REPORT: Volvo XC90 replacement cancelled
If you're on the list of OEM component suppliers for the planned replacement of the Volvo XC90 sport-ute, don't read this article, because you haven't been informed yet. For everyone else, however, reports are emerging that Ford PAG has pulled the plug on the Swedish subsidiary's flagship SUV.
The reports come from the Swedish edition of Auto Motor & Sport , which cites the lack of environmentally-friendly powertrain alternatives as the main factor that influenced Ford to trash plans for the second-generation XC90, despite an anticipated launch in two years' time. Volvo has no hybrid powertain to put in the large SUV, slated to share a Ford platform, and no start/stop engine function. Rather than developing such systems, and with an eye on dropping sales of the rival BMW X5, PAG has reportedly opted to cancel the program altogether.
While the XC60, XC50 and possibly upcoming XC30 are expected to continue on without their bigger brother, the current XC90 model will receive a facelift in 2009 and stay on the market until 2012.
[Source: Auto Motor & Sport via World Car Fans]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jason 1:54PM (12/17/2007)
Looks like the new CAFE standards have claimed their first vicitim.
Reply
Jason 1:55PM (12/17/2007)
based on the somewhat lame, "lack of environmentally-friendly powertrain alternatives" excuse that is...
500 9:54PM (12/17/2007)
CAFE or not, looks like they'll let Volvo's best-seller die the same slow death as so many other Ford vehicles: Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis, Ranger, Lincoln Town Car, the Mercury Division...
Guenther 1:57PM (12/17/2007)
Yeah- 26mpg combined from the Diesel is terrible. We should be so lucky as to be allowed to buy something like that in the States. Stupid...
Reply
huis 2:06PM (12/17/2007)
I actually wouldn't be terribly surprised if we start hearing things like this from some other autmakers in coming years too. Is there really going to be a viable market for vehicles like the MDX, Q7, X5, or ML class in a number of years? Just because it's a "crossover" doesn't mean it gets good mileage. If it weighs 5000+ lbs., it's not magically efficient just because it's based on a unibody platform.
strongbadinator 2:01PM (12/17/2007)
Hell yes! Death to SUVs! More death! MORE MORE MORE! We need our sportscars back! Screw these overweight mommy mobiles!
Reply
Jon 2:06PM (12/17/2007)
Save the Vicodin for when you really need it.
aman 2:07PM (12/17/2007)
it was a decent car too, as SUV's go.
Reply
em 2:21PM (12/17/2007)
how is Volvo going to be a full-line lux brand without a SUV? Hello, Ford? anyone home?
Reply
psarhjinian 5:29PM (12/17/2007)
Maybe Ford realizes that Volvo buyers aren't SUV people? I mean, this is the brand that's exemplified by the 240DL wagon. Volvo has more green buyers than any other brand (Toyota would be close) and dropping the XC90 is smart business sense--even if, in emissions terms, it's a pretty clean powertrain. If someone's serious about a crossover and wants a Volvo, there's the XC70; if they really want an SUV, they probably aren't Volvo buyers to start with.
Ford gets Volvo's customers. By comparison, GM has no clue about Saab. You can see this in the marketshare of both companies.
dan 8:22PM (12/17/2007)
psarhjinian:
Volvo's top selling model this year is the XC90 which makes up 29% of their total sales. Its EPA score is 13/19 which is worse than a 4WD Suburban. There isn't a single Volvo model sold in the US that does better than 28mpg EPA highway and the S40 (18% of sales) is the only volume seller that does even that well.
Volvo buyers aren't green at all. They're liberal hypocrites who want the rest of us to be green while they enjoy their luxury cars.
Austin 2:22PM (12/17/2007)
I want it saved. Put the 3.5 L V6 with the new hybrid system ford is coming out with next month in it. Just ship it over to Sweden from Lima. It is already hybrid capable with Taurus and Edge hybrids coming in the next two years.
Reply
Austin 3:39PM (12/17/2007)
Actualy, I wouldnt be surprised if it will be renamed XC80 since it looks like odd #'s like XC70 and 50 and 30 will be just taller versions of there wagon brothers. The odd numbers like 40, 60 ,80 should be the true crossovers.
Stephen Lang 2:39PM (12/17/2007)
No, it's designating it as a 'crossover' that magically improves its gas mileage.
Problem solved.
Reply
Doogs 2:43PM (12/17/2007)
Uhh...isn't the XC90 Volvo's best seller in the states? By a pretty wide margin?
Between this and an S60 that got it's last redesign in the Paleolithic Era, Volvo's not looking too good.
Reply
Jason 3:14PM (12/17/2007)
Yup. According to Volvo's corp website:
"Our best-selling model in 2006 was the Volvo XC90 with sales of 85,064, the greater proportion (33,206) to the USA. This was followed by the Volvo V50 and Volvo S40, with figures of 75,885 and 72,329 respectively."
http://www.volvocars.com/corporation/FactsandFigures/MarketsandSales/
Elliott 3:39PM (12/17/2007)
That's what I was thinking too. Why would they cancel their highest volume vehicle?
To be honest, I was kinda over hearing about the Yamaha V8. I never cared for it and it seemed to receive a ton of praise.
psarhjinian 5:33PM (12/17/2007)
Perhaps the XC90 isn't making Volvo enough actual profits to be worth it?
k.w.a 6:55PM (12/17/2007)
psarhjinian,
you're not making a lot of sense. I think it's the dumbest idea ever to get rid of the XC90 and the S40. are they CRAZY?? So IF (and this is a big IF) they're not making enough of a profit on their highest selling product, wouldn't they IMPROVE their product instead of get rid of it? This may just be me, but minimal profit is FAR better than no profit at all.
It saddens my heart to see what Ford has done to all my favorite brands: Volvo, Aston Martin, Land Rover, Jaguar, Lincoln... i've seen Ford choke the life out of every last one of them. the best thing for Volvo to do is GET SOLD to someone who knows how to handle them
Jonathan 2:46PM (12/17/2007)
If the XC90 goes away, Volvo won't have a 7 pass. crossover to sell. Volvo needs to introduce an all new 7 pass. crossover soon.
Reply