Volvo vs. Folvo (or is it Fordvo?)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Robert Lutwak - 23 Mar 2005 12:30 GMT

So is it true, or just self-fulfilling expectations that Volvo quality and
engineering have degraded since the Ford takeover? Some posts here claim
they'd rather drive an old 850 than a new S60. Is this just stingy people
(like myself) justifying their inability to buy new or is there such a
substantive safety or reliability advantage to the pre-Ford Volvos?

One feature that has kept me in Volvos all these years is the
super-redundant braking system (dual redundant cylinders at all four disks
and separate drums for the handbrake). I always figured this would be first
to go under Ford and replaced with the standard Amercian
one-cylinder-per-wheel geometry. Has this happened?

How about the frame? Excluding the '40 series, have the high-end Volvos
gone to unibody yet?

Personally, I think there are probably areas where Ford engineering could
help the Volvos - alternator, wiring, air conditioning, perhaps even the
auto tranny...

-----

-RL

Reply to this Message

Benjamin Smith - 23 Mar 2005 13:58 GMT

> So is it true, or just self-fulfilling expectations that Volvo quality and
> engineering have degraded since the Ford takeover? Some posts here claim
> they'd rather drive an old 850 than a new S60. Is this just stingy people
> (like myself) justifying their inability to buy new or is there such a
> substantive safety or reliability advantage to the pre-Ford Volvos?

The s60 is pure Volvo design, as is the current v70 and xc90 and s80.
The only shared platform is the new s40. The old s40 was a shared
platform. If people prefer an 850 maybe it is the feel of it they
prefer. But Volvo designed both, the engineering and the styling.

> One feature that has kept me in Volvos all these years is the
> super-redundant braking system (dual redundant cylinders at all four disks
> and separate drums for the handbrake). I always figured this would be first
> to go under Ford and replaced with the standard Amercian
> one-cylinder-per-wheel geometry. Has this happened?

No. Also Ford is using Volvos p2 frame in its mid sized car. There's
shared technologies, and Ford wants to use a lot of Volvo technology.
There's a lot in the s40 that isn't in the Mazda 3 or Ford Focus,
including the 4 types of steel used.

> How about the frame? Excluding the '40 series, have the high-end Volvos
> gone to unibody yet?
>
> Personally, I think there are probably areas where Ford engineering could
> help the Volvos - alternator, wiring, air conditioning, perhaps even the
> auto tranny...

So far, Volvo is fairly autonomous and have a lot of input into their
own cars. Don't know how long it will stay this way.

Ben S.

> -----
>
> -RL

Reply to this Message

Tim.. - 23 Mar 2005 15:20 GMT

> > So is it true, or just self-fulfilling expectations that Volvo quality and
> > engineering have degraded since the Ford takeover? Some posts here claim
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> There's a lot in the s40 that isn't in the Mazda 3 or Ford Focus,
> including the 4 types of steel used.

There's afair bit of new S40 in the new Focus too- check the underside of
the washer bottle cap for a start!

Tim..

Reply to this Message

jg - 23 Mar 2005 14:25 GMT

> So is it true, or just self-fulfilling expectations that Volvo quality and
> engineering have degraded since the Ford takeover? ................

My last ford was a vulva. I'll give it 20 years to prove it's not a ford,
like most other cars I've had.

Reply to this Message

brackenburn - 23 Mar 2005 20:37 GMT

Hi Robert,

The last Volvo to have a frame (chassis), was my 1958 PV 445 wagon, also
known as the "Duett". It was based on the 544 "Humpback", which,
incidentally, had no frame. It was unibody, as was the 122S and all
subsequent models. You can't blame Ford for that! Ironically, Fords of
that era did have a frame.................

Andy I.

| How about the frame? Excluding the '40 series, have the high-end Volvos
| gone to unibody yet?
| -RL

Reply to this Message

Rob Guenther - 23 Mar 2005 22:28 GMT

Everything seems fine... We compared our 965 to a XC70... under really close
scrutiny, as if we do get an XC70, it will have to last as long as our 960
has (10+ years)... We've probably going to get the next generation XC70, or
the last year it's produced in current style.

Alternator?? Bosch alternator... we've never had a problem with one in our
Volvo's, VW's, or the Audi (the only thing that apparantly wouldn't break on
the damn thing)

Wiring - yah right, have you seen how many fire related recals there are on
Fords, some are for wiring

Air-Con.... Umm yah, probably could help out here - tho I believe Denso is
supplying Volvo now...

Auto Tranny - aren't these Fords big weakness?.... Volvo trannys are rock
solid... Volvo doesn't even make them... Companies like ZF and Aisin Warner
makes trannys for cars... Volvo just specs out how many gears, shift points
etc...

If anything Ford's just giving them a bigger budget to make new technology,
access to better pricing from suppliers, and all the support they want - the
new cars seem great.

> So is it true, or just self-fulfilling expectations that Volvo quality and
> engineering have degraded since the Ford takeover? Some posts here claim
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> -RL

Reply to this Message