Big Al thinkking of selling Volvo

[matthewq4b]

It's already been said, but needs repeating: Volvo is now Ford's ONLY worldwide luxury brand! Jag and LR are gone! Lincoln has no worldwide recognition........yet! Volvo offers Ford invaluable safety technology! Volvo is a keeper! And let's get back into worldwide medium and heavy truck manufacturing!

 

 

The sale of Volvo may just be the ticket to that show.

 

The Volvo Group has showed interest in Volvo cars. I'm sure a deal could be worked out with the Volvo Group in to re-badging Volvo heavy trucks as Fords for the NA market. Think of the Blue Diamond deal only with Volvo.

 

Volvo would be able to move more product with Ford badges on them in NA than they ever will just badged as a Volvo's. It could also be reciprocal giving Volvo access to the medium market with medium Fords re-badged as Volvo's. The big question is will the Volvo group even still be interested in Volvo Cars.

 

Both companies could benefit with some kind of long term reciprocal technology sharing agreement in their respective areas of expertise.

Volvo heavy is a leader in diesel technology as well so there could be some trickle down effect for Ford in this area as well.

 

Volvo cars was a necessary buy at the time. As Ford desperately needed a major infusion of technology and new auto platforms when they were bought. Ford at the time to did not have the time frame to develop them.

The question you have ask what has Volvo added to Ford lately? Ford has stripped every thing that could be gained from Volvo now. I never seen Volvo as long term keeper for Ford any way. It was more of a convenient technology grab in my opinion.

 

 

I have felt for quite awhile that a partner ship with the Volvo Group would benefit both companies since Ford abandoned the heavy truck segment. Ford can maintain a working relationship with Volvo heavy and cars and both could benefit over the long term with cooperation in product R&D.

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

As you've said before.....

 

If there is no long term objection to keeping Mazda, then there should be no long term objection to keeping Volvo. Provided Volvo, like Mazda, gets completely on board Ford's shared development strategy. Mazda is, globally, about twice the size of Volvo, but I think their revenue is about equal. Mazda has no unique platforms or engines but has a pretty wide degree of freedom in working with Ford's tech. Volvo needs to either get on board with that, or leave.

[RichardJensen]

Also, I'm very curious what the 'other shoe' is with the pending dissolution of Blue-Diamond. Although that's probably not going to be coming up for a few years.

Edited April 24, 2008 by RichardJensen

[atomcat68]

GM cannot run lots of divisions. That is essentially their biggest problem right now.

 

 

 

 

An VW has multiple divisons, but some are regional and others are so high end they have a regular client base.

 

Bugatti would be a bankrupt carmaker as an independent. But under VW, I question if they will ever get back the investment they made in the Veryon. Skoda and SEAT are hardly players outside of Eastern European countries where they can't afford mainstream makes like VW, Opel etc.

Bingo! Skoda and Seat are VW's Mercury.

[battyr]

If I had to pick between Volvo or Mercury going, it would be Volvo. But I don't think that's what will happen. Mostly because Mullaly has been pushing Ford towards a global presence and singular manufacturing. That means Volvo would be more likely to stay.

 

My problem with Volvo is where it fits in Ford corporate vs Lincoln. Volvo is more worldwide and is better known across the world. Lincoln is well known in the US, but not world wide. But to me, both of them share the similar up market luxury area of car sales. I think the better fit would be to merge the two brands. Call them a Lincoln in the US, but leave the Volvo name world wide. I'm sure some well bitch that the Lincoln will be a rebadged Volvo or vice versa. I say get over it. I'm not saying take todays Volvo's or Lincoln's. I'm saying start designing the next gen models of both with that merge in mind. Only differences may be some models in LH and RH drive for global reasons. But that's it. I think then that new Volvo 2.0 could really compete against the BMW, Accura, etc upscale market place.

 

With the above assumption, I think it then makes more sense for Mercury to stay. On some models, do some style differences much like today to make them "The alternative Ford". Give them a few minor differences that don't cost much. Personally, I've always preferred the Mercury styling over Ford in cars. Maybe throw Mercury a FOE or global Ford that won't be in the US market as a Ford. By doing that, it'll cost almost nothing to keep some sales they probably would have lost just because some won't buy a car with the Blue Oval on it. Leave it as a niche US market.

 

The problem with Volvo is that their cars are built in 2 Volvo plants in Northern Europe. They also have a few plants around the world that only assembles kits. Volvo needs to assemble in a Ford plant in the US, and Asia, to cut cost. May be assemble the Asian cars in the Australian Focus plant.

 

I agree with merging the too brand, but keep both names alive. They can share world wide dealerships and marketing. Volvo to sell FWD and CUVs. Lincoln to sell RWD and SUVs. The choice would altimately depend on whether Ford wants to sell European Lincolns in Ford or Volvo dealerships? If Volvo wants to sell more cars in the US, they may learn from Lincolns.

 

Mercury has to switch to the C1/C2 and the EUCD/EUCD2 platforms. Volvo already has them. With increased sales and US production, Volvo can reduce the cost of vehicles to be closer to Mercury cost.

 

The other alterative would be to close Volvo. Then Ford would have to find the correct target market for Mercury both US and international. Redesign all Mercury cars to sell in both US and international. Spend engineering money to make Mercury different than Ford and allow for higher markup. Sound like taking a lot of risk for very ittle chance of success.

 

If Ford keeps Mercury, they are better to keep them as is, and spend as little money on it as posible.

[battyr]

As you've said before.....

 

If there is no long term objection to keeping Mazda, then there should be no long term objection to keeping Volvo. Provided Volvo, like Mazda, gets completely on board Ford's shared development strategy. Mazda is, globally, about twice the size of Volvo, but I think their revenue is about equal. Mazda has no unique platforms or engines but has a pretty wide degree of freedom in working with Ford's tech. Volvo needs to either get on board with that, or leave.

 

Look like Volvo has gotten on board with Ford of Europe to me? But they have not with Ford or America. Mazda is on board with all Ford divisions world wide.

Edited April 24, 2008 by battyr

[battyr]

Look like Volvo has gotten on board with Ford of Europe to me? But they have not with Ford or America. Mazda is on board with all Ford divisions world wide.

 

This will likely be fixed if Fords new management structure is applied to Volvo.

[RichardJensen]

C1 & EUCD were sort of one-off cooperative efforts among various independent product development teams.

 

They did not require a local pd chief answer to a global boss in Dearborn.

 

That has changed, and if Volvo shows an institutional resistance to that change, I expect them to be sold.

 

I think Ford missed several opportunities to push culture change at Jaguar and in the end, I think that's one of the reasons why they got sold. They never really bought into the "we are FORD" idea, and as a result, they never improved performance to the extent possible, and because of THAT, they never achieved sustainable profitability, and because of THAT they got sold.

 

I mean, Ford crammed a pretty bad product strategy down their throats, but they, for their part, treated the Ford shared vehicles as redheaded stepchildren. There is shared responsibility there.

[P71_CrownVic]

but it's not like Ford doesn't have their own R&D doing safety research.

 

Oh please...they're so far behind Volvo it's not even funny. Tell me, have they discovered rear head rests and grab handles yet?

[matthewq4b]

As you've said before.....

 

If there is no long term objection to keeping Mazda, then there should be no long term objection to keeping Volvo. Provided Volvo, like Mazda, gets completely on board Ford's shared development strategy. Mazda is, globally, about twice the size of Volvo, but I think their revenue is about equal. Mazda has no unique platforms or engines but has a pretty wide degree of freedom in working with Ford's tech. Volvo needs to either get on board with that, or leave.

 

 

Totally agree Richard even though Ford does not out right own Mazda them seem to way more integrated in the Ford product structure than the wholly owned Volvo. And it is not like there has not been enough time to do so.

 

This makes me wonder if the intention was to keep Volvo long term. As you said Volvo need to get on board 100% or be gone.

 

Matthew

[battyr]

Oh please...they're so far behind Volvo it's not even funny. Tell me, have they discovered rear head rests and grab handles yet?

 

The use of rear head rest are only an issue of cost. Grab handles sound like a hazard to me.

[battyr]

C1 & EUCD were sort of one-off cooperative efforts among various independent product development teams.

 

They did not require a local pd chief answer to a global boss in Dearborn.

 

That has changed, and if Volvo shows an institutional resistance to that change, I expect them to be sold.

 

I think Ford missed several opportunities to push culture change at Jaguar and in the end, I think that's one of the reasons why they got sold. They never really bought into the "we are FORD" idea, and as a result, they never improved performance to the extent possible, and because of THAT, they never achieved sustainable profitability, and because of THAT they got sold.

 

I mean, Ford crammed a pretty bad product strategy down their throats, but they, for their part, treated the Ford shared vehicles as redheaded stepchildren. There is shared responsibility there.

 

Sound like Volvo's employees have to decide whether they would rather work for Ford, or Renauld.

[RichardJensen]

Totally agree Richard even though Ford does not out right own Mazda them seem to way more integrated in the Ford product structure than the wholly owned Volvo. And it is not like there has not been enough time to do so.

 

This makes me wonder if the intention was to keep Volvo long term. As you said Volvo need to get on board 100% or be gone.

 

Matthew

Although, in all fairness, the integration of Mazda had been slow in coming too. Ford owned 15% of Mazda for years and did nothing with it, except for the Mercury Tracer. I mean they didn't even share a platform until Escort 2.0, and that was only in the US. Go back to 2004 and the only platform in common was the Escape/Tribute.

 

Now, finally, Mazda is 100% Ford global platform (if you stretch your definition of C1 enough to embrace the CX-7).

[RichardJensen]

I mean, if you go by the Mazda timeline, full integration with Ford won't happen until about 2030 over at Volvo.

[Michael Reynolds]

Oh please...they're so far behind Volvo it's not even funny. Tell me, have they discovered rear head rests and grab handles yet?

 

Grab handles??

 

And btw for Ford to be so far behind Volvo, I find it amusing that systems such as AdvanceTrac were offered on the lowly Focus back in '01 whereas the S40 didn't even have it as an option until some 3 years later.

 

Or how the Taurus has always had great crash test ratings.....

 

I could go on. Your argument is moot. A lot of the reasons behind why Ford vehicles don't have headrests and the like are due to bean counters, not because Ford is inept.

[Michael Reynolds]

Well I guess arguments with regard to Volvo do make sense, although it seems fairly integrated as well. I mean if you look at it everything except the S60, Volvo pretty much shares a platform with a Ford somewhere.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the RX-8 and MX-7 don't share platforms do they?

Edited April 24, 2008 by Michael Reynolds

[NickF1011]

Oh please...they're so far behind Volvo it's not even funny. Tell me, have they discovered rear head rests and grab handles yet?

 

Mmmm...yeah. Head rests and grab handles. Ford couldn't possibly figure out how to design those all on their own. :rolleyes:

 

Here's the more important thing: Volvo lost over $100M last quarter.

[P71_CrownVic]

Mmmm...yeah. Head rests and grab handles. Ford couldn't possibly figure out how to design those all on their own. :rolleyes:

 

They are absent on the refreshed Fukkas...

[suv_guy_19]

They are absent on the refreshed Fukkas...

 

Not for 2009.

[NickF1011]

They are absent on the refreshed Fukkas...

 

Due to cost-cutting, not lack of engineering ability. As mentioned, they are back on the '09's.

[Extreme4x4]

We need to get used to this "but........... but............. but" whining from P............... especially as Ford news gets better. He keeps having to grasp lower on the totem pole to find things to bash.

 

Ahhh, sounds like a good time for a comfy recliner, and some popcorn.

 

That said, I am pretty neutral on Volvo. However, if Ford does decide to sell it, I would think they would wait for a bit better time. Companies might be few and far between, in looking to add Volvo to their portfolio.

[Edstock]

IMHO, Volvo's problems are 1) they take too long to re-do or re-fresh or bring out new product, and 2) a lack of perceived performance/value/luxury vis-a-vis Audi, BMW and Mercedes, on a model-for-model basis. Volvo's need more power and more luxury, something to offer against the A3/A4/A6, the 3 series and the C-class.

 

The good news is that Ford will not let this continue.

[RichardJensen]

Well I guess arguments with regard to Volvo do make sense, although it seems fairly integrated as well. I mean if you look at it everything except the S60, Volvo pretty much shares a platform with a Ford somewhere.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the RX-8 and MX-7 don't share platforms do they?

D'oh! you're right. Jiminy Crickets, that's the second time I've been wrong today! What's happening to me?

 

Also, it's not about platform sharing as such, it's about willingness to relinquish authority to Dearborn--specifically Kuzak. Volvo's involvement on C1 and EUCD was such that they had the authority to opt out of any element they didn't want, without really having to justify that decision to anyone.

 

Under global product development, they can't do that anymore.

Edited April 24, 2008 by RichardJensen

[MKII]

And btw for Ford to be so far behind Volvo, I find it amusing that systems such as AdvanceTrac were offered on the lowly Focus back in '01 whereas the S40 didn't even have it as an option until some 3 years later.

 

Volvo S40 was always offered with DSA (Dynamic Stability Assistance), and I remember for the USA MY2000 S40 this feature was a $500.00 option.

 

Volvo Cars traction & stability features were first offered in 1995 DSA - Dynamic Stability Assistance, 1998 STC - Stability and Traction Control, 1998 DSTC – Dynamic Stability and Traction Control

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I think Advance Trac was 1st offered in MY2000 Lincoln LS

Edited April 24, 2008 by MKII

[matthewq4b]

Although, in all fairness, the integration of Mazda had been slow in coming too. Ford owned 15% of Mazda for years and did nothing with it, except for the Mercury Tracer. I mean they didn't even share a platform until Escort 2.0, and that was only in the US. Go back to 2004 and the only platform in common was the Escape/Tribute.

 

Now, finally, Mazda is 100% Ford global platform (if you stretch your definition of C1 enough to embrace the CX-7).

 

 

Well that kind of makes the point do you not think. How long from little to no integration to full integration with Mazda?. Ford has owned Volvo for almost 10 years now. Ford needs to fully integrate Volvo as happend with Mazda or it needs to go.