Why are used Volvo's selling so cheap?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
100
Location
NJ and Florida
For example, there is a 2005 Volvo S40 2.4L with 130k miles for around $3900 on craigslist. On the other hand, I have seen many older basic Japanese cars and other luxury car brands selling for a lot more.

I know part of the reason is that Volvo don't sell in the USA anymore but is there any build quality issues? My impression of the Volvo brand is that they are pretty reliable, especially from the stories I hear about the station wagons from the early 90's. Thanks
 
What? Volvo still sells in the US. I know a guy who works for the dealership network. Saabs are dead in the water- I think your confusing the two.

Volvos are ok in terms of reliability but they are pricey to fix.
 
The same reason that used Jaguars are so inexpensive: Ford owned them and eliminated any quality or reliability they may have once had.
 
Probably because parts and repair are really expensive. There are fewer aftermarket companies that make replacement parts for volvo's than most other brands. And their models typically only appeal to the older market segments limiting their customer base.

I don't believe Volvo has left the U.S. market.

Ford significantly brought up the quality and reliability of jaguars. Before Ford they were absolutley abysmal.
 
Last edited:
You probably has a hard time to find a decent condition 2005 Civic coupe with 130k miles for $3900.

2005 Civic coupe was much less than Volvo S40 when new, but too many young drivers prefer Civic over Volvo, that why it keeps the price fairly high.
 
Volvo's don't hold their value. We have a 2001 S60 with 130,000 miles and it's only worth $2,500 according to KBB.

Volvo's are like a lot of European cars though, in that if they are taken care of they're great otherwise you're in for a lot of costly repairs. We've had ours since new and it's been very reliable. The only major expenses have been a water pump and a timing belt.
 
Once a relatively expensive or "high demand" vehicle reaches the very used stage (8-12 years old),prices become petty,no matter the brand.And suddenly its the hottest selling used vehicle in the marketplace with anxious owners drooling all over it (Oh wow....I own a Cadillac,I own a Lexus,an Infinity....etc).I have seen it happen with Saturns (both L and S series),Jeep Wranglers,SAABs,Volvos,Nissan Maximas,Range Rovers....etc. Now they are priced so those who have little funds,can afford one.Yet,they couldn't afford to pay for repairs had they been new(er),how do they expect to pay for high priced/low volume parts now that the cars have 150-200,000 miles and WILL need those parts?? Bad move.Buy common sense,and you will be able to afford it.Try to make people think they "have hit it big" and the cars will suck their wallet dry.
 
Volvo is still very present in the NA market.

The S40 was Volvo's entry level model sedan from that period. That was a P1 platform car, and shared some bits with some of Ford's other corporate models. Not a purely Swedish Volvo design at that point, but not a bad car. That might explain the market nine years out a little better.

Volvo's are well designed and well made, on a general quality level with Audi, IMO. Volvo's, particularly the upscale ones designed before FoMoCo's influence, can be extremely durable and reliable cars, with the best seats in the industry. But they require very diligent maintenance, and can get really expensive really fast when not properly maintained and repairs are then needed. Not as expensive as a big BMW or Mercedes, but still pricey. A full service history (dealer stamps in the owner's books) is a must with an older one. They have their quirks like any other car, but nothing catastrophic or which would advise against one.

They also have built up a very dedicated enthusiast community that can provide extensive DIY help in keeping one going a very long time.
 
Originally Posted By: 29662
Probably because parts and repair are really expensive. There are fewer aftermarket companies that make replacement parts for volvo's than most other brands. And their models typically only appeal to the older market segments limiting their customer base.

I don't believe Volvo has left the U.S. market.

Ford significantly brought up the quality and reliability of jaguars. Before Ford they were absolutley abysmal.


finally, someone who knows what they are talking about.

Ford did nothing against Volvo that wasn't already done. When Ford owned them, they simply provided funding to them to keep operations going, so they could borrow some of Volvo's technology.

Volvo had FWD cars in Europe long before they were offered to the NA market.

The reason why the S40 is so cheap, is because they are the entry level cars. Not nearly on par with something like a BMW 3 series or a MB C-class.
 
Originally Posted By: glock19
Volvo's don't hold their value. We have a 2001 S60 with 130,000 miles and it's only worth $2,500 according to KBB.

Volvo's are like a lot of European cars though, in that if they are taken care of they're great otherwise you're in for a lot of costly repairs. We've had ours since new and it's been very reliable. The only major expenses have been a water pump and a timing belt.


Yep....
 
http://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28297

"I think that the Ford/Volvo legacy will be seen in retrospect as part of the failed late 20th/early 21st century attempt by automakers to consolidate into a few major players. Ford purchased Volvo during the heady days of the late '90's when gas was as good as free in the United States, SUV's were the rage and the automakers were getting rich off of them. The American car manufacturers went on a buying binge, snapping up most of the remaining small, independent, and quirky brands. Volvo, Saab, Land Rover, Aston Martin, etc. etc. Virtually every one of those ventures ended as badly, or worse, than the Ford/Volvo venture.

I agree with you that Volvo largely lost their way when they left the 850/early V70 box design and attempted to go mainstream like everyone else. Once the cars looked and felt much like anything else on the road, their loyal customers had little incentive to stay with them. It is becoming one of my beliefs that niche players like Volvo and Saab can be successful only if they understand their core competencies and keep true to those values. If they do this well, customers will typically remain loyal to them; even to the point of over-looking their (often many) weaknesses. When they lose those values and try to become mainstream (as often happens when a larger company takes over and management cannot truly understand the smaller business they have acquired), the loyal base is no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and to the average consumer, they aren’t even worth a look because they don’t have the reliability reputation of a Toyota or Honda, nor the cachet of a BMW or Mercedes. In Saab's case, the irony was that under GM's ownership, they were building what were, in many ways, superior cars to what they had been able to build on their own, but their old customers didn’t care; they had ceased to be the ‘real’ Saab.

Volvo certainly suffered from the fact that they were acquired during a period of relatively poor quality control at Ford, and that didn't do them any favors. During much of this period they were also plagued by Ford's antipathy towards anything that wasn't a truck or SUV, and, like the other two of the Big Three, they nearly went under as a result when gas prices soared and the economy plunged. They had ignored their car divisions for so long that they no longer knew how to build good cars. Ford was fortunate to escape without government loans only because of a stroke of luck that had allowed them to shore up private financing immediately prior to the bank crisis of the Fall of 2008. If they had waited a month longer, that financing would not have been available, and they would have been in the same boat as GM. In any case, those close calls required raising every cent of real cash that could be mustered just to stay solvent, and those brands that had been acquired in the ‘90’s had to be let go at whatever price they could get for them. It’s too bad for us Volvo fans, as Ford has recently turned a corner, and is making their best vehicles ever; it’s too bad Volvo won’t have an opportunity to be a part of it."
 
I've looked at used Volvos in the past and the leather used in their upholstery usually looks horrible after as little as 80K miles. Always turned me off.
 
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
Originally Posted By: 29662
Probably because parts and repair are really expensive. There are fewer aftermarket companies that make replacement parts for volvo's than most other brands. And their models typically only appeal to the older market segments limiting their customer base.

I don't believe Volvo has left the U.S. market.

Ford significantly brought up the quality and reliability of jaguars. Before Ford they were absolutley abysmal.


finally, someone who knows what they are talking about.


Not really.

Parts are not all that expensive if you know where to look. No, you can't buy most at the corner AA or AZ, but they are higher quality parts than the usual domestic or Asian runs.

Having someone else do the work IS expensive. Having a dealer do the work is asking to get fleeced. Finding a good but reasonable indie is the best route, short of DIY. These cars require far fewer special tools than the average German.

Unlike Jaguar (which was a mess), Volvo built a high quality car before Ford bought them. And unlike Jaguar, Ford pilfered Volvo's technology and provided only a minimum of capital support. Volvo had a weaker product line at the end than at the beginning of that relationship.

Throughout the past 15-20 years, Volvo has pitched safety to an art form, and had built up a strong market presence with 30-ish soccer moms in particular. I can vouch for the safety, as one definitely saved my life (or at least my legs) 8 years ago. They also sold a lot to older demos.

But some of their models over the years were definitely not targeted to the older or soccer mom crowd.

If you can get one you like in good shape (i.e. maintained) for a good price, and can afford the upkeep, I'd say jump on it. These cars hold up and are a great value. I don't necessarily place the S40/V50 in that category, however.

Between an older Audi and an older Volvo, I'd take the Volvo every time. Far less headaches, and far less expensive ones, too.

The jury is still out on the new owners. Time will tell.
 
Originally Posted By: 29662
Probably because parts and repair are really expensive. There are fewer aftermarket companies that make replacement parts for volvo's than most other brands. And their models typically only appeal to the older market segments limiting their customer base.

I don't believe Volvo has left the U.S. market.

Ford significantly brought up the quality and reliability of jaguars. Before Ford they were absolutley abysmal.

+1....my understanding is that Volvos are 'garage queens' and very expensive for parts and repairs.
 
Originally Posted By: Oregoonian

+1....my understanding is that Volvos are 'garage queens' and very expensive for parts and repairs.


I'm at a loss where this "garage queen" misunderstanding is coming from. This is a marque that has had a high mileage badge club for many decades, with many members well over 200k miles.

We moved our '97 855 last year with north of 250k on it and it is still flying along beautifully towards 300k, with a hairdresser owner that is income challenged, but who still manages to maintain it correctly. Soon enough, it will be ready for its 300k badge. And totally rust free from stem to stern, which is saying something in the mid-Atlantic on a vehicle living outside for 17 years.

Those are not the kind of cars that live in the garage.

These cars only get uncomfortably expensive if the maintenance is abused. Parts are NOT expensive compared to BMW, Porsche or MB, and are on a par with VAG. Perhaps when compared to a Honda, but these are not Hondas.

When looking for a good one, the desired models end with the P2 platform. The later Ford corporate platforms are where the Ford changes took a stronger hold.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
Originally Posted By: 29662
Probably because parts and repair are really expensive. There are fewer aftermarket companies that make replacement parts for volvo's than most other brands. And their models typically only appeal to the older market segments limiting their customer base.

I don't believe Volvo has left the U.S. market.

Ford significantly brought up the quality and reliability of jaguars. Before Ford they were absolutley abysmal.


finally, someone who knows what they are talking about.


Not really.

Parts are not all that expensive if you know where to look. No, you can't buy most at the corner AA or AZ, but they are higher quality parts than the usual domestic or Asian runs.

Having someone else do the work IS expensive. Having a dealer do the work is asking to get fleeced. Finding a good but reasonable indie is the best route, short of DIY. These cars require far fewer special tools than the average German.

Unlike Jaguar (which was a mess), Volvo built a high quality car before Ford bought them. And unlike Jaguar, Ford pilfered Volvo's technology and provided only a minimum of capital support. Volvo had a weaker product line at the end than at the beginning of that relationship.

Throughout the past 15-20 years, Volvo has pitched safety to an art form, and had built up a strong market presence with 30-ish soccer moms in particular. I can vouch for the safety, as one definitely saved my life (or at least my legs) 8 years ago. They also sold a lot to older demos.

But some of their models over the years were definitely not targeted to the older or soccer mom crowd.

If you can get one you like in good shape (i.e. maintained) for a good price, and can afford the upkeep, I'd say jump on it. These cars hold up and are a great value. I don't necessarily place the S40/V50 in that category, however.

Between an older Audi and an older Volvo, I'd take the Volvo every time. Far less headaches, and far less expensive ones, too.

The jury is still out on the new owners. Time will tell.


You are correct, the problem is in old age, Volvos become enthusiast cars. An enthusiast can find parts and fix them on the cheap, but the average person cannot. They take it to a shop, the shop quotes a high price for a repair, and they look to dump the car.

Even if they are inclined to get it repaired outside of a shop, most people do not seek out specialized parts retailers, they don't even know about Rock Auto. They think "if the car breaks, I'll guess at what it needs, go to the nearest parts retailer, then get my uncle to fix it in the backyard." If the nearest parts retailer doesn't have the part, panic starts to set in, or if they do, their uncle says "I can't fix this danged thang," and the car they got from "Credit Monster" or whatever gets unloaded as quickly as possible.

Most people suck at cars. You can get away with that on a 2000 Civic. Not so much on a 2000 Volvo. It doesn't mean the Volvo is inherently a bad car, it just means the average consumer lacks the critical thinking skills and patience to try to fix it when things break. More mainstream vehicles are just more forgiving of idiocy, and the mainstream shopper sets the market prices for used vehicles.
 
I think the misconceptions in this thread go a long way in explaining why used Volvos are cheap in the used market; as such, I think they end up being pretty good value when looking at used cars.
 
Volvo's are junk. Lease them and turn in at 30k miles. The old Volvo's from the 1980s to early 90s were bullet proof. I'm not sure why Volvo slipped up in reliability. Saab 900 was also another extremely reliable car from the 80s to early 90s. It seems that the more complex cars get due to CAFE standards the more the reliability tanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top