[grewil2]

I bought a plain, no turbo Volvo 940 for $1000 ten years ago. It's 25 years old now, and still is very reliable. Newer Volvos seem a lot more complex, and I can't help thinking that there's a lot more electronics and mechanisms that can break than in the old construction. Edit: ugh, I just realised I have become a grumpy old man.

[jacquesm]

Volvo is Chinese nowadays, the 940 you've bought is Swedish and no cost was spared in making it that reliable. That's also why Volvo is Chinese nowadays.

[zokula]

By that logic Toyota should of been Chinese 20 years ago?

[jacquesm]

Toyota has always been very frugal while delivering quality, Volvo was not, so no. And I think you meant 'have' instead of 'of'.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way , pay extra attention to section #2.

Volvo took a much more 'premium' route towards quality, starting with galvanized steel bodies and other such costly measures, as well as producing on less efficient lines than Toyota. Even so, their reputation until the Chinese take-over was excellent, since then the division is as far as I know profitable so maybe this is a happy medium between baked in quality and cost to produce. But it will never go back to the 'tank' status that their older line-up has, which in a way is good because the modern ones fare much better in the crash tests than the oldies, even against mid-range cars in head-on or side-on collisions.

On another note, given the history between the two countries I don't see the Japanese government ok'ing a take-over of one of their prime brands by the Chinese.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Japan_relations

[turndown]

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Toyota/Corolla/2010/recalls/

I drive a 2010 Toyota Corolla :') - the philosophy sounds great but the implementation is poor.

[laurencerowe]

Volvo's reputation for reliability tanked during the Ford years.