![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Chinese automaker denies rumor about interest in Volvo
An eternally unanswerable question seems to be whether or not Ford is actively shopping around Volvo for a buyer. Just this week we reported that Chinese automaker SAIC and some Russian investors had expressed interest in purchasing the Swedish carmaker from Ford, but today we learn from a source within SAIC that the company is doing nothing of the sort. The unidentified source said that, as far as he/she knew, the two companies were not in contact about a possible purchase at all. Volvo's staying quiet and licking its wounds after announcing 2,000 layoffs this week, while Ford is singing the same old song with a catchy chorus that insists Volvo is not for sale. Well, the rumor that some Russians are interested in Volvo hasn't been refuted yet, so until someone named Boris says otherwise, let's considerable Volvo on the market despite Ford's protest.
[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Frank Hoffman 7:59PM (6/27/2008)
I actually wouldn't be too worried if they were under Russian control. At least the Russians love their Volvos: http://www.swedespeed.com/news/publish/Volvo_News/article_1272.html
Reply
ASEVENSEE4 8:00PM (6/27/2008)
This is getting sickening, Ford will get their platforms from where? Safety tech from where? Volvo needs Ford and Ford needs Volvo, and Mazda. The Euro Focus is a Volvo in Ford clothing.
I doubt they're selling seeing as how they rely on Volvo to do a lot of the heavy lifting, as they do with Mazda.
Reply
psu48187 8:09PM (6/27/2008)
Ford had the ability to develop platforms and safety tech before, and they will continue to do it after. The Euro Focus is a Focus, it simply shares a platform with an S40/Mazda 3.
Anyhow, Volvo/Mazda are an integral part of Ford Motor and I don't quite understand why people refer to the companies as if they are independent.
ASEVENSEE4 8:21PM (6/27/2008)
Sure they did, none of them we're as good as anything that was "joint(read:Mazda or Volvo designed it)" developed like the platforms out now, the Euro Focus uses Volvo's T5 and (among other power plants) and is based on a platform that Volvo designed, and that Focus is some of their best work. If you think Ford could do it on their own you're crazy.
Ford has controlling interest in Mazda, they own Volvo. Volvo is an integral part of Ford, Mazda is not.
Aprime 8:47PM (6/27/2008)
Well, Mazda is, Ford just happens to own a controlling stake in the company.
I never bothered checking Volvo's Automotive division, though.
Soul Shinobi 1:39AM (6/28/2008)
ASEVENSEE4, you're right on Ford's ownership of the companies.
As for the vehicle platforms, it's the C1 Platform in question, used by many cars including the Euro Focus/S40/Mazda3, and the platform was designed by all three companies as a joint effort in Cologne, Germany.
Judy Zik 2:37AM (6/28/2008)
It is called platform engineering not badge engineering and believe me there is a HUGE difference. Mercury's are Ford's in different clothing. That's badge engineering. The euro Focus shares very little parts wise with it's Volvo and Mazda cousins. That's platform engineering. The floor pans and some parts are similar but they are not the same cars.
ASEVENSEE4 3:33AM (6/28/2008)
I never said that they badge engineered, the Euro Focus is in many ways similar to the S40 over there, engines, trannys, brakes, etc.
Bottom line is that Ford could not have done it without Volvo, Ford says they played a part in the handling department, which doesn't make sense to be (sounds like Ford wants to take credit for something) because all of the cars have different suspension tuning from them all, not just Ford (I know for a fact the Mazda3 was tuned by Mazda) It sounds like Mazda and Volvo did all the heavy lifting. The Mazda6 platform was ALL Designed by Mazda, and is heavily used by Ford. The 2.3L I4 and now 2.5L I4 was Mazda designed, etc. if you get my drift.
psu48187 2:44PM (6/28/2008)
Huh?
You apparently haven't heard of the C170 Focus. A vehicle designed and engineered before Ford acquired Volvo, and very well regarded for its driving dynamics. The Mondeo/Contour is yet another example of Ford's handling handy work. The C1 platform was jointly developed by Ford/Mazda/Volvo case closed. Do you have information that refutes that?
The 2.5 is not simply a carbon copy of a Mazda engine, just like how the Mazda 3.7/3.0 isn't an exact carbon copy of the Ford Duratec engine family. Ditto that with the CD3 platform. Yes, Mazda designed and engineered it......but with the creation of the Fusion and Edge Ford sure had an opportunity to screw it up. Simply stating where a platform came from, yet deducting the engineering work put into it to make it work for different applications doesn't make sense.
On a side note the new Mazda 6 is not the same globally anymore. The versions we receive stateside are bigger than the global platform. Where do you think Mazda pulled that modified platform from?
psu48187 8:04PM (6/27/2008)
"Well, the rumor that some Russians are interested in Volvo hasn't been refuted yet, so until someone named Boris says otherwise, let's considerable Volvo on the market despite Ford's protest."
Can we just please put it to rest? Please? Unless there's some sort of insight that no one else knows about, why perpetuate the rumor.
Reply
Geeky1 8:19PM (6/27/2008)
Volvo may need ford's money to keep them afloat, but if it weren't for the competition they provide for GM, Toyota, etc. I'd just as soon see ford go under, personally.
Regardless, better ford than the chinese.
Reply
ken_aisin 1:50AM (6/28/2008)
How about having Toyota or Honda buying Volvo? The most reliable powertrain in the safest body.
I know its wishful thinking.
Reply
OOMPH! 6:44AM (6/28/2008)
there is a completely nauseating thought! keep Volvo pure..i wished to god AB Volvo would by Volvo back...or VW....but never Toyota or something equally as mondane
liuyurong7 9:05AM (6/28/2008)
I'm sorry I can't express my thinking clearly,I'm just want to practice my english,Thank you !
Reply
AngeloD 9:37AM (6/28/2008)
""Bottom line is that Ford could not have done it without Volvo""
They did for decades prior to purchasing Volvo. Which Volvo was a comparable vehicle to FoE's Escort? (for just one example).
Reply
Noidor 11:01AM (6/28/2008)
I think VW is the only company out there which is in a good position to have several brands in its portfolio which serve their purposes in different markets throughout the world.
Ford, on the other hand, needs to lower its overhead, and allocate its resources to revive the Ford brand, and make sure it can do so long-term. They can at least sell majority stake in Volvo, and then workout a deal where they can still share platforms if they deem it necessary. I don't think it's logical to think that in order to have access to Volvo engineering, Ford must keep Volvo. Long-term it's just not beneficial to either of the companies.
Ford must keep on going 100mph+ if they are to make it through these times - best way of doing it is becoming a skeleton company and building profit into every car sold without compromising its overall appeal and experience of ownership.
Reply
Noidor 11:39AM (6/28/2008)
Here's an excellent article about foreign investment in Detroit based car companies...
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2728662620080627?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10216
butch 2:05PM (6/28/2008)
Despite the sure to follow denials from autoblog, we are today reporting that we have it on absolutely no good authority from no known or unknown source that autoblog will be closing down for several weeks to re-design their web site. they will be no longer be reporting on cars, rather they will begin reporting and testing ovens from around the world.
Please ignore any and all denials from autoblog as this is surely what they would say in order to keep things under the radar and therefore must indicate that the unsubstantiated reports be true.
Reply
psu48187 7:49PM (6/28/2008)
The whole good dynamics for its time, is still true today. The C170 in its original form handles a lot better than some of the newer competition on the road.
The quality issues. Attribute that to the idiots that half-engineered the changes necessary to make the vehicle complaint for NA markets. The original Focus in Europe didn't exhibit half the issues that the NA version did. Furthermore, those issues can not be attributed directly to the platform itself.
The CD3 platform underpinning the Fusion and company, might have been designed by Mazda but was heavily modified by Ford.
EUCD, was handed over to Volvo because it is the brands core architecture going forward.
Etc, etc, etc.....
My point being is that if Ford has the ability to reverse engineer key components on platforms that they NEEDED from Volvo/Mazda to suit the brands needs. I'm pretty sure they could have engineered one from scratch.
It's not like Ford was a no name brand that no one knew anything about, until Mazda and Volvo stepped into the picture. Painting it as if Ford is totally helpless makes no sense.
ASEVENSEE4 3:37PM (6/28/2008)
Good dynamics for it's time don't make a great vehicle, that car was unreliable in many ways, suspension issues being a big black point.
The 2.5 is a bored out design of a MAZDA engine, and the MAZDA engine utilizes a much more expensive Direct Injection technology. The CD3 2 is designed, by MAZDA. The original CD3 was designed, by MAZDA.
Ford barely even had a good hand in designing the platform used for the S40/Focus.
D3 platform, VOLVO designed, and it underpins some of Ford's best stuff just like the CD3, ALL of which Ford did not design.
My point is that FORD needs Volvo and Mazda, they design platforms for FORD, and without a PLATFORM to put the vehicle on you HAVE NO VEHICLE.