Volvo's Limited FootPrint - Why Volvo Drivers are "unique" - Page 2
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
    Results 36 to 70 of 189
    1. #36
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      A. How much did Tax, Title and Licensing Run you? So was $32,800 before TTL or After Tax, Title, Licensing?
      B. Is your V60 FWD or AWD?
      Before ttl. ttl is around 10% of purchase price in Cali.

      The car is fwd. The dealer had a AWD for as good a deal, but we didn't need / want AWD (prefer the highway mileage benefit).


      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      C. I want to steal your car... Jesus I would have KILLED for the Park Assist Pilot. And I'd loved to have the sport package. I couldn't hold out. My car was in a wreck and I needed to find a car. About 3 or 4 months after I purchased (Bought end of May 2016), there was a HUGE GLUT of cars for sale....Sigh
      Park pilot assist is cool and works pretty well but we could've done without it. We wanted all the safety features, sport package, hid, and heated seats. Which, given the way options are packaged, meant you're almost locked I to everything. Would be annoying in general, but not given the price.

      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      And I concede. Incentives, hold backs, etc can drive a car's price down significantly. It's all about waiting for the right time to buy. What you have to realize is that a lower selling price ($32,800 on a ~$48,000 car) does drive down the resell if people pay far below "sticker"
      Not sure why you would think I didn't realize that.

      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Far as parts.. Volvo's have a small foot print and market share. So parts come at a premium in the US.
      Sure. And wanting to be a premium brand. The part of your statement that I took issue with is your claim that *depreciation* drives up maintenance and repair costs.

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #37
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      Before ttl. ttl is around 10% of purchase price in Cali.

      The car is fwd. The dealer had a AWD for as good a deal, but we didn't need / want AWD (prefer the highway mileage benefit
      In Cali, I would have thought an AWD is more practical. You've got a wide range of landscapes. From the Mountains of Yosemite, The Foothills of Los Angeles, to the rain and snow of northern Cali. Per the TTL, I guess we're a bit less as tax on 28,800 was around 2500. The other $600 was shipping


      [QUOTE=poundsand;5096753] Park pilot assist is cool and works pretty well but we could've done without it. We wanted all the safety features, sport package, hid, and heated seats. Which, given the way options are packaged, meant you're almost locked I to everything. Would be annoying in general, but not given the price. [Quote]

      True. I do like Backup Cam, BLIS a lot and the convenience package (garage door and folding mirrors) is a nice touch. I cannot parallel park well so that PAP would have been a good touch. And yes, you are pretty much locked into what you buy, sans a few features PAP can be added but its like $1600. Having all safety features is a huge perk.

      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      Not sure why you would think I didn't realize that.



      Sure. And wanting to be a premium brand. The part of your statement that I took issue with is your claim that *depreciation* drives up maintenance and repair costs.
      Volvo is a mid range premium brand with premium brand prices. With fewer adopters, parts are in less demand, thus warranting a higher production cost.

    4. #38
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      In Cali, I would have thought an AWD is more practical. You've got a wide range of landscapes. From the Mountains of Yosemite, The Foothills of Los Angeles, to the rain and snow of northern Cali.
      AWD and 4WD, for the vast majority of people, is a cool toy / checkbox / prestige item, and isn't bought for practicality. I'm from snow country in upstate NY and I've driven a miata and a red pickup in all the places you've mentioned above, including in snow (except Yosemite), and it's not really an issue, and most people obviously don't have it, including on light rear end rear wheel drive pickups.


      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Volvo is a mid range premium brand with premium brand prices. With fewer adopters, parts are in less demand, thus warranting a higher production cost.
      We're going round and round here and you're still not answering how *depreciation* plays into it, which is the part of your claim I took issue with.

    5. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    6. #39
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2015
      Location
      Cottage City, MD
      Posts
      72
      My V60 cost me far north of $50K. For that money I got a comfortable interior that was impressive 10 years ago and a user interface/infotainment system that's been cobbled together over several years. Small screen, buttons everywhere, different inputs and menus everywhere. Try checking the oil level, for instance. The engine has been in the shop several times and there's been a couple of system failures. The legendary Volvo wagon utility has been compromised by a low drop roof with a slanted hatch. Overall, it's a nice enough automobile, but the niggles are killing me. (Example: The door post trim is hard plastic and the seat belt anchor rattles and bangs on it. Annoying as heck until I stuck a $0.60 felt pad on the plastic.) I'm not sure who Volvo is building or marketing to, but it ain't me. I have about 4 months left on the lease and then I'm out of here.

    7. #40
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2012
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA
      Posts
      770
      Let's not get stuck on the buttons. Some of us like them (me included) and some don't. The bottom line is that they are outdated.
      Volvo should have updated the infotainment system as well as some of the pain points such as the seatbelt buckle rattling on the B-pillar (that annoys me too so I just buckle it).
      They did a good job with the refresh making the build more solid but they should have updated the rest of it and taken care of the loose ends.

      Volvo does advertise the S90 and XC90 on TV in my end of the woods.
      Maybe they do want to remain a small player but if not they need make their presence more felt.
      More dealerships would be a good start .
      One or more models that would have people say "Wow that's a Volvo??!!" would also be good.

      Hyundai and Kia changed their image so Volvo can do the same too.
      2012 S60 T5 Savile Gray/Beachwood

    8. #41
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      AWD and 4WD, for the vast majority of people, is a cool toy / checkbox / prestige item, and isn't bought for practicality. I'm from snow country in upstate NY and I've driven a miata and a red pickup in all the places you've mentioned above, including in snow (except Yosemite), and it's not really an issue, and most people obviously don't have it, including on light rear end rear wheel drive pickups.

      We're going round and round here and you're still not answering how *depreciation* plays into it, which is the part of your claim I took issue with.
      A. I'm not sure AWD / 4WD is all gimmick and pizzazz. A transfer case allows all four wheels to spin independently. Thereby, giving better traction. Swedespeed users swear by the new Haladex AWD. I can't say one way or another as I have never driven an AWD Volvo. I do know when we had snow here, I have great All Season tires, and there were a few spots I struggled to get traction on the ice.

      B. Depreciation:

      1. Lowered Selling Price Points Contribute to added Devaluation.
      2. I am not circling the argument. Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais, etc are massed produced on large scale. Making parts readily available at market value (and not a premium).
      3. Volvos have a low adoption rate in America. Less than 1%. Toyotas, Hondas, etc are around 14%. With less Volvo Drivers, there is less demand on parts. Thereby less volume. Less volume correlates to higher repair costs.

      So yes. All these points contribute to rapid depreciation. People Buying a car for greatly reduced prices, followed by a high cost of upkeep, translate to fewer buyers. Ultimately, a car that is not in high demand sells for less.

      https://www.kbb.com/honda/s2000/#zip...0c9bf51c58b538

      Consider a car I saw on a User's Swedespeed: 2007 HondaSR2000.

      Current Dealer Value as of Today on KBB with STANDARD Options: $18-21,000
      MSRP for car at time of purchase in 2007: ~$31,000 to $34,000 http://www.autotrader.com/2007-honda...?modelId=16769

      Find me a Volvo that is 10 years old and has maintained OVER 60% of its value. Demand dictates Price. Low Demand, Low Price.
      Last edited by MyVolvoS60; 03-15-2017 at 03:46 PM.

    9. #42
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2003
      Location
      Franklin, TN
      Posts
      985
      "Volvo should have updated the infotainment system as well as some of the pain points such as the seatbelt buckle rattling on the B-pillar (that annoys me too so I just buckle it)."


      What an awful headline that would make. "Volvo makes some of the most safe cars on the road but owners are unbuckling the seat-belts because of a rattle" Lets hope this goes away in SPA and CMA cars for good.
      The old - 2001 S60 totaled, 2003 XC90, 2004 S80, 2005 TSX, 2006 S60, 2009 V70, 2010 S80 totaled, 2012 C30 T5 OSD-sold but kept it in the family.
      2012 XC60 Caspian Blue/Beige
      2015 Genesis Monticito Blue/Grey - Awaiting 2018 XC60 to replace Genny (hurry please)

    10. #43
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2012
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA
      Posts
      770
      Quote Originally Posted by comp1 View Post
      "Volvo should have updated the infotainment system as well as some of the pain points such as the seatbelt buckle rattling on the B-pillar (that annoys me too so I just buckle it)."


      What an awful headline that would make. "Volvo makes some of the most safe cars on the road but owners are unbuckling the seat-belts because of a rattle" Lets hope this goes away in SPA and CMA cars for good.
      I think you got this backwards. I buckle the passenger side (not unbuckle it) when no one is sitting so it doesn't bang against the B-pillar.
      2012 S60 T5 Savile Gray/Beachwood

    11. #44
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2003
      Location
      Franklin, TN
      Posts
      985
      Yep, I did. Sadly we do the same thing, even after applying a felt round to the other side of the buckle. At any rate hope its fixed next gen!
      The old - 2001 S60 totaled, 2003 XC90, 2004 S80, 2005 TSX, 2006 S60, 2009 V70, 2010 S80 totaled, 2012 C30 T5 OSD-sold but kept it in the family.
      2012 XC60 Caspian Blue/Beige
      2015 Genesis Monticito Blue/Grey - Awaiting 2018 XC60 to replace Genny (hurry please)

    12. #45
      Volvo also needs to focus these cars better. In the case of my T6, they aren't really sure what buyer they are trying to attract, because it does a lot of things pretty well but excels in few areas. The touchy throttle response and speed would have you believe it's a sports sedan, yet the crappy 6AT that's slow to respond, and lurchy when it does, and does not have paddle shifters (on mine at least) would have you believe otherwise. Is it meant to be a luxury car? Well the seats are beautiful and luxurious, and it has an excellent sound system, so maybe. Oh wait, it makes a sh1t-ton of noise on the highway, and it has a stiff ride, so definitely not a luxury experience on the highway. So is it a sport sedan? It's fast! Oh wait, it has terrible stopping power and I can overcook the brakes almost instantly. The steering has little feel. It drives like a fast appliance, with very little soul or feedback to the tactile experience. And yet it's far too nice and quirky to be compared directly with the REEEEALLY bland appliance cars like Camries and Accords, which can be similarly unsporty yet don't appeal on any of the aesthetic or comfort levels the S60 gets right, and it's also way too expensive to operate and projected to be not nearly as reliable, so you can't really call it an appliance either. But it's expensive, so you expect it to compare in terms of luxury and sport to whatever entry lux cars the competitors offer, which tend to either be faster or more luxurious (supple, modern, and quiet) or both. So does it sell on safety alone? It has lots of safety features and the chassis is durable. Yet the brakes aren't up to the task of stopping a car that can generate so much speed so quickly. Plus its poor ergonomics for finding the appropriate combination of buttons and knobs to twiddle to access basic functions are hugely distracting and likely to cause accidents that even the most intrusive collection of safety nannies won't be able to avoid. Volvo needs to focus as much attention on avoiding crashes as it does on saving you once you get in a crash. The safest cars are the ones that avoid crashing altogether, and a clear, streamlined set of controls is the first step to safety. Which reminds me, how many times have I been driving in foggy weather, and I've had to struggle to find the rear fog light button intended to keep me safer? It's obscured by the steering wheel, and isn't easy to locate by touch alone, ensuring an eyes-off-the-road gropefest trying to access this basic safety feature. Not good.

      Volvo needs to stop trying to be too many things and narrow its focus to do a better job in specific segments. While I didn't much enjoy the V60 T5 I drove, I actually thought it did a better job of appealing to a specific buyer than my T6 did. The T5 was more bland than my T6, yet it did a better job fulfilling a role as a comfortable, quiet, utilitarian family hauler that you'd be proud to be seen in packing full of Whole Foods bags. It's not an enthusiast car and doesn't pretend to be. It does a better job of being quiet, comfortable, innocuous transportation with a bit of style thrown in to subtly one-up the Joneses without being a douche about it. It was a better-integrated package, whereas the T6 is like a graphic equilizer that really pops on some levels but the levels were set somewhat haphazardly.
      Last edited by Bunnspeed; 03-15-2017 at 04:27 PM.
      2011 S60 T6 with Polestar tune
      13.1 at 101 mph

      Current mods: KW V3 coilovers, DO88 fmic, Ferrita downpipe, Powerflex "race" torque mount inserts, more to come...

    13. #46
      Quote Originally Posted by comp1 View Post
      "Volvo should have updated the infotainment system as well as some of the pain points such as the seatbelt buckle rattling on the B-pillar (that annoys me too so I just buckle it)."


      What an awful headline that would make. "Volvo makes some of the most safe cars on the road but owners are unbuckling the seat-belts because of a rattle" Lets hope this goes away in SPA and CMA cars for good.
      Owners get lost because $41,000 S60 can't figure out which side of the road one arrives at destination.....Gah fix this already Volvo! Tell me if the destination is on the right or left PLEASE!

    14. #47
      Quote Originally Posted by Bunnspeed View Post
      Volvo also needs to focus these cars better. In the case of my T6, they aren't really sure what buyer they are trying to attract, because it does a lot of things pretty well but excels in few areas. The touchy throttle response and speed would have you believe it's a sports sedan, yet the crappy 6AT that's slow to respond, and lurchy when it does, and does not have paddle shifters (on mine at least) would have you believe otherwise. Is it meant to be a luxury car? Well the seats are beautiful and luxurious, and it has an excellent sound system, so maybe. Oh wait, it makes a sh1t-ton of noise on the highway, and it has a stiff ride, so definitely not a luxury experience on the highway. So is it a sport sedan? It's fast! Oh wait, it has terrible stopping power and I can overcook the brakes almost instantly. The steering has little feel. It drives like a fast appliance, with very little soul or feedback to the tactile experience. And yet it's far too nice and quirky to be compared directly with the REEEEALLY bland appliance cars like Camries and Accords, which can be similarly unsporty yet don't appeal on any of the aesthetic or comfort levels the S60 gets right, and it's also way too expensive to operate and projected to be not nearly as reliable, so you can't really call it an appliance either. But it's expensive, so you expect it to compare in terms of luxury and sport to whatever entry lux cars the competitors offer, which tend to either be faster or more luxurious (supple, modern, and quiet) or both. So does it sell on safety alone? It has lots of safety features and the chassis is durable. Yet the brakes aren't up to the task of stopping a car that can generate so much speed so quickly. Plus its poor ergonomics for finding the appropriate combination of buttons and knobs to twiddle to access basic functions are hugely distracting and likely to cause accidents that even the most intrusive collection of safety nannies won't be able to avoid. Volvo needs to focus as much attention on avoiding crashes as it does on saving you once you get in a crash. The safest cars are the ones that avoid crashing altogether, and a clear, streamlined set of controls is the first step to safety. Which reminds me, how many times have I been driving in foggy weather, and I've had to struggle to find the rear fog light button intended to keep me safer? It's obscured by the steering wheel, and isn't easy to locate by touch alone, ensuring an eyes-off-the-road gropefest trying to access this basic safety feature. Not good.

      Volvo needs to stop trying to be too many things and narrow its focus to do a better job in specific segments. While I didn't much enjoy the V60 T5 I drove, I actually thought it did a better job of appealing to a specific buyer than my T6 did. The T5 was more bland than my T6, yet it did a better job fulfilling a role as a comfortable, quiet, utilitarian family hauler that you'd be proud to be seen in packing full of Whole Foods bags. It's not an enthusiast car and doesn't pretend to be. It does a better job of being quiet, comfortable, innocuous transportation with a bit of style thrown in to subtly one-up the Joneses without being a douche about it. It was a better-integrated package, whereas the T6 is like a graphic equilizer that really pops on some levels but the levels were set somewhat haphazardly.
      I can't speak for the T6, but the T5 2.0 Drive E FWD offers a quiet and smooth ride for the most part. Quirks in the 15.5 + are mainly isolated to the infotainment system. Whereas the GPS fails to notify driver if destination arrives on right or left. A real huge oversight. And of course the quirkiness of the infotainment system.

      Id say seats are nice and comfy. Dont notice a lot of highway road noise Car does jerk a bit from Auto Start / Stop to engaging engine but nothing too excessive.

    15. #48
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2015
      Location
      Cottage City, MD
      Posts
      72
      Quote Originally Posted by Almaz View Post
      I think you got this backwards. I buckle the passenger side (not unbuckle it) when no one is sitting so it doesn't bang against the B-pillar.
      You miss the point. In a Volvo at this price point, I shouldn't have to stick felt or buckle the unused belt. Some blonde, blue eyed engineer/tester should have caught it. As far as the nav, I once tried to type in Kaiser Permanente looking for my healthcare provider. I only got as far as "KA" and the nav started listing every kabob restaurant in the area.

    16. #49
      1. Most drivers will never be in an accident bad enough to warrant Volvo's "ultimate safety ratings"
      2. Volvo never has in it's history been the car to excite drivers. You want fun? look elsewhere!
      3. The premiums Volvo charge for the safety features alone, are not enough to justify to most buyers a strong enough reason to own one. Might as well buy a Chevy and pocket the thousands in savings!


      Don't get me wrong, I love renting Volvo's! They have the most comfortable interiors of any car I've rented (tied with Cadillac STS).
      The problem I have with them is the lack of long term durability. They are the most needy car I've ever known!

      As for that pie chart with the various manufacturers fatalities, the reason why there's so few for Volvo is because there are so few Volvo's on the road.

    17. #50
      Quote Originally Posted by Almaz View Post
      Let's not get stuck on the buttons. Some of us like them (me included) and some don't. The bottom line is that they are outdated.
      Volvo should have updated the infotainment system as well as some of the pain points such as the seatbelt buckle rattling on the B-pillar (that annoys me too so I just buckle it).
      They did a good job with the refresh making the build more solid but they should have updated the rest of it and taken care of the loose ends.
      Yep, I like the buttons too. But you can actually have buttons with a good, modern system, which Volvo doesn't have.

      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      A. I'm not sure AWD / 4WD is all gimmick and pizzazz. A transfer case allows all four wheels to spin independently. Thereby, giving better traction. Swedespeed users swear by the new Haladex AWD. I can't say one way or another as I have never driven an AWD Volvo. I do know when we had snow here, I have great All Season tires, and there were a few spots I struggled to get traction on the ice.
      Nobody said AWD / 4WD is all gimmick and pizzazz. You're arguing against something nobody is debating.

      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      B. Depreciation:

      1. Lowered Selling Price Points Contribute to added Devaluation.
      2. I am not circling the argument. Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais, etc are massed produced on large scale. Making parts readily available at market value (and not a premium).
      3. Volvos have a low adoption rate in America. Less than 1%. Toyotas, Hondas, etc are around 14%. With less Volvo Drivers, there is less demand on parts. Thereby less volume. Less volume correlates to higher repair costs.

      So yes. All these points contribute to rapid depreciation. People Buying a car for greatly reduced prices, followed by a high cost of upkeep, translate to fewer buyers. Ultimately, a car that is not in high demand sells for less.
      Let's try one more time - the point I took issue with is your claim that depreciation translates to high maintainence and repair costs. Which of the points above do you think addresses depreciation translating into maintenance and repair costs in any way, with or without any combo of anything else?

    18. #51
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      Yep, I like the buttons too. But you can actually have buttons with a good, modern system, which Volvo doesn't have.



      Nobody said AWD / 4WD is all gimmick and pizzazz. You're arguing against something nobody is debating.



      Let's try one more time - the point I took issue with is your claim that depreciation translates to high maintainence and repair costs. Which of the points above do you think addresses depreciation translating into maintenance and repair costs in any way, with or without any combo of anything else?

      This is a lost cause...If you pay more upkeep on a car, because parts come at a premium, fewer people are willing to undertake the investment. Therefore, this translates into a LOWER DEMAND for Volvos...Low Demand = Harder to Sell. And thus, the cars do not maintain their value.

      Look at that Honda Sr2000. a 2007 MSRP is 31-34,000. In 2017... That same car sells fro 18-21,000 ten years later... Demand = Maintains Value. No Demand or Little Demand = Rapid Depreciation.

    19. #52
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA
      Posts
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      I couldn't agree more. Volvo markets itself poorly. A matter of fact, I don't ever recall seeing a "Volvo Advertisement" on television. Compounding Volvo's poor marketing is their reputation as boring. Volvo's are known as safe (strong selling point), but up until a few years ago, Volvo's were that Odd Boxy looking Car.

      Volvo has set a goal of no fatalities in a Volvo by 2020. It kills me that Volvo doesn't start an ad campaign pushing their motto, brand, and overall build quality, to include safe. And quite frankly, I find my 2015.5 very sleek and sporty looking!

      Volvo - No Longer just a family Car but an Every Man's Car. Sleek, Sporty, Safe and Stylish! There's your slogan Volvo.
      I kind of like, "THIS ain't your uncle's Volvo..."
      Life is too short to drive an ugly car...
      2012 XC60 T6 AWD Ice White / Tan Interior [Hers]
      2012 S60 T6 AWD Ember Black Metallic...aka "Svärt Kaffe" (Black Coffee) [His]
      Roll on...

    20. #53
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      This is a lost cause...If you pay more upkeep on a car, because parts come at a premium, fewer people are willing to undertake the investment. Therefore, this translates into a LOWER DEMAND for Volvos...Low Demand = Harder to Sell. And thus, the cars do not maintain their value.
      Uh, you just made the **opposite** argument from your original statement - high repair and maintenance costs translating into greater depreciation.

    21. #54
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jul 2014
      Location
      Bend, Or
      Posts
      141
      This OSD commercial is appealing to a segment of "unique" customers. Saw this over on OSD and thought of this thread. No mention in here of depreciation curves. Huh

      bespoke cars

      https://youtu.be/3JGDOjY7Cqg
      Sold: 98 V70 2.5T 289k Miles
      Current: 05 XC90 2.5T 300k Miles & counting
      Future: 2017 V60 Platinum Mussel Blue OSD

    22. #55
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      Uh, you just made the **opposite** argument from your original statement - high repair and maintenance costs translating into greater depreciation.
      Please reread what I wrote. I stated that High Repair Costs and Upkeep translate to Greater Depreciation. If X vehicle costs 2-3x more to maintain than A Honda, Toyota, etc because parts are in less Demand, then Said X vehicle sells for less. As less people are seeking out X vehicle to buy.

      Same argument I've made from the start.

    23. #56
      Quote Originally Posted by Scrapr View Post
      This OSD commercial is appealing to a segment of "unique" customers. Saw this over on OSD and thought of this thread. No mention in here of depreciation curves. Huh

      bespoke cars

      https://youtu.be/3JGDOjY7Cqg
      Good Commercial. It's a "Niche Commercial" but its a good one. It highlights Swedish Tourism, Adventure, and the whole "Volvo Buying Experience" for OSD. Of course, not everyone can or will do OSD.

      Volvo Needs to focus on Safety. Show Mother and Child in a Volvo Driving... then cut to Have real customer testimony of "Volvo Saved my Life".

      I.E. We were Driving our XC60 one day (Show Mom and Baby in the car)... When we were hit by (Drunk Driver, Slid on Patch of Snow, etc) and our Volvo saved our life. If it weren't for Volvo, My child and I wouldn't be here today....Volvos Promise of No Fatalities by 2020 is within reach. Become and Part of the Volvo Family and experience world class comfort and safety. etc

    24. #57
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      NoCal
      Posts
      16,014
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      There are 4 Volvo Dealerships within a 90 mile radius. So if that isn't a target audience, then I'm left wondering what Volvo defines as their "core demographic"?
      Then I am guessing that you need to upgrade the TV shows that you are watching.

      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD (OSD purchase - June)(for towing/camping and backroad journeys); 2008 C30 T5 (MT) OSD purchase (December)(mine); 2004 Porsche Boxster (used)(hers); 2007 Prius (handed down)

    25. #58
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Please reread what I wrote. I stated that High Repair Costs and Upkeep translate to Greater Depreciation. If X vehicle costs 2-3x more to maintain than A Honda, Toyota, etc because parts are in less Demand, then Said X vehicle sells for less. As less people are seeking out X vehicle to buy.

      Same argument I've made from the start.
      Great concise explanation of this phenomenon. It's like old Audi Allroad-itis. Amazingly wonderful cars when they run properly. Expensive when they were new. Dirt cheap now. People are terrified of the repair costs and basic maintenance items like $4,000 timing services and having to remove the engine for just about everything short of changing the wiper blades. I'd own one if I wasn't so afraid of the costs involved. Similar situation with my Cadillac Deville, and any of the Northstar cars. They are so very, very nice to drive but the issues are endless, and likely to culminate in the ultimate Northstar jackpot: the classic Headgasket Failure. Anyone with a lick of common sense stays the hell away from Caddies like mine. God I love it, but holy crap is it a financial nightmare. You can get older euro and domestic luxury cars practically for free these days, because people anticipate they will be crazy expensive and needy after you buy them. Reliable cars tend to maintain a higher resale value in part because what you see is what you get, and you can be relatively sure there won't be a million horrible surprises that'll clear out your bank accound (yay, a steering rack just went! A transmission is slipping!!), or get you fired from your job after it breaks down on your way to work the 5th time this year.
      2011 S60 T6 with Polestar tune
      13.1 at 101 mph

      Current mods: KW V3 coilovers, DO88 fmic, Ferrita downpipe, Powerflex "race" torque mount inserts, more to come...

    26. #59
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      NoCal
      Posts
      16,014
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      AWD and 4WD, for the vast majority of people, is a cool toy / checkbox / prestige item, and isn't bought for practicality. I'm from snow country in upstate NY and I've driven a miata and a red pickup in all the places you've mentioned above, including in snow (except Yosemite), and it's not really an issue, and most people obviously don't have it, including on light rear end rear wheel drive pickups.
      Agreed, though AWD is helpful when in snow country and you want to get by the Highway Patrol who are stopping folks to check for chains or M+S tires.
      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD (OSD purchase - June)(for towing/camping and backroad journeys); 2008 C30 T5 (MT) OSD purchase (December)(mine); 2004 Porsche Boxster (used)(hers); 2007 Prius (handed down)

    27. #60
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      NoCal
      Posts
      16,014
      [QUOTE=Bunnspeed;5100281] It does a better job of being quiet, comfortable, innocuous transportation with a bit of style thrown in to subtly one-up the Joneses without being a douche about it. /QUOTE]

      To be honest, isn't that why everyone buys a Volvo?

      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD (OSD purchase - June)(for towing/camping and backroad journeys); 2008 C30 T5 (MT) OSD purchase (December)(mine); 2004 Porsche Boxster (used)(hers); 2007 Prius (handed down)

    28. #61
      [QUOTE=adp;5104633]
      Quote Originally Posted by Bunnspeed View Post
      It does a better job of being quiet, comfortable, innocuous transportation with a bit of style thrown in to subtly one-up the Joneses without being a douche about it. /QUOTE]

      To be honest, isn't that why everyone buys a Volvo?

      Ha, not me. I bought mine because it was a screaming deal on a fast used car I could justify to my fiancee right before getting married. I was super close to buying a turbo beetle convertible and going crazy with tuning and bolt-ons, like I did with my 2008 GTI, which I had wrecked, hence the need to buy a car (my backup car, my 1997 Deville, had been my stand-in daily for about a year but it was insanely unreliable and threatening to break up my relationship, lol...sorta forced my hand). Anyhoo, the wife-to-be didn't much care for the turbo beetle and told me I could get what I wanted as long as it could also be something we could carry our pets and future children in. I really wanted that beetle but I made one of the only responsible, adult car-purchasing decisions I've ever made and bought a Volvo instead. Awd, beautiful leather interior, loaded with content, only 9k miles on the clock, essentially flawless, for less than money than any of the well-used beetle verts within a 200 mile radius. It wasn't *really* what I wanted, but I knew it was the right choice in my price range for my wife and I to grow into, while still being a fast car with lowkey enthusiast appeal with a little bit of work. Granted, she doesn't even want to ride in it now that it's slammed on coilovers, but I started out with the right intentions at least
      2011 S60 T6 with Polestar tune
      13.1 at 101 mph

      Current mods: KW V3 coilovers, DO88 fmic, Ferrita downpipe, Powerflex "race" torque mount inserts, more to come...

    29. #62
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Please reread what I wrote. I stated that High Repair Costs and Upkeep translate to Greater Depreciation. If X vehicle costs 2-3x more to maintain than A Honda, Toyota, etc because parts are in less Demand, then Said X vehicle sells for less. As less people are seeking out X vehicle to buy.

      Same argument I've made from the start.
      not, as i said, you were saying the opposite before.

      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      3. Depreciation, plus few adopters, translate to high maintenance and repair costs. Parts become a commodity where the high cost is passed onto the consumer.
      Last edited by poundsand; 03-16-2017 at 06:23 PM.

    30. #63
      Junior Member Sven787's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Location
      Seattle
      Posts
      63
      [QUOTE=adp;5104633]
      Quote Originally Posted by Bunnspeed View Post
      It does a better job of being quiet, comfortable, innocuous transportation with a bit of style thrown in to subtly one-up the Joneses without being a douche about it. /QUOTE]

      To be honest, isn't that why everyone buys a Volvo?

      This. And I think Volvo is doing a good job now marketing to that demographic (just maybe not quite enough yet). If we wanted a performance machine we would have considered leaving Volvo for a CPO S3 or something for the same price we paid for our S60, but the fact of the matter is neither my wife nor I intend to track or tune our cars and with the exception of ~15 miles of highway driving a day for me, our drives are largely in city traffic or along narrow/slow Seattle side streets. We'd use the "performance" aspect of an S3 or a S60 T6/R-D once in a blue moon but pay daily for a jumpy throttle/jittery ride/worse mileage etc.

      I'd agree that the T5 Drive-E certainly has a more obvious niche in the market as smooth, comfortable, powerful-enough-when-you-need-it (es with the Polestar tune), all with a non-douchey yet still refined presence. It can't necessarily compete in the current market, but for that reason offers a pretty solid value proposition given the discounts to move them.
      Current Fleet: 2007 XC90 V8 Sport (Titanium Gray); 2016 S60 T5 Drive-E Premium Polestar (Black Stone, Sport Pkg, Convenience Pkg, BLIS, Tech Pkg)
      Previously Owned: 2005 S60 2.5T AWD (Ice White)

    31. #64
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      not, as i said, you were saying the opposite before.
      Both say practically the same argument, but in different terms.

      Depreciation (Lower Demand = Higher Depreciation), does equal higher maintenance costs. Again, if there aren't a lot of takers for New and Used Volvos, parts are a commodity. Meaning the Parts and Maintenance ARE HIGHER.

      Companies like Honda, Toyota, etc are mainstream brands with a high popularity. Therefore, cars depreciate much slower, and the repairs costs are lower, due to the higher adoption rates.

      Consider Henry Ford. When the first Model T's were built, cars had to be dragged from one person to another. The less volume and longer it took the make a car, the more Ford paid. Therefore, the car cost more.

      When Henry ford perfected the assembly line, and pumped out a higher volume, the savings were past onto the consumers.

      Honda and Toyota are very popular. Parts aren't a commodity, but regularly available. The same isn't true for Volvo.

    32. #65
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Both say practically the same argument, but in different terms.

      Depreciation (Lower Demand = Higher Depreciation), does equal higher maintenance costs. Again, if there aren't a lot of takers for New and Used Volvos, parts are a commodity. Meaning the Parts and Maintenance ARE HIGHER.

      Companies like Honda, Toyota, etc are mainstream brands with a high popularity. Therefore, cars depreciate much slower, and the repairs costs are lower, due to the higher adoption rates.

      Consider Henry Ford. When the first Model T's were built, cars had to be dragged from one person to another. The less volume and longer it took the make a car, the more Ford paid. Therefore, the car cost more.

      When Henry ford perfected the assembly line, and pumped out a higher volume, the savings were past onto the consumers.

      Honda and Toyota are very popular. Parts aren't a commodity, but regularly available. The same isn't true for Volvo.
      You're saying flipping a causal relationship is the same. It doesn't make any logical sense, and is demonstrably false - look at the depreciation of KIAs vs ownership cost.

    33. #66
      Member Bmo Pete's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2014
      Location
      N. Maryland
      Posts
      4,572
      Very simple: I'm a wagon guy. So name me one Audi, Bimmer or Merc sport wagon you could buy fully loaded with anything near a 325 horse turbo 6, AWD, the best seats in the industry....for $46K after discounts? Oh forgot...in Rebel Blue. (crickets)
      Rebel Blue, the new red! Intro & Updates Link
      Current: '15 V60 T6 3.0 AWD RD Plat | '15.5 XC60 T6 3.0 AWD Ocean Race Plat
      Prior: '15 S60 T6 3.0 RD Plat

    34. #67
      Junior Member Denton's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2006
      Location
      Atlanta, GA
      Posts
      741
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      You're saying flipping a causal relationship is the same. It doesn't make any logical sense, and is demonstrably false - look at the depreciation of KIAs vs ownership cost.
      It's not worth it...you're on the money.
      2016 Passion Red/Off-black S60 T5 R-Design
      2006 Ice White/Oak XC70
      1996 Polar White/Charcoal 854R
      Former: 1996 Bright Red 855R, 2003 Silver V70 T5, 2012 Black Sapphire C30 T5 R-Design 6MT P*

    35. #68
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      You're saying flipping a causal relationship is the same. It doesn't make any logical sense, and is demonstrably false - look at the depreciation of KIAs vs ownership cost.
      http://www.autoblog.com/photos/cars-...#slide-4240818

      Please see Here. The Volvo S60 is #3 on the list losing 34.4% in First Year Depreciation. I do concede that a Kia is #4 on the list (Kia Cadenza). I'm not sure why? Poor Build Quality? Not popular? No expanation is given.

      Ultimately, there is a casual link. Different cars suffer higher Depreciation for a variety of reasons.

      1. Poor Seller
      2. Poor Build Quality
      3. Tons of known mechanical issues and/or Repairs
      4. High Cost to maintain car (Perform Maintenance, Have Services, Replace Parts)
      5. Low Demand because of 1-4

      It is a given that Volvo's are very expensive. Parts cost a fortune, and labor rates at dealer are an easy $150/hr. There's no such thing as a "Cheap Fix".

      Sure, that Kia Cadenza is on the list...It's there for some reason found in 1-4.
      Last edited by MyVolvoS60; 03-17-2017 at 12:28 AM.

    36. #69
      Quote Originally Posted by adp View Post
      Then I am guessing that you need to upgrade the TV shows that you are watching.

      I've just never seen one on Television in my area.. Period.. I'm not sure what I should be watching to catch an ad.

    37. #70
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      NoCal
      Posts
      16,014
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      I've just never seen one on Television in my area.. Period.. I'm not sure what I should be watching to catch an ad.
      I don't recall on which shows I have seen the Volvo ads. I don't watch that much TV, but I have seen ads. I mostly watch NBA, NHL and MLB, with a little sitcom thrown in. But I have seen ads. (Not that many, though)

      I am guessing Volvo isn't buying time on the Kardashians.

      They should be sponsoring PBS shows.
      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD (OSD purchase - June)(for towing/camping and backroad journeys); 2008 C30 T5 (MT) OSD purchase (December)(mine); 2004 Porsche Boxster (used)(hers); 2007 Prius (handed down)

    38. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast