Where do you see Volvo against other marques?

[AndyMJenkins]

I'm looking at getting my first Volvo, changing from Mercedes. Everyone I've spoken too, considers this a DOWNgrade.

Where do you see the Volvo brand compared to the likes of MB, BMW , Lexus etc?

Whatabout if you throw the likes of Ford into the equation?

Is it fair to call Volvo a premium brand ?

[GMad]

Volvo is not a premium brand and never has been IMO!
Personally I don't think any mass produced car is "Premium".
I think if anything Volvo has lost some, if not all of its identity in recent years, simply because they are trying to be too much like all the others. They used to be considered by all to have bullet proof reliability, be massively practical and do exactly what it says on the tin. Now though, they are another European mass produced car that is having to offer the same as every other manufacturer to compete!
UK customers seem obsesed by labels, although in the case of cars this is changing. After all ther are some damn good offerings that are very well made, safe, reliable, good looking and practical, coming from the East.
The only thing that holds them back (with some people), is the badge!

[NigeS]

I can't see any current manufacturer knocking the big 3 German makes off their pedestal. As you say in the past certain marques specialised certain things and Volvos like Saab was safety and practicality. Now manufacturers have to encompass all aspects of car design to be ahead of the game, so all that is left for consumers to put the money against is brand and lifestyle.

Our MD has brand new Audi A8 and it's a damn nice place to be. But then it did cost nigh on £100K and Volvo don't offer anything at that price point. Therefore until they do they'll never be a premium brand. Looking back though Audi started out as quirky brand who's offering was only 4x4 with aerodynamics, when did they become premium? I guess you need to launch a flagship barge with a big price tag. VW tried it with the Phaeton.

I think Mercedes has always been premium but have lost their way a little over the last 15 years, which allowed Audi and BMW to step in.

I guess you call RR, Bentley, etc as Hyper Premium?

[Daim]

Modern Volvo has a good build quality and a lot of good equipment from the factory in the base price (unlike Audi). It is hard to say, where they are situated precisely. Def. not in the budget class. Ford/VW/Vauxhall isn't the right group. Nor though is Mercedes/Audi/BMW. I'd put Volvo between both groups with the tendency facing towards Audi (not BMW or MB).

Volvo is trying to make themselves sporty and emotional (kind of like Alfa Romeo) but doesn't offer proper sporty vehicles.

It really is a little hard to decide on where to put Volvo. Yes, it IS a downgrade vom Mercedes but then again, Mercedes build quality has been dropping. The last C220 CDI (Facelift) I drove, drove well, but it rattled and shattered all the time. My 5 year old C30 doesn't do that.

Volvo is improving. I'd say they'll soon (maybe 2014!?) be up to Mercedes/Audi level.

Btw.: Volvo's nickname here in Germany is "Sweden Benz" - that is still from the time, as the old 760 was compared with the W124 260E and was called the better Mercedes...

When Volvo then went to FWD (400, 800, S80, ...) the quality rating went down. The quality was then being compared with Rover (a class of its own). That is how German press rated the build quality of the late 90ies. Now the cars are compared with VW, Audi, BMW and every so often Mercedes. So I'd say Volvo is slowly picking up again...

[arcturus]

New Volvos are poor value for money. There are better cars on the market at a lower price.

[Daim]

Originally Posted by arcturus

New Volvos are poor value for money. There are better cars on the market at a lower price.

That applies to every car brand on this planet.
You can buy a Lada Niva instead of a Porsche Cayenne. The Lada will get you further, cheaper and more efficient.
You can buy a Dacia Sandero instead of a VW Polo for less and have a reliable car.
You can buy a Chevy Cruze instead of a Vauxhall Astra, for less and will have the same chassis as the Astra, the same engines and the same build quality for a lower price.
You can buy a Ford Focus instead of a new Volvo V40 for less and will have the same chassis, but not the same engines or build quality.
You can buy a Daihastsu Trevis instead of a Mini and get the same size, same styling and cheaper price.

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by GMad

Volvo is not a premium brand and never has been IMO!
Personally I don't think any mass produced car is "Premium".
I think if anything Volvo has lost some, if not all of its identity in recent years, simply because they are trying to be too much like all the others. They used to be considered by all to have bullet proof reliability, be massively practical and do exactly what it says on the tin. Now though, they are another European mass produced car that is having to offer the same as every other manufacturer to compete!
UK customers seem obsesed by labels, although in the case of cars this is changing. After all ther are some damn good offerings that are very well made, safe, reliable, good looking and practical, coming from the East.
The only thing that holds them back (with some people), is the badge!

Hi GMAD.

I agree.

Ive said this elsewhere before and been slated!!!

I consider Volvos business model to be flawed. They are trying to be premium (in the branding sense).Merc et al have this premium image due to ‘branding’ and the marketing gurus. Not necessarily is a Merc better built nor more reliable than an alternative make, its just that they can charge more for the ‘perceived image’. Two drivers pull up at a business meeting, one in a base BMW 3 series tourer ,the other in a Hyundai i40 tourer. Peoples perception is that the BMW driver is more successful.

And that’s the thing its all in the perception.

Volvo is however ‘premium’ in some respects. It feels a quality product. A quality product is a premium product. For example the window switches and the electric seat switches in a Volvo XC feel more substantial and ‘premium’ than they do in a Jaguar, although which car has the ‘premium’ tag. Yup its Jaguar.

That’s the thing. There is ‘premium’ and premium.

Apart from us here aficionados and enthusiast, most people would not see Volvo up there with BMW Merc Audi ,Jag etc, hence the reason why Volvo should not be playing in the premium market.

I do believe people perceive Volvo more premium than say Hyundai, which is why Volvo should remove themselves from the ‘premium brand race’, (which it will never ever conquer) distance itself from the ‘mass market Hyundai category’ and create a ‘niche’ slightly above Hyundai although below the likes of say Merc. This it is believed would lead to an increase in sales as people may move away from the ‘mass market Hyundai category’ to the ‘sub premium’ Volvo category ,although are not prepared to stretch to the costly ‘premium category’ such as Merc. They may be however prepared to pay say 2k more for a Volvo than a Hyundai to obtain this ‘image upgrade’ but not be prepared to pay 12k more when they can ‘pre buy’ the image for the same money from say Merc.

I know some would say they would never have a Hyundai , and I am only using Hyundai as I have experience of them ,although surely what sense is there in most peoples minds in paying say 32k for a Volvo when a similar vehicle in the ‘Hyundai category’ is around 20k and offers a similar driving experience, a superior purchase package, more equipment, and a more reliable vehicle.?


Therein the problem lies.

Regards

[Volvo2002]

It's hard to say where I would rank them. I guess Semi-Premium? Volvo are somewhere in the middle..

Volvo have yet to trouble the big three. The all new S60 seems to be a very well rounded car, but car magazines still put it behind the Germans.

In the end I guess it depends on what you the consumer is looking for..

[Prufrock]

Interesting thread.

the automotive industry does not regard Volvo as a"premuim brand", it is often referred to as"sub premium".

This is a particularly difficult area(irrespective of product), and a great deal to to with marketing, but"premium"is in many ways mainstream now.

As the quality of the once premium leaders (Merc, BMW and Audi) declined, and the volume cars improved, the line became blurred: when mercedes was at the top of its game throughout the late 60s, 70s and 80s, neither BMW nor Audi came close - Audis in the 70s and early were no better or worse than re-badged VWs - Audis turnaround came with the 100 and the adoption of"Vorsprung Durch Technic".

BMW throughout the 70s and early 80s sold very few cars in the UK - compared to the last two decades - you see BMWs on every housing estate in the UK these days.

The biggest issue facing the marketing people within any organisation is how they differentiate their products; and nearly always they'll be using intangibles such as lifestyle and all that"flummery". This is because there is very little real differentiation between brands.

With the development of cost effective manufacturing technologies and the concomitant reduction in manufacturing tolerances etc, high quality goods are no longer the preserve of the better off.

Quality products are not always premium products (if you associate premium wih a high price); Heinz beans are a quality,"premium"baked bean, but affordable. A Swatch watch is extremely high quality as are Casio watches. Many high priced, premium items, are vey poorly made.

Cars generally are no longer status symbols, with ever more creative finance packages most people can afford a £20k/£25k car.

I wouldn't buy a BMW because they're common and I've had plenty of them when they weren't, and I don't like modern Mercedes. I always thought Audis were bought by people who had a high opinion of themselves - although I did have a new UR Quattro company car in 1987/88.

Excluding cars that most of us cannot afford (RR, Bentley etc) I believe the"best"car produced today in terms of objective product quality is the Lexus - whether you like them or not is irrelevant, I find myself being drawn to purchasing a GS.

That says something - probably quite a lot - about me, off my soap box now.

Prufrock.

[Daim]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Interesting thread.

the automotive industry does not regard Volvo as a"premuim brand", it is often referred to as"sub premium".

This is a particularly difficult area(irrespective of product), and a great deal to to with marketing, but"premium"is in many ways mainstream now.

As the quality of the once premium leaders (Merc, BMW and Audi) declined, and the volume cars improved, the line became blurred: when mercedes was at the top of its game throughout the late 60s, 70s and 80s, neither BMW nor Audi came close - Audis in the 70s and early were no better or worse than re-badged VWs - Audis turnaround came with the 100 and the adoption of"Vorsprung Durch Technic".

BMW throughout the 70s and early 80s sold very few cars in the UK - compared to the last two decades - you see BMWs on every housing estate in the UK these days.

The biggest issue facing the marketing people within any organisation is how they differentiate their products; and nearly always they'll be using intangibles such as lifestyle and all that"flummery". This is because there is very little real differentiation between brands.

With the development of cost effective manufacturing technologies and the concomitant reduction in manufacturing tolerances etc, high quality goods are no longer the preserve of the better off.

Quality products are not always premium products (if you associate premium wih a high price); Heinz beans are a quality,"premium"baked bean, but affordable. A Swatch watch is extremely high quality as are Casio watches. Many high priced, premium items, are vey poorly made.

Cars generally are no longer status symbols, with ever more creative finance packages most people can afford a £20k/£25k car.

I wouldn't buy a BMW because they're common and I've had plenty of them when they weren't, and I don't like modern Mercedes. I always thought Audis were bought by people who had a high opinion of themselves - although I did have a new UR Quattro company car in 1987/88.

Excluding cars that most of us cannot afford (RR, Bentley etc) I believe the"best"car produced today in terms of objective product quality is the Lexus - whether you like them or not is irrelevant, I find myself being drawn to purchasing a GS.

That says something - probably quite a lot - about me, off my soap box now.

Prufrock.

Not quite that with Audi.

The reason Audi all of a sudden "exploded" has nothing to do with "Vorsprung durch Technik". More so with a fantastic PR and ad campaign in the late 80ies and throughout the 90ies.

Audi was the typical "Grandad with crocheted bog roll cover in back" car. A car for people who couldn't afford a Mercedes, a BMW or - yes - a Volvo(!) at least here in Germany. They were in their lineup equal with Ford, though Ford being a tad better.

They then forced themselves into the premium branch by firstly making some "sporty" cars. The Audi "Ur-Quattro" was basically only built, to get the Rallye Quattro into homologation. The first proper "sports Audi" were the S1 and the S4 of the 90ies. Quality slowly improved, but the TV and media ads made you think it was all better before it was. The Hamburger agency did fantastic work - and that worldwide!

Nowadays people believe that Audi has a great buildquality, which they do... For 3 years! And then the interior and exterior deteriorates quickly. And their depreciation here in Germany is rather bad. Volvo's is worse, but Audi is bad. A 4 year old Audi S8 (!) will go for say 1/10th of the original price...

VWs have less depreciation but basically the same problems. Technology problems, engine problems and other simple things, VAG (aka VW and Audi) ist/are not prepared to accept.