2000 Volvo S40, No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Volvo returns to profitability

Ford sold Volvo to Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Limited in 2010. Just two years later, Geely announced an $11-billion investment in the Swedish carmaker, its charismatic fugleman Li Shifu saying, "We want to revive Volvo and give the brand its strength back." Two years later, after having introduced the Concept XC Coupe at the Detroit Auto Show this week, Volvo CEO Håkan Samuelsson (above, second from right) declared the company profitable again after a solid 2013 and predicted a positive 2014.
Intending to break even on operating profit in 2013, Volvo exceeded expectations and landed on the plus side due to a mix of factors. US sales declined 10.1 percent for the year to 61,233, that number still making us Volvo's largest market, but Chinese sales were up nearly 46 percent to 61,146 units, and even its home market saw a bump of 0.8 percent; total sales for the year were 427,840, a margin of 1.4-percent over the previous year. Volvo was able to do more with the tiny gain and reverse its half-year operating loss because of a global cost restructuring and thorough revamp of its Chinese distribution network. An announcement of 2013's financial results will come in March.
Bullishness on 2014 comes from the company's intention to focus on its two biggest markets with new models, new technology and more spending. The first product of an independent Volvo, the new XC90, will be revealed later this year on the new SPA architecture. On top of the Sensus Connect infotainment system, Volvo will add driver-aid systems like adaptive cruise control with steer assist and night-time pedestrian detection. It also has a new North American CEO and will spend more on marketing and communications here. In China it will begin to feel more effect from the two Chinese factories opened last year - it has three in the country - and, if need be, can take advantage of more advantageous exchange rates by exporting from China instead of the US. Said Samuelsson of what he expects in the US in 2014, "we will outperform the market."

Volvo prices its entry-level 2025 EX30 EV

Volvo announced Tuesday that it kept its promise to launch its new entry-level 2025 EX30 EV with an MSRP of $34,950 ($36,245 after Volvo's now-$1,295 destination fee). On top of that, we now have full pricing for the EX30 range, from the Core on up to the twin-motor Ultra. Just how reasonably priced is this new premium compact electric crossover? Well, every trim's MSRP starts below the current average transaction price for a new vehicle in the United States — and note we didn't say "electric" there.  The EX30 is offered in two powertrain variants, each with its own trim structure. The Single Motor Extended Range is offered in Core, Plus and Ultra trims. Meanwhile, the Twin Motor Performance is offered in just two: Plus and Ultra. The configuration names give it away, but if frugality is your game, the 275-mile Single Motor Extended Range is for you; if you want to hit 60 in just 3.4 seconds at the expense of range, then the Twin Motor Performance is what you're after. It'll cost you, of course; the jump from a Single Motor Core to a Twin Motor Plus is $9,950 — one heck of an upcharge for all-wheel drive — but remember: The two-wheel drive model is no penalty box. The single-motor EX30 is rear-wheel drive, not front. Here's the full pricing breakdown:  Single Motor Extended Range Core - $36,245 Plus - $40,195 Ultra - $41,895 Twin Motor Performance Plus - $46,195 Ultra - $47,895 Technically, the EX30 is $100 more expensive than we expected, but that's down to Volvo bumping up its destination fee for 2025. Hey, as Korzeniewski notes, they're still charging less to import an EX30 from overseas than Ford charges to ship an F-150 from Michigan, so we can't get too bent out of shape. Presumably the assembled-in-China EX30 does not qualify for the federal tax credit. Look for Volvo's bare-bones but stylish little electric crossover to hit dealerships in the first half of 2024; deposit holders will be able to configure their existing orders in the coming months.  Related video This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.