I seem to fall in line with Uncle Turbo’s opinion that when Volvo began to move toward the luxury market it lost a great deal of reliability. My first acquaintance with the brand was a P544 that had been abused but continued to limp with a burned valve. I pulled the head in my parents driveway and had the valve replaced and I reassemble it. The driver left immediately and drove 2,000 miles to LA and returned a few months later without changing the oil. The car was very basic and the engine was similar to a farm tractor engine with twin carburetors. From a distance the car would be mistaken for a 46 Ford. It seems I have always appreciated the simpler models and fall in line with the idea that form should follow function. Current models seem more glitz than guts. But that seems to be what the market wants.
BTW, this car seems to have been too practical for the public
That Simca seemed to be such a perfect choice for basic transportation.
Rod–My friend and former co-worker, Frank, would disagree with you regarding that Simca model.
He had one and whenever the subject of unreliable cars comes up, he still rants about how bad his Simca 1000 was.
In approximately 1964 a friend in HS had come into a little bit of money and bought a brand new Simca. It was a pretty bad car. Another friend in HS bought a used Renault Doulphin, that was an even worse car. A brother in law had a late 70’s or early '80’s Fiat 124 and it was really a good car, but it did have a few breakdowns. Simca only sold cars (I believe through Chrysler dealers) for a couple of years and then they gave up on the USA market. Didn’t think anyone would remember Simca’s in the US.
The Simca was short lived in my neighborhood back in the mid 60s but at the time it seemed like a practical 4 door sedan. They were easy to drive, simple, and economical it seemed. I don’t understand why everyone jumped on the FWD bandwagon in the mid 90s and rear engine design was put on the shelf. Could Toyota not build a similar car to the Simca and make it safe, reliable, economical and offer the public a significant alternative to the cookie cutter models now on the market?
" Old Volvos are no match for modern cars, safety-wise."
I agree but in their day, they were quite safe. Everything has come a long way. Inexpensive cars today handle better, get better mileage, accelerate better and are more comfortable that many top of the line cars of 2 generations ago.
@jtsanders - I agree 100%. I just worry about the parent wanting to buy a 240 for their teen ‘because Volvos are safe’, instead of a nice 2006 Accord, Malibu, etc.
I can’t speak to the mechanical issues, but from a marketing standpoint, Volvo didn’t lose its safety edge, the other companies simply caught up.
When Ford acquired Volvo, they were able to adopt their latest safety innovations, while Volvo was able to adopt Ford’s best practices. Both companies benefited from the merge, but the marketing focus at Volvo is still on safety, and a lot of people still insist they are at the leading edge of safety. Unfortunately, while Ford’s reputation was boosted by it turning down a federal bail-out, Volvo’s image as being unreliable has persisted. Is it fair? Probably not. The old jokes about Volvo owners being on a first name basis with their mechanics still persist, as do the jokes about Volvo mechanics being put on retainer.
Volvo used to have a reputation for being a “tank”, but that’s about it. Nobody I ever knew aspired to owning a Volvo…except one guy I knew who wanted to emulate his bosse’s choice. I won’t go there. Nobody I know was ever impressed by a Volvo, nobody I know nobody who ever even wanted one.
I don’t think their reputation has changed at all. I still don;t know anybody who’d ever want one.
Back in the late 1950s, I thought that the Volvo PV 544 was the most durable of the imports. The body and interior were good-- better than most U.S. makes. However, the drivetrain was no better,and probably not as good as the drivetrains in most U.S. cars at the time. As I remember, the Volvo PV 544 had a three speed manual transmission and wasn’t as fun to drive as some of the other imports. The styling of this Volvo resembled a 1946 Ford, and, for my money, the 1946 Ford was a better car.