Volvos Platform Predicament

[ANTAUS]

Whats funny though is, all this is pretty much BS if only the division were to be sold off...As in, it's written AS if Volvo has a buyer. My question would be, "Who said Ford was selling it?"...

 

LINK-Autoweek.com

[Hugh]

I doubt Ford is planning to sell Volvo anytime soon if at all.

[Guest Sixcav]

I like the Volvo stuff, they've shaken off that boxy rolling swedish tank stigma and have some very appealing cars now. Pricey, but appealing. I'm anxious to see this new C30 hatchback when it arrives in the US. I think it could help their sales numbers quite a bit.

[Misteredog]

Volvo desperately needs a new production facility in North Americs if they plan on growing and so does Mazda. The question is whether to start with a green field sit somewhere down south or in Mexico which would probably take 3 to 4 years to bring on line or take over one of Ford's existing plants and make it flex and get it in production in 2 years or maybe less? Wixom has lots of room and is close to existing suppliers:)

[Kris Kolman]

This is a nothingness article... IF Ford sells Volvo? IF Ford kills the furture products? If Ford isn't goign to sell Jaguar, there is no way they are goign to sell Volvo. Every single Volvo platform and engine is now fully entrenched in both Ford of Europe's planing. Heck FoE builds the new Volvo I6 at a Ford plant.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Kris Kolman

[RichardJensen]

Heck FoE builds the new Volvo I6 at a Ford plant.

Alongside the Jag V8

[waymondospiff]

I agree, I saw that article this morning and didn't post it simply because I couldn't think of anything to say about it. Ummm...*if* Ford sells Volvo, yes, Volvo would need to replan their product strategy. But isn't that a given?

 

What has me the *teeniest* bit worried is that it is an Automotive News reporter, and they don't generally write inane things. Was this a response to any internal buzz he's heard? *If* Volvo is preparing for a changed model strategy in case of a sale, perhaps they're closer to being sold than we all think?

 

And I have to think a Volvo sale would be terrible for Ford.

 

Scott

[J-150]

Volvo desperately needs a new production facility in North Americs if they plan on growing and so does Mazda. The question is whether to start with a green field sit somewhere down south or in Mexico which would probably take 3 to 4 years to bring on line or take over one of Ford's existing plants and make it flex and get it in production in 2 years or maybe less? Wixom has lots of room and is close to existing suppliers:)

 

 

they used to.

 

At one time, they had 2 plants in Canada (1963 to 1998). In Dartmouth and Halifax Nova Scotia.

 

They assembled the:

120

140

200

700

S70 and V70

[Kris Kolman]

Autoweek/news may not seem inane... But I remember clearly that they held onto the Freestyle wasn't going to mae it to '08 well beyond the time when it proved to BS. They eventually retracted, but in a backhanded way... "Our contacts were correct at the time, but Ford reversed course" or something like that.

[RichardJensen]

This article wasn't written by Amy Wilson, who covers Ford in Detroit (and does a pretty fantastic job of it, too). It was written by some other guy, who must work out of some parallel universe where Carlos Ghosn isn't a jack ass and Nissan and Renault are doing just fine.

Edited September 27, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

It would be interesting to see how he got the assignment.

 

Volvo XC70 and XC60 below. Add the new 30, and Volvo sure seems to have a chassis development problem.

 

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/spyshots...0_and_xc60.html

 

XC-60

 

XC-70

[NickF1011]

Autoweek/news may not seem inane... But I remember clearly that they held onto the Freestyle wasn't going to mae it to '08 well beyond the time when it proved to BS. They eventually retracted, but in a backhanded way... "Our contacts were correct at the time, but Ford reversed course" or something like that.

 

I dunno. I still haven't seen any '08 Freestyle spy pics. Have you?

[silvrsvt]

I dunno. I still haven't seen any '08 Freestyle spy pics. Have you?

 

 

They've run 08 Freestyles at CAP...

 

See here:

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...?showtopic=6459

[NickF1011]

They've run 08 Freestyles at CAP...

 

See here:

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...?showtopic=6459

 

I want PICTURES!!!!!!

[jlsaylor]

Given Fords current situation, and the good that around 8 billion or so could do for ailing brands like Lincoln and Jaguar, I think that Ford should sell Volvo. As for the arguments that Ford just cannot do so because of platform sharing, etc.....none of this holds water. Less than a generation out the Montego and 500 are distant enough from their Volvo cousins that the origin of the platform virtually no longer matters. Thee is no reason that shared platforms cannot continue on divergent paths.

 

Volvo's engine facility has no issues producing 6-cylinder of their own..with the very real possibility that Ford and Volvo would each end up with their own version of each should the Swedish brand ever be sold. Realistically Volvo is still more than independent enough to be sold should Ford choose to do so. The real question is wether you believe that Ford should actually sell the brand or not.

 

Given the fact that Volvo seems destined to be a relatively low volume make, and the overlap issues it brings to the table (especially in NA) I say sell...at least under the circumtances. And this is coming from somebody who really likes the Volvo brand.

[Edstock]

"and the good that around 8 billion or so"

 

 

In your dreams, maybe.

[jlsaylor]

"and the good that around 8 billion or so"

 

 

In your dreams, maybe.

 

A firm that does this kind of thing for a living recently said Volvo should go for ~7.5 billion if sold as is. And frankly, given the size of the brand and it's condition that number sounds about right. Heck, Ford paid 2.5 billion for a seriously ailing Jaguar almost 20 years ago and that wasn't a bad deal at the time. For a more recent example Ford is currently courting ~1 billion for Aston Martin.........5 car a year production numbers and all....and is rumoured to be holding out for more than that! So, my question is this....do you just like giggle smilies or did you have a point?

Edited September 29, 2006 by jlsaylor

[Biker16]

The Story gives:

 

volvo is losing money becuase of the Euro,

 

Volvo needs more product.

 

 

Volvo desperately needs a new production facility in North Americs if they plan on growing and so does Mazda. The question is whether to start with a green field sit somewhere down south or in Mexico which would probably take 3 to 4 years to bring on line or take over one of Ford's existing plants and make it flex and get it in production in 2 years or maybe less? Wixom has lots of room and is close to existing suppliers:)

thats bullshit it took honduh 18 months to make that alabama plant, whay shoudl we hold Ford to a lower standard of 4 years?

Edited September 29, 2006 by Biker16

[Misteredog]

The Story gives:

 

volvo is losing money becuase of the Euro,

 

Volvo needs more product.

thats bullshit it took honduh 18 months to make that alabama plant, whay shoudl we hold Ford to a lower standard of 4 years?

 

Building a plant may take 18 months, but when starting with a greenfield plant in the US or Canada I can assure you the process takes a hell of alot longer. There have to be environmnetal impact studies, infrastructure improvements, logistical studies, etc. And before that can begin you need to find a location, and deal with the local and state or provincial governments on tax breaks, etc. Once all that's done you might be able to make an announcement and have vehicle rolling out the door in 18 months, assuming nothing goes wrong in the meantime. Constructionis one thing, politics are quite another.

[Edstock]

"do you just like giggle smilies or did you have a point?"

 

The point is, dear reader, that economic conditions today are very different from what they were when Ford acquired Volvo.

 

World-wide, there is a general over-capacity of production that's greater than when Volvo was acquired. As well, the competition has raised its play level considerably — when Volvo was acquired, Hyundai, for example, was a bad joke.

 

Other Asian brands are also getting their act together. Wait a decade, and they'll have Volvo-level tech, if not sooner, and like Mercedes with Lexus, Volvo could wind up taking its turn in the barrel.

 

Add future instability on oil costs and the cost of government regulation, like the new EU pedestrian-safety hoods. Add liability for CO2 greenhouse politics/taxes. Add the cost of learning to work with future materials and fabrication machinery, like nano-fiber composites and robotic nano-fiber spinners.

 

So, facing all that, are there other places where you can get more for your 8 billion with less grief and uncertainty? Remember, this is a long-term, live-with-it investment. Investors don't HAVE to be car manufacturers. Hell, if Veeblefetzers make more ROI, you buy Veeblefetzer, not Volvo.

 

As I said, in your dreams, maybe.

[Watchdevil]

No worries... Here's Ford's strategy in keeping all of the luxury and import brands intact:

 

Edited September 29, 2006 by Watchdevil

[RichardJensen]

Y'know, Bluecon DID say that Ford only needed one RWD platform.

[Biker16]

Building a plant may take 18 months, but when starting with a greenfield plant in the US or Canada I can assure you the process takes a hell of alot longer. There have to be environmnetal impact studies, infrastructure improvements, logistical studies, etc. And before that can begin you need to find a location, and deal with the local and state or provincial governments on tax breaks, etc. Once all that's done you might be able to make an announcement and have vehicle rolling out the door in 18 months, assuming nothing goes wrong in the meantime. Constructionis one thing, politics are quite another.

politics is easy.

 

who wants 3000 good paying jobs, and I needs to be ready to build in 6 months.

[jlsaylor]

"do you just like giggle smilies or did you have a point?"

 

The point is, dear reader, that economic conditions today are very different from what they were when Ford acquired Volvo.

 

World-wide, there is a general over-capacity of production that's greater than when Volvo was acquired. As well, the competition has raised its play level considerably — when Volvo was acquired, Hyundai, for example, was a bad joke.

 

Other Asian brands are also getting their act together. Wait a decade, and they'll have Volvo-level tech, if not sooner, and like Mercedes with Lexus, Volvo could wind up taking its turn in the barrel.

 

Add future instability on oil costs and the cost of government regulation, like the new EU pedestrian-safety hoods. Add liability for CO2 greenhouse politics/taxes. Add the cost of learning to work with future materials and fabrication machinery, like nano-fiber composites and robotic nano-fiber spinners.

 

So, facing all that, are there other places where you can get more for your 8 billion with less grief and uncertainty? Remember, this is a long-term, live-with-it investment. Investors don't HAVE to be car manufacturers. Hell, if Veeblefetzers make more ROI, you buy Veeblefetzer, not Volvo.

 

As I said, in your dreams, maybe.

 

And everything you just typed was a complete waste since your reasoning is flatly debunked by one statement in my above post........the fact that Ford is currently courting around a billion for ultra low production Aston Martin. Everything you point out as being a negative for purchasing Volvo is only amplified in the Aston Martin scenario. Aston is, realistically, a terrible investment due to thats brands history of volatility and ridiculously low production numbers. When taking into consideration how volatile the market for these kids of car is in general, and how drastically the bottom fell out of the supercar market in the early 90's, one can only surmise that if this were a science experiment Aston either totally blows your theory out of the water or is an outlier in the grossest sense of the term. Considering that you have nothing but your opinion and theory to base your argument on I'll say Aston is an indication that your above summation is off target....unless you can provide an example of tthe sale of a healthy auto maker or brand that indicates otherwise. (but why let reality debunk your theory?)

 

You also pointed out the Jaguar example as being inaccurate since it came from a differnt time, but give nothing other than a theory of excess global production to back it up. Assuming I buy that there exists a huge excess of capacity (which I don't.....the concept of demand has to account for wether people actually want, the cars these manufacturers actually produce, and wether they are willing to pay the price asked for them, not simply wether or not they need a car...there is not an excess of capacity to build cars so much as there is an excess of capacity to build cars nobody wants to buy) Volvo's sales have remained steady for years and have only dropped when product has aged. Since you seem to like trends then there is no reason to discount that one, other than it doesn't suit your argument.

Edited September 30, 2006 by jlsaylor

[Edstock]

Pardon my focus — my reply concerned only your statement that Volvo was worth 8 billion, and that it could be sold for that kind of coin. As to the rest of your rant, whatever. What Aston has to do with Volvo facing a tougher world of Asian competition and uncertain future developments that might be less than optimal for ROI, is mystifying.