What makes a Volvo?

[Dippydog]

Not doing much of anything these days that requires a deal of concentration my mind tends to wander onto many weird and wonderful subjects.Yesterdays musings[to which I've not yet found an answer]was "What makes a Volvo a Volvo?"I suppose you can get a variety of answers as to which model was/is the last "real" Volvo but years ago you'd go to a dealer to buy one and drive away in a car designed and built by Volvo which would be built on a Volvo designed chassis with a Volvo engine-although at times gearboxes would be bought in from the likes of ZF,Getrag,Borg-Warner etc-then came the idea of engine sharing-the PRV V6 e.g.-nowadays you have "platform"sharing and the direct use of other manufacturers engines/transmissions etc.Build quality seems to me to be no better/worse than other cars in their particular segments.So what is it that makes a Volvo a Volvo?and has there yet been a "last real Volvo"?

[MikeGMT]

Safety is the first thing that springs to mind and is part of the Volvo DNA which sets it apart from other manufacturers. It’s a bold claim that ’no one will be killed in a Volvo from 2020.’

Wasn’t it said years ago that something like 80% of a Volvo was made in the UK?. My first introduction to Volvo was a 265 with the PRV engine, 2.8 with the K-Jetronic. When I purchased the car it had done 118,000 miles and was I think about 5 years old. I had it another 7 years and all I had to do in that time apart from routine maintenance was fit a new water pump, so I would say longevity would be another trait.

These are some of the things that ‘I’ perceive that make Volvo a Volvo.

[ITSv40]

Having been a continuous Volvo owner for the past 46 years - starting with a 145S here is my take on the question. Other views are available

The 145 was superbly built, the quality of the engineering and fixtures and fitting was first class for its time. I never had any issues with rusted bolts or nuts - everything came undone first time every time and was a joy to work on.

164, the same. 1800ES followed: a very pretty car and nicely put together, but body design and finish not so good as the 145/164.

I then progressed to two 360GLT's. Well, mechanics were very good and Volvo bomb proof, 270,00mls in one of them without issues is testament to that. However, body rust and poor painting process was the killer.

A '97 V40 followed: lovely car well finished and lasted 370,000mls without any major components being replaced. Although based on a Mitsubishi, still had the Volvo feel - liked it so much when it came time to replace another V40 was the only answer. 2001 this time - much improved on the '97.

C70. What a revelation - now back to true Volvo quality and reminds me so much of the 145/164. Everything is so superbly put together and is true Volvo unlike the V40.

My son had two V50 T5's and they are truly a Focus in a party dress. The interior may be nice and the Volvo T5 engine delivers many smiles per miles, but Ford influence is very much apparent, even without having FoMoCo stamped on every major component.

In my experience the rot set in with the Ford takeover. No idea about current models as I have no interest in them or experience.

[john.wigley]

While I cannot match 'ITSv40's 46 years of Volvo ownership, currently having a mere 35 under my belt, I do broadly concur with the sentiments he expresses.

The Ford influence he mentions is / was evident in other makes, too. But is that not a sword of two edges? Yes, Ford's value engineering and cost reduction exercises may have robbed Volvo (and the other manufacturers) of some of their 'exclusiveness', but would they have survived at all without it? Consider the fortunes of Saab since GM sold it to Spyker.

Regards, John.

[P156KWJ]

I've only owned one Volvo and so my perspective may be slightly off, but nothing else I have driven has come anywhere close to the comfort and safety I feel when at the wheel of my S40.

I'm still a fairly new driver - I did most of my learning to drive in a Fiat Sedici (a clone of the Suzuki SX4), I passed my test in a Kia Venga and I've driven several other bits and bobs in various states of quality (I'm also a regular van driver, various mk6 and mk7 Transits with varying bits of what they were built with still left on them...) but anyway, most modern cars seem to have minor but annoying issues built in that people just seem to accept. The Kia I passed my test in was wonderful to drive in terms of ease, but I'd never buy one, it felt incredibly plastic, rattly, tinny and not comfortable enough for long journeys.

My S40, despite being 17 years old, feels safer, more robust and luxurious than anything else I've driven, and it was £850. People my age (26) are targeted for finance deals on things like Citroen C1s and the like, but I'd never even think about going there.

Volvo to me is safety, comfort, quality and still a bit of quirkiness thrown in as well.

As for John's opinion on Saab, I agree, I've always liked them, and I still like the exterior design of the later 93 and 95 models, they just seem very drab inside and can only imagine them to basically be a Vectra with a different coat. Could be wrong though.

[kennyt5]

The ability to empty your wallet but still keeps you smiling.

[FunkyMelon]

I tend to agree with the above but only in regards to the older Volvo's. All of those 'proper' Volvo's were built very well, engineered well, were reliable, safe and will last.

Anything under Ford ownership from 2004+ no longer had the reliability, cheaper materials, rehashed shared designs and the safety was on par with anything else out at the time - They were just expensive Fords in a frock.

The newer ones are very nice design wise now they're back to Sweden under Geely ownership but again, they are not any safer than any other 'premium' car manufacturer these days - They all have crash detection, multiple computers with safety critical systems and the infotainment technology is only just catching up to the Germans (think Audi virtual cockpit etc).

So IMO, these days, what makes a Volvo a Volvo? Nothing really, designs are very nice on the latest models but outside of looks, they offer nothing that you can't find on anything else in the 'premium' market.

Like most cars now, they're built for PCP/Finance people, they're not built to last.

[Sotosound]

I think that it's hard to judge the longevity of a 2014 Volvo in 2019. What I can say is that my 2014 V70 feels far better built than my previous P1 and P2 V70s. Whether it'll still feel that way in another 10 years is hard to say, however.

For me, what define Volvo are safety, refinement, comfort and ease of driving. I'm sad to say that the definition no longer includes 5-cylinder engines, however.

I can also say that if other makes such as Ford now include better build quality, safety etc. then it's more about imitation being the most sincere form of flattery than it is about Volvo standards slipping.

[steadvex]

To me its safety, comfort and technology, Volvo are often ahead of the others imo they just don't advertise what the cars actually do.

[green van man]

They may be safe, I have no intention of testing that claim, they may be comfortable but I find other cars equal to or better than a Volvo, they may be reliable, but any car is if you maintain it properly.

My xc70 fulfils a function, I look after it as I do all my cars. My landrover discovery 1 fires my passion. Something I'm afraid my volvo will never do.

Paul.