 | |
REPORT: Chinese government approves of Chery's bid to purchase Volvo
Volvo automobiles Volvo automobiles. (alt.autos.volvo)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: REPORT: Chinese government approves of Chery's bid to purchaseVolvo -
03-13-2009
, 03:19 PM
|
On Mar 13, 1:51*am, ih8change <ih8cha... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 12, 7:48*am, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 11, 10:28*pm, ih8change <ih8cha... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 11, 10:47*am, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 11, 1:55*am, ih8change <ih8cha... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 9, 7:33*am, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 7, 3:14*am, sjmmail2000-... (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk wrote: If, like us, you've been following the Volvo saga pretty closely, you'll remember that several Chinese companies are considered to be among the top bidders for the Swedish automaker when Ford officially opens the bidding. Although Geely has said they aren't interested, that didn't rule out other Chinese outfits. Well, today we have word via Chinese news reports that Chery, for one, has been given the greenlight to enter the Volvo lottery by the Chinese government. Other interested parties are ru... Read More:http://feeds.autoblog.com/~r/weblogsinc/autoblog/~3/q1_Xjs8RbkM/ ----------------------------------- Volvo NewsHub: Latest auto news sourced from websites, portals and blogshttp://www.carshops247.co.uk/news/Volvo.html What I find interesting in this and other threads about the possible re-sale of Volvo Cars to another car manufacturer is their similarity to all of the complaining and agonizing when Volvo was sold to Ford. Threats to never buy another Volvo again because the brand somehow lost it's swedish identity in 1999. *Of course once the deal was done boycotts were quickly forgotten and we kept buying bricks. Apparently the concern now is that Volvo is losing it's american identity. *It's worth remembering that Volvo cars have for a long time included many parts originating in many countries other Sweden. *And it is worth remembering that if Volvo isn't sold to a non-swedish owner with pockets full of cash that the brand could very well cease to exist. *And finally, we should recognize that the brand with it's identifying *features would undoubtedly be continued with the new owner. *To do otherwise would rapidly dilute the identity of the car. Just think, we're going from a Swedish company who has brought us safety and environmental innovations such as seat belts, airbags, and catalytic converters, to become a Chinese owned corporation which may source out parts to companies that have manufactured lead painted toys, children cough syrup with ethylene glycol, milk and pet food tainted with melamine. Your short term memory must be failing. * Volvo Cars is not a swedish company - it is american owned. *And look at the pollution the americans have brought upon the world. *Consider all of the mercury spewing forth into the air as coal burning power plants continue to be built and used. *Etc., etc. The year that Volvo will be sold to a Chinese concern will be the last model year that I will consider to purchase. So you will apparently buy your last Volvo in the year that Volvois sold to a chinese company. *In other words you will celebrate the sale by buying one of the first Volvo cars made under chinese ownership. Nice of you... No sino Volvo for me! It was bad enough that Ford bought them but this is an order of magnitude worse. What exactly makes it worser than worse? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No, that's not what I meant. If you recall how the production year of a automobile is done, this year's model vehicles were tooled, parts procured, and inventory scheduled from the prior year. You should say what you mean. So if Volvo were to be sold today to China, this production year would be pre-Chinese. I'm not sure you can characterize a production year with a nationality. *The stock ownership may change at a given point in time but that is about it. *For example if Volvo is sold to Geely on 6/30/2009 then Geely will own the Volvo brand as well as the assets and liabilities that are transferred over. *A Volvo made on 6-29-2009 and 7-1-2009 will likely have parts from exactly the same sources and will likely look exactly the same. *The new owners may over time change the mix of numerous countries in which they have parts suppliers. *That said I don't see where it would make any business sense for the new owner to all of a sudden switch parts, designs and downgrade quality. Let me know if I'm wrong here.... In the case of Ford, I've always deplored their safety record. Do you recall the exploding Pinto, the collapsing roof of a F150, and fuel tank fires on their Crown Vic police cruisers? In the US, we still have legal recourse when such negligence is uncovered. There are federal regulations and product laws to correct this but with China, Recourse in China is irrelevant unless you plan on travelling to China and buying directly on the local market. *That's a move I would not recommend for any car whether BMW, Mercedes or Volvo. *If you buy a Volvo in the USA you would have legal recourse in the USA against the importer as it is right now for any other international brand. *I just don't believe such recourse exist for the common citizen. Sure it does. *For example when Yugo fell flat all the suits went against the esteemed USA importer and not Yugo in eastern europe. Remember the disastrous Subaru 360 eposide? *Similar outcome. Just a thought, when I buy a Volvo part for my 11 year old V70 or S90, that part is still made in Europe under Ford ownership. If you look carefully few of the parts in Volvo's are of swedish origin. *I'm not sure I understand your specirfic concern. *Is it about non-swedish parts, non-usa parts non-japanese parts or somehting else. If this is Chinese owned, I don't believe it will remain so but I hope I'm wrong. I'm not sure what you want to remain or not change. *The parts mix in Volvo cars is truly international as with many other brands these days. Regardless, I'm still disgusted with the whole thing What are you so disgusted about? *The sale of car brands to other owners? *If the brand isn't sold to someone with cash to keep it running then it will likely fail in my opinion. *From my perspective the loss of a brand with such a fine history is an undesirable outcome no matter who owns the stock. ...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What I'm disgusted about is that the Volvo car brand that I've grown to admire and appreciate may become something less in the hands of China. It's obvious that I'm not very objective about this but I have family who survived the cultural revolution and were able to migrate to America and shake off the yoke of tyranny.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And one could make a comparable argument that cars from Germany, England, France and America are somehow tainted because of their history of repression, war mongering, etc. |
as
China and Cuba as compared to the west?
Your argument may fall apart when you consider this question. What
country would you want live and raise your children in today?
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 12, 2:23*pm, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: I'm not sure the loss of an old model like the 900 is a bad thing. *I sent one daughter away to school with a used 900. *It was a nice design for it's time but a car company has to consider it's competition. *I sent the other daughter away to schoool with a 240 * It servedit's purpose, but the design was seriously out of date in 1994. Imagine where Ford would be if it had simply continued making the 1950 Ford Custom. *Or if Saab had simply continued the cramped 93 with a buzzy little 3 cylinder motor. It was just an example, at the time, the new 900 was inferior to the classic 900 that it replaced, both are technically obsolete now, but the classic 900 is much more desirable and nice examples are worth more now to enthusiasts. I'm personally very fond of the classic 900, there's just nothing else like it out there before or since, and I would take a brand new one of those over most of the other new cars available any day, but that's irrelevant, the point is GM took over and immediately replaced a model with one of their own designs and gave it the same name. In the time since, there have been catastrophes such as the 97 which is nothing but a GM trailblazer, the brand is really nothing but a brand anymore, similar to the classic radio and hifi brands now appearing on Chinese junk. Just the other day I saw a "Crosley" radio which was made to look vintage but was in fact a cheap flimsy modern radio with a CD player. I also came across a "Dual" car CD player, no relation aside from the name itself to the well regarded turntables of the 70s. Quite a few well known American tool brand names are now owned by Chinese companies that slap the name on cheap inferior quality tools which are then sold on the reputation of the name alone. Things may change, as happened with Japan in the 70s, but at the present moment, I associate "made in China" with cheap goods of inferior quality. I must be seriously out of date myself, because I think the 240 is a fantastic design and still serves quite a few people very well. Just because something is new does not automatically make it better, but that mentality does drive the rampant wasteful consumerism that the US is so well known for. I could afford to buy a brand new Volvo if I wanted one, but I prefer nicely maintained older stuff. Most new cars are far too rounded and bubbly for my taste, and too cramped under the hood. I suspect new 1950 Fords would sell like hotcakes, lots of people love a bit of nostalgia, but they would never meet modern regulations. You can buy all new parts to build a 1932 Ford from scratch, ends up costing a lot more than buying a late model, but hot rodders do it. Whether you or I feel nostalgic about a given model really doesn't mean much in the decision to continue a given model or kill and replace with something new. *A more important factor is really whether one model will sell a sufficient number of cars or not. *If current and prospective Volvo buyers would line up in sufficient numbers to buy a PV544, 140 or 240 then Volvo could make a lot more money by not changing models. *But consumer tastes and wants change over time and if all you have to offer is vehicular nostalgia it won't sell many cars. I *happpen to think my latest Volvo V70 is an improvement over the early S80, which was an improvement over the 960 which was an improvement over the 740 which was an improvement over the 240 that was once in the stable. *The improvement in features, drivability and safety over that 25 year span has been dramatic. *Each change was incrementally better in my estimation. |
RWD vehicle i.e. S90 as compared to a V70. The timing belt alone takes
a leisurely 2 hours to replace on a S90 compared to about 4 on a V70.
At $100 per hour, that is significant. With newer vehicles, the higher
level of electronic and mechanical integration may produce a lower
parts count to the manufacturer but it's proving very expensive to the
consumer if that part needs to be replaced.
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 12, 11:46*am, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 12, 2:23*pm, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: I'm not sure the loss of an old model like the 900 is a bad thing. *I sent one daughter away to school with a used 900. *It was a nice design for it's time but a car company has to consider it's competition. *I sent the other daughter away to schoool with a 240 * It served it's purpose, but the design was seriously out of date in 1994. Imagine where Ford would be if it had simply continued making the 1950 Ford Custom. *Or if Saab had simply continued the cramped 93 witha buzzy little 3 cylinder motor. It was just an example, at the time, the new 900 was inferior to the classic 900 that it replaced, both are technically obsolete now, but the classic 900 is much more desirable and nice examples are worth more now to enthusiasts. I'm personally very fond of the classic 900, there's just nothing else like it out there before or since, and I would takea brand new one of those over most of the other new cars available any day, but that's irrelevant, the point is GM took over and immediately replaced a model with one of their own designs and gave it the same name. In the time since, there have been catastrophes such as the 97 which is nothing but a GM trailblazer, the brand is really nothing but a brand anymore, similar to the classic radio and hifi brands now appearing on Chinese junk. Just the other day I saw a "Crosley" radio which was made to look vintage but was in fact a cheap flimsy modern radio with a CD player. I also came across a "Dual" car CD player, no relation aside from the name itself to the well regarded turntables of the 70s. Quite a few well known American tool brand names are now owned by Chinese companies that slap the name on cheap inferior quality tools which are then sold on the reputation of the name alone. Things may change, as happened with Japan in the 70s, but at the present moment,I associate "made in China" with cheap goods of inferior quality. I must be seriously out of date myself, because I think the 240 is a fantastic design and still serves quite a few people very well. Just because something is new does not automatically make it better, but that mentality does drive the rampant wasteful consumerism that the US is so well known for. I could afford to buy a brand new Volvo if I wanted one, but I prefer nicely maintained older stuff. Most new cars are far too rounded and bubbly for my taste, and too cramped under the hood. I suspect new 1950 Fords would sell like hotcakes, lots of people love a bit of nostalgia, but they would never meet modern regulations. You can buy all new parts to build a 1932 Ford from scratch, ends up costing a lot more than buying a late model, but hot rodders do it. Whether you or I feel nostalgic about a given model really doesn't mean much in the decision to continue a given model or kill and replace with something new. *A more important factor is really whether one model will sell a sufficient number of cars or not. *If current and prospective Volvo buyers would line up in sufficient numbers to buy a PV544, 140 or 240 then Volvo could make a lot more money by not changing models. *But consumer tastes and wants change over time and if all you have to offer is vehicular nostalgia it won't sell many cars. I *happpen to think my latest Volvo V70 is an improvement over the early S80, which was an improvement over the 960 which was an improvement over the 740 which was an improvement over the 240 that was once in the stable. *The improvement in features, drivability and safety over that 25 year span has been dramatic. *Each change was incrementally better in my estimation. I think that's debatable. Look at the serviceability issues between a RWD vehicle i.e. S90 as compared to a V70. The timing belt alone takes a leisurely 2 hours to replace on a S90 compared to about 4 on a V70. At $100 per hour, that is significant. With newer vehicles, the higher level of electronic and mechanical integration may produce a lower parts count to the manufacturer but it's proving very expensive to the consumer if that part needs to be replaced.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
cars of today are FAR better than those of 25 years ago in every
respect.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 13, 3:35*pm, ih8change <ih8cha... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 12, 11:46*am, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 12, 2:23*pm, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: I'm not sure the loss of an old model like the 900 is a bad thing.. *I sent one daughter away to school with a used 900. *It was a nice design for it's time but a car company has to consider it's competition. *I sent the other daughter away to schoool with a 240 * It served it's purpose, but the design was seriously out of date in 1994. Imagine where Ford would be if it had simply continued making the1950 Ford Custom. *Or if Saab had simply continued the cramped 93 with a buzzy little 3 cylinder motor. It was just an example, at the time, the new 900 was inferior to the classic 900 that it replaced, both are technically obsolete now, but the classic 900 is much more desirable and nice examples are worth morenow to enthusiasts. I'm personally very fond of the classic 900, there's just nothing else like it out there before or since, and I would take a brand new one of those over most of the other new cars available any day, but that's irrelevant, the point is GM took over and immediately replaced a model with one of their own designs and gave it the same name. In the time since, there have been catastrophes such as the 97 which is nothing but a GM trailblazer, the brand is really nothing but a brand anymore, similar to the classic radio and hifi brands now appearing on Chinese junk. Just the other day I saw a "Crosley" radio which was made to look vintage but was in fact a cheap flimsy modern radio with a CD player. I also came across a "Dual" car CD player, no relation aside from the name itself to the well regarded turntablesof the 70s. Quite a few well known American tool brand names are now owned by Chinese companies that slap the name on cheap inferior quality tools which are then sold on the reputation of the name alone. Things may change, as happened with Japan in the 70s, but at the present moment, I associate "made in China" with cheap goods of inferior quality. I must be seriously out of date myself, because I think the 240 is a fantastic design and still serves quite a few people very well. Just because something is new does not automatically make it better, butthat mentality does drive the rampant wasteful consumerism that the US is so well known for. I could afford to buy a brand new Volvo if I wantedone, but I prefer nicely maintained older stuff. Most new cars are far too rounded and bubbly for my taste, and too cramped under the hood. I suspect new 1950 Fords would sell like hotcakes, lots of people love a bit of nostalgia, but they would never meet modern regulations. Youcan buy all new parts to build a 1932 Ford from scratch, ends up costing a lot more than buying a late model, but hot rodders do it. Whether you or I feel nostalgic about a given model really doesn't mean much in the decision to continue a given model or kill and replace with something new. *A more important factor is really whether one model will sell a sufficient number of cars or not. *If current and prospective Volvo buyers would line up in sufficient numbers to buy a PV544, 140 or 240 then Volvo could make a lot more money by not changing models. *But consumer tastes and wants change over time and if all you have to offer is vehicular nostalgia it won't sell many cars. I *happpen to think my latest Volvo V70 is an improvement over the early S80, which was an improvement over the 960 which was an improvement over the 740 which was an improvement over the 240 that was once in the stable. *The improvement in features, drivability and safety over that 25 year span has been dramatic. *Each change was incrementally better in my estimation. I think that's debatable. Look at the serviceability issues between a RWD vehicle i.e. S90 as compared to a V70. The timing belt alone takes a leisurely 2 hours to replace on a S90 compared to about 4 on a V70. At $100 per hour, that is significant. With newer vehicles, the higher level of electronic and mechanical integration may produce a lower parts count to the manufacturer but it's proving very expensive to the consumer if that part needs to be replaced.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Service schmervice...that's why I have a good mechanic. *The Volvo cars of today are FAR better than those of 25 years ago in every respect. |
used Volvos and repairing them myself if I'm able. If the country
were made of cynical cheapskates like me, the economy would
be in trouble.
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mar 13, 7:42*pm, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 13, 3:35*pm, ih8change <ih8cha... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 12, 11:46*am, Radioguy <hjs... (AT) cs (DOT) com> wrote: On Mar 12, 2:23*pm, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: I'm not sure the loss of an old model like the 900 is a bad thing. *I sent one daughter away to school with a used 900. *It was a nice design for it's time but a car company has to consider it's competition. *I sent the other daughter away to schoool with a 240 * It served it's purpose, but the design was seriously out of date in 1994. Imagine where Ford would be if it had simply continued making the 1950 Ford Custom. *Or if Saab had simply continued the cramped 93 with a buzzy little 3 cylinder motor. It was just an example, at the time, the new 900 was inferior to the classic 900 that it replaced, both are technically obsolete now, but the classic 900 is much more desirable and nice examples are worth more now to enthusiasts. I'm personally very fond of the classic 900, there's just nothing else like it out there before or since, and I would take a brand new one of those over most of the other new cars available any day, but that's irrelevant, the point is GM took over and immediately replaced a model with one of their own designs and gave it the same name. In the time since, there have been catastrophes such as the97 which is nothing but a GM trailblazer, the brand is really nothing but a brand anymore, similar to the classic radio and hifi brands now appearing on Chinese junk. Just the other day I saw a "Crosley" radio which was made to look vintage but was in fact a cheap flimsy modern radio with a CD player. I also came across a "Dual" car CD player, no relation aside from the name itself to the well regarded turntables of the 70s. Quite a few well known American tool brand names are nowowned by Chinese companies that slap the name on cheap inferior qualitytools which are then sold on the reputation of the name alone. Things may change, as happened with Japan in the 70s, but at the present moment, I associate "made in China" with cheap goods of inferior quality. I must be seriously out of date myself, because I think the 240 is a fantastic design and still serves quite a few people very well. Just because something is new does not automatically make it better, but that mentality does drive the rampant wasteful consumerism that the USis so well known for. I could afford to buy a brand new Volvo if I wanted one, but I prefer nicely maintained older stuff. Most new cars are fartoo rounded and bubbly for my taste, and too cramped under the hood. I suspect new 1950 Fords would sell like hotcakes, lots of peoplelove a bit of nostalgia, but they would never meet modern regulations. You can buy all new parts to build a 1932 Ford from scratch, ends up costing a lot more than buying a late model, but hot rodders do it. Whether you or I feel nostalgic about a given model really doesn't mean much in the decision to continue a given model or kill and replace with something new. *A more important factor is really whether one model will sell a sufficient number of cars or not. *If current and prospective Volvo buyers would line up in sufficient numbers to buy a PV544, 140 or 240 then Volvo could make a lot more money by not changing models. *But consumer tastes and wants change over time and if all you have to offer is vehicular nostalgia it won't sell many cars. I *happpen to think my latest Volvo V70 is an improvement over the early S80, which was an improvement over the 960 which was an improvement over the 740 which was an improvement over the 240 that was once in the stable. *The improvement in features, drivabilityand safety over that 25 year span has been dramatic. *Each change was incrementally better in my estimation. I think that's debatable. Look at the serviceability issues between a RWD vehicle i.e. S90 as compared to a V70. The timing belt alone takes a leisurely 2 hours to replace on a S90 compared to about 4 on a V70. At $100 per hour, that is significant. With newer vehicles, the higher level of electronic and mechanical integration may produce a lower parts count to the manufacturer but it's proving very expensive to the consumer if that part needs to be replaced.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Service schmervice...that's why I have a good mechanic. *The Volvo cars of today are FAR better than those of 25 years ago in every respect. Good, we need more consumers like you. I'm quite happy buying used Volvos and repairing them myself if I'm able. If the country were made of cynical cheapskates like me, the economy would be in trouble.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
attainable with regluar maintenance. Regarding your comment about the
economy being in trouble...it already is. Hint - read the newspaper.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.