective Volvo cars unless NHTSA mandates a recall. (Post '01 Volvo cars are equipped with Bosch ETM's. It is not known if these have the same high defect rate.) Many '99-01 owners have given up on Volvo, warned their friends, sold their Volvo and moved on to other brands.

Volvo now lives off their safety image while advertising looks and performance. Volvo wants to be the "next" BMW. Sad.

Edmonds17

[philosophicaldreamer]

I must respectfully disagree with several of the posters on this thread. Ford has, in fact, damaged Volvo. The damage is severe and gets worse every day.

The best illustration of the damage is the ETM defect in post '99 Volvo XC cars. The engine dies unexpectedly somewhere over 50,000 mi. Must be towed or limp-in to a Volvo dealership. (May be hundreds of miles.) Repair cost is about $1,000. Dealer puts in another defective ETM and the poor owner waits to be stranded again. Volvo (now owned by Ford) has refused to recall, re-design, and fix this defect. Class action defendant in California. NHTSA is now investigating to determine if a safety recall should be mandated by the Federal government.

This is not conduct that Volvo (pre-Ford) would have tolerated. I believe Volvo (pre-Ford) would have tested the cars better, would have recalled and fixed the defect, and would not install new ETM's with the defect. Unfortunately, Ford takes a different view. Nothing will be done unless NHTSA mandates a safety recall. Volvo (post-Ford) will do only the bare minimum.

Owners of defective '99-01 XC's are left driving defective Volvo cars unless NHTSA mandates a recall. (Post '01 Volvo cars are equipped with Bosch ETM's. It is not known if these have the same high defect rate.) Many '99-01 owners have given up on Volvo, warned their friends, sold their Volvo and moved on to other brands. Edmonds17

I'll agree with you that the way Volvo has handled ETM issue is pathetic. I know that when my ETM fails, I am going to be MAD!!! It is an expensive part that should not fail the way it has been. As much as I love Volvos, the ETM is one of those dark spots on Volvos reputation. Having said this, I will venture to say that we tend to see past through rosy glasses. When I had my 1984 245 Volvo, the big issue was the quality of the wire harness used on those cars. I grant you the part was not as expensive as ETM and they tended to last about ten years. But the fact was that they would fail unexpectedly unless you were quite vigilant in attending to the issue. Not talking about the air conditioning units on those Volvos. I could count on the fingers of my left hand the number of 240 Volvos in which air conditioning worked as it should. I still think that my old 240 as great car it was could not stand the competition with my XC. Forget all the changes in engine and body. Just the seats beat the old 240 seats hands down.

Ta-ta, janusz

[CTXC70]

OK let me give you me experience with Ford, not that they are saints, they are not.

I purchase a 1999 Ford Mustang Cobra new in March of 1999. Now BB’s like this were coming into their own and there was all this commotion about how the cars we not living up to there advertised horse power, one of the key selling factors. Now did this suck to be an owner of such a limited production car with this kind off issue widely known in the car community, yes it did.

So what did Ford do?

A. Ignore the problem and tell their customers that it was an isolated incident?
B. Offer to cover the repairs of anyone who complained about the problem
C. Issue a complete model recall where the replaced the intake and exhaust system to bring the cars up to their advertised hp ratting.

The answer is C. The made the correction and the Ford dealer that made the repair authorized a dyno at a local speed shop to prove that the car was right.

So let me ask you this what has Volvo done to hurt Ford, after all they know about the ETM problem before the released the cars into production as stated by the 1998 memo.

Perhaps the Volvo experience that everyone seems to pine for is based on a set of expectations that would get laughed at in today’s luxury car market. And as consumers we all want Camry’s without actually driving one.

Look I am not looking to start a fight but let be real about our expectations and I feel it is a little unfair to look to hang Ford for all of Volvo’s misgivings.

I mean for God sake the original ETM was made by Fiat, need I say more.

[philosophicaldreamer]

[QUOTE=CTXC70]
Perhaps the Volvo experience that everyone seems to pine for is based on a set of expectations that would get laughed at in today’s luxury car market. And as consumers we all want Camry’s without actually driving one.[QUOTE]

Please, let me state this as boldly as I can: I WILL TAKE A VOLVO WITH A DEFECTIVE ETM than a perfectly working Camry :D Nothing kills joy of driving for me than uncomfortable bordom. Heck, I will take my wife's Saab any day over a brand new Camry--but this is me. :)

Ta-ta, janusz

[1Lieutenant]

I could be wrong, but it seems that the defective ETM was a Volvo design and started going bad before Ford took over. Not to say that Ford shouldn't have 'fessed up' and done the right thing, but Volvo wasn't forthcoming either.

Steve

[Jack]

Not really related but I offer this for those who like to look for patterns (real or imagined) in the world.

We have a 1995 Saab 900S that we've owned since new. Decent car and reasonably reliable. At the time GM owned about 50% of Saab. A short while into our ownership Saab decides it needs several parts of the front suspension replaced under a voluntary campaign. I don't think the government was involved at all, they just made an engineering change and retrofitted it to all the previously sold vehicles.

Fast forward to 2001 and my 9-5 wagon. GM now owns all of Saab. Direct Ignition Cassettes, the module of 4 coils and electronics that mounts directly to the spark plugs, shows an unusual tendancy to fail with a wisp of smoke and an immediately dead vehicle. Usually in traffic, without warning, and with no 'limp home' mode (or power brakes & steering) available. Mine failed at 15K miles after about a year of ownership, while the wife was doing 65 in traffic on the Interstate.

Saab owners started carrying extra DIC's in the trunk just waiting for the next one to fail. It is an easy 10 minute fix if you have an extra or a long weekend if it fails on your road trip through Montana and you don't. Unfortunately they cost $300-$500, better than an ETM but still. Saab has maintained that there is nothing wrong. They've updated some software but have generally been uncooperative. Finally, a couple weeks ago, they reached an agreement with NHTSA to replace them on selected model year cars.

I still have my 900S (with conventional ignition). The 9-5 was returned at the end of lease the same day I took delivery on my XC70.

[Edmonds17]

Saab's problems and how GM handled it is very interesting. GM has not had a quality reputation for decades. It may well be that we in the United States need to strengthen our laws and regulations regarding defective vehicles.

My point is that Volvo used to have an impeccable reputation for building safe and reliable cars. Volvo championed safety and reliability long before it was fashionable, i.e. remember the car shows where Volvo had 5 or 6 Volvo 144 sedans stacked on top of each other to demonstrate structural rigidity; how about equipping their Volvos with 3-point seatbelt long before they became manadatory.

I'd like to think that Volvo would still build safe and reliable cars but for their current ownership by Ford. Maybe Volvo is, in fact, as bad as Ford. I don't know. What I do know is that Volvo (now owned by Ford) is rapidly destroying the goodwill that Volvo enjoyed as an independent company. I blame this on Ford, i.e. No ETM recall unless NHTSA mandates it. Sad.

Edmonds17

[littlewaywelt]

Saab's problems and how GM handled it is very interesting. GM has not had a quality reputation for decades. It may well be that we in the United States need to strengthen our laws and regulations regarding defective vehicles.

My point is that Volvo used to have an impeccable reputation for building safe and reliable cars. Volvo championed safety and reliability long before it was fashionable, i.e. remember the car shows where Volvo had 5 or 6 Volvo 144 sedans stacked on top of each other to demonstrate structural rigidity; how about equipping their Volvos with 3-point seatbelt long before they became manadatory.

I'd like to think that Volvo would still build safe and reliable cars but for their current ownership by Ford. Maybe Volvo is, in fact, as bad as Ford. I don't know. What I do know is that Volvo (now owned by Ford) is rapidly destroying the goodwill that Volvo enjoyed as an independent company. I blame this on Ford, i.e. No ETM recall unless NHTSA mandates it. Sad.

Edmonds17
Our regulatory laws in this area have no teeth. Not even dentures. Volvo had a "problem" where they weren't providing the gvt with notices of defects as required. They got a small fine. There is no incentive for the auto companies to be responsible to anyone other than ownership/stockholders. Volvo For Life is total BS marketing and branding.

[edwa]

Sorry for the stupid question but what is the ETM? I did a forum search but came up empty handed

[John@CdnRockies]

Edwa, there's no such thing as a stupid question as we have all asked them ourselves.:o

ETM stands for "electronic throttle module". Try a search and you will come up with pages of references to this pricey device which seems prone to failure.

John

[howardc64]

Benefits and drawbacks probably depends on which person's view. Lets start with 2 cars that maybe directly related to the Fords merger

XC90
S/V50

XC90 is a premium European SUV with 7 passenger seating in the North American market. For those who likes this car, not sure if they would have it without Ford's direction. Certainly the V8 came from the Ford SHO lineage.

S/V50 is from the common architecture from new Focus + Mazda 3. For those who likes this car, it seems to be a benefit from Ford merger.

Repair cost seems to be directly proportional to the price segment of the car. Even in Japanese brands, Acura repairs are more than Hondas from my experience. I think the logic of the manufacturer/dealership is simple: If you pay more for a car at the beginning, you are willing to pay more to maintain. Volvo being a premium/luxury brand just subscribes to what all manufacturers are doing. Pricing the cars + repairs to match the market segment. BMW, Mercedes, and Audi maintainence is probably even higher than Volvos. Not sure we can fault Ford for this.

I've heard the ETM design was in done before the Ford merger. There isn't a way for us consumers to know if the current lack of ETM response from Volvo is related to Ford. I'm not trying to defend Volvo but it is an expensive recall and they probably can't even do a recall if they didn't have a retrofit solution without the design flaw. If they did a recall but reinstall the same flawed design, Volvo probably would be signing up for significant liabilities.

My wife wants the XC90 and we have the flawed ETM in our 01 V70 T5 now (maybe failing soon based on symptoms). In general, we benefitted from my viewpoint.

[Dr Fonta]

I mean for God sake the original ETM was made by Fiat, need I say more.

AMEN! I had a Fiat way back when.....Talk about unreliable!

[DonWillson]

I could be wrong, but it seems that the defective ETM was a Volvo design and started going bad before Ford took over. Not to say that Ford shouldn't have 'fessed up' and done the right thing, but Volvo wasn't forthcoming either.

Steve

Internal Volvo documents state that 95% will fail within the first 100,000 miles (break in period for Volvos). This was in 1998, before the first fly-by-wire was produced. It was a Volvo design but now Ford has said that "Stalling is not a safety problem, our cars have enough momentum to get off of the road" though this was not said of Volvos.

Ford bought Volvo in 1999, well after the ETM was designed and fitted to many 1999s.

[littlewaywelt]

"Stalling is not a safety problem, our cars have enough momentum to get off of the road" .
clearly the Ford ppl have never driven on the Washington, DC beltway or the Jersey Garden State Parkway or Jersey Turnpike.

[John@CdnRockies]

If the ETM fails on our rig I can guarantee Volvo/Ford that this will be the last vehicle I ever buy from them. After seeing all this press I sure hope those folks wake up and do the right thing.

While Volvo has been the only bright light in their European luxury division, responsibility still lies with Ford as they are the ones raking in the money.

John

[1Lieutenant]

I really haven't seen anything posted that supports the premise that Ford ownership has compromised Volvo. Not that the ETM response is stellar, but Volvo has had similar responses in the past re: wiring harnesses in late '80s 240s, multiple electrical problems 240s, XC99, premature brake wear 240, 740 and XC99. Seems in keeping with corporate line.

I do think that they have helped quality control immensely.

Steve

I actually think Ford is trying to develop a solution before acknowledging the problem. Why replace the ETM more than once.

[Edmonds17]

1Lieutenant: I must respectfully disagree with your reasoning that Ford must be working on a "fix" for the ETM so they don't have to replacement them more than once. Baloney.

Ford/Volvo and their dealers actually make a profit every time a Volvo owner is forced to replace the ETM. Ford/Volvo make a profit on the sale of the ETM part to the dealer. The dealer then gets an additional $500.-700. for a couple of hours of shop work. Ford/Volvo and their dealers have no incentive to fix the defect. They don't care about their market reputation as we have seen for all these many months. Thy are hoping that gullible consumers will continue to buy their cars despite the defect.

The ETM is not covered by a warranty anyplace but Calif. (and those few states using Calif. air standards) where it is part of the air pollution warranty for the first 70,000 mi. Other Volvo owners in other places have to pay the Volvo dealer $1,000.-1,200.

The only thing that will make Ford/Volvo "fix" the defect is a NHTSA mandated safety recall. I'm sorry to be such a pessimist but this is the reality. Maybe Volvo was this bad when it was independent. What I know for sure is that Ford/Volvo are bad now.

Edmonds17

[1Lieutenant]

Edmonds17,

Make no mistake about it, I am no apologist for Volvo or Ford.

I am just thinking practically. Sure, Ford/Volvo makes big bucks replacing ETMs. However, if required to replace them for free in the future (recall), they will not only have to replace those that have not yet failed, but will have to reimburse those that had it replaced. (Big loss of income).

Not only will they incur the expense to replace, but if they don't have an improved design, they may get socked for it more than once! I think they are designing an improved version so they only get stuck replacing the defective part ONCE. NO altuistic motives to be sure.

Steve

[Edmonds17]

1Lieutenant: Ford/Volvo probably already has an improved version of the ETM. It is a Bosch ETM installed in '02 and later XC's. Same engine.

The problem is that Ford/Volvo didn't care enough about the owners of '99-01 Volvo cars to make the Bosch units compatible for the '01 and earlier models. I suspect it could very easily have been done. Ford/Volvo just abandoned the owners of the earlier cars. This is "planned obsolecense" (sp?) at its worst.

Sell a car with a serious defect and hope that your brand image is strong enough that the customer willl buy a newer one. Dumb reasoning but this is what Ford/Volvo think the customer will do. Customers and potential customers are probably "voting with their feet" and going to different brands.

I now cringe every time I drive by a Volvo dealership and see them pitching a potential customer. It is amazing that Ford/Volvo hasn't been picketed at car shows for the callous disregard of driver safety. Just my opinion.

Edmonds17

[AWD*V70XC]

Every now and then I see comments (mostly negative) on how Ford has 'cheapened, hurt, etc' the Volvo name. I would really like to see specific examples....positive or negative.

So far I do not see a downside.

Steve

Well Steve let's get back to your original point "How has Ford helped/hurt Volvo" here is my example of how Ford have/will hurt Volvo. Ford have released 'their' very own cross over sub SUV ... they have called it the Freestyle and WE all know that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing because it is the next/replacement for the XC70, you just have to look at it to see it falls between the XC90 and the XC70, it has Haldex, (when did Ford take an interest in Haldex before taking over Volvo, never I say), look at the interior layout - classic Volvo, FGS just put the proper badge back on the front and put it on the Volvo forecourt so that we can buy it instead of trying to bump up Ford's ailing empire with a winner that does not belong to them, delaying it from hitting the Volvo forecourt by three years will date the car before we get a chance to even see it in it proper colours.

That is how I see Ford hurting Volvo. The sooner Renault take over the company the sooner Volvo will start to get back on their pedestal where they belong, hey maybe I have hit on a get out clause for Ford, if they sell off Volvo to Renault would it mean that any recall costs would be borne by Renault or would it go thru the courts as to who was responsible and then it would get nowhere!!!!!!!!!! meaning we would never get any refund because nobody would accept liability. Mmmmmmmmm

[1Lieutenant]

Edmonds17,

I can't say for sure that the Bosch unit is/was an easy retrofit for the earlier models, but IF it was, then I certainly agree with you. I am also not sure if the Bosch is any more reliable. It seems that they might fail as the earlier unit did. They just haven't been around as long.

AWD*V70XC

I see your point, however there are several reasons I don't think this will hurt Volvo. 1. Although the Freestyle borrows from Volvo, the engine and styling will keep Volvo owners from straying (engine especially, a fairly coarse V6). 2. The more Ford and Volvo use common components (especially transparent ones such as seat motors, radiators, alternators etc.), the less expensive they should become. Should keep Volvo costs in line. Mercedes and Chrysler use this to their advantage. Share parts that do not cheapen the marque.

I can't see Ford trying to support their own brand at the expense of one of their "premium" brands. I see them as wanting Volvo to succeed as they make more money. They have done this with Jaguar and Aston Martin with great success.

Steve