2010 Volvo S60 Due at Detroit Show

Now here is the car I was waiting for all my life
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Volvo: DIE ALREADY! You have lost your soul and your message and your cars look no different than damned KIAS. Except they have become even LESS RELIABLE than the Korean POS!

What do you think about the XC60? Is that the car they should focus on instead? Or is it all Volvos you hate, buddy? :)

I do not even know what the stupid XC60 is.
I DO know that Volvo has not had a half-decent, HIT vehicle in DECADES.
Ford was VERY stupid to buy all these losers, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and then have to sell them for a piece of bread after it sank 10s of Billions and made little progress with them.
How many college professors do you see driving Volvos today? a few decades ago, the 240 DL was their trademark vehicle. NOW they all drive Camrys and Accords and Civics and CRVs and even 3 Series.
And no, I do not "hate" Volvos nor do I have any reason to hate them. They are not as ugly as some subarus, esp. the execrable "Tribeca" which Subaru had to redesign after only ONE year! But old ladies will always need 4wd so it will survive.
I just do not believe we can afford the luxury of small automakers without a STRONG, UNIQUE personality and product.
Not just Volvo, but also all this JUNK: Suzuki, Mitsu, even MAZDA, SAAB, even Jaguar (it pains me to say it, they used to look so good...)

Have to disagree somewhat with Ed's rant. Suzuki has gone from strengths without idiots in detroit telling it what not to do. Mazda make some of the best, enjoyable and fun to drive cras in the world (MX-5, RX-8, Mazda 3, MAzda 6). SAAB suffered from being part of GM's stupidity machine. Never been a great Volvo fan but they make great interiors and C30 is damn cute. Then again Vovo's aren't exactly aimed at your average yank either so not surprised Ed doesn't like em.
Do agree buying Volvo, Jag and Range Rover was one of the dumbest decisions Ford has made.
Not sure I would use College professors as a sounding board for style though!

And I have to follow Reece's lead to an extent Ed. Do you have anger issues? Wishing Volvo's death sounds like an extreme measure, and while I agree that Ford made some bad decision with some of its acquisitions, I don't believe Volvo was one of them. Volvo has in fact, been the only bright spot in their Luxury division with growing sales and profits - yes that's right profits.
Now with that said I also disagree that they haven't had a successful car. The C30 has been a great success and is a very cool looking car. If I were in my 20's again, it would be on my short list. Very nice way of getting some young buyers back in its showrooms.
And lastly - I drive a Volvo and am not an old lady who needs 4 wheel drive. Bottom line is that the car is super safe and since my family means everything to me, why not put them in this car because while I'm keeping them safe, I'm sitting in the most comfortable front seats in the auto industry - that's not just opinion, it's a known fact. So Ed, take another hard look at Volvo before you wish death upon them.

Reece: "Not sure I would use College professors as a sounding board for style though!"
I did not intend my comment that way, I meant to say that Volvo was very suvccessful and was selling 100,000s of units to such types, back when Volvos were HONEST DURABLE designs and were not corrupted by the socially promoted chicks (and plenty of dumb and clueless males too) Ford installed in very segment of the failing company.
as for Matt, I read the first line of your post, and after seeing your vintage psychobabble ("anger issues") I dropped reading the rest.
I have no reason to be angry at either Ford or Volvo, I never owned any of their pitiful jalopies.
But somebody I know very well, who was indeed a college prof, got a new Volvo when he started working at the U, and would take it to the shop several times a year, and pay an arm and a leg, and even had this conspiracy theory that the dealer andn the mechanics were fixing things that were OK just toi fleece him. Which I seriously DOUBT< the thing was a POS reliability-wise, as so many Euro models, which explains why VW, the only mass-appeal Euro Import in the US, still sells less than 5% of what the Japanese sell.

Matt's comments about Volvo & safety are an example of how Ford has mis-managed the brand. Consumers equate Volvo=safety. This aspect would be extremely valuable if Ford would push Volvo downmarket. Building a reliable car is easy compared with building what Warren Buffet calls "Share of Mind" with consumers.

As the domestics try to catch up with the japanese benchmarks (Accord, Camry, Civic, Corolla), they are fighting the LAST War, which is Not Good.
Honda, for example, has been the perennial Reliability leader and MPG No. 1 (a few years Toyota came close when it sold too many Priuses and before it blundered with the new Tundra).
The Big 3 (Ford perhaps more than the others) has approached the Enviable Reliability of Honda and TOyota, but is still way behind in MPG. Now it sells its OLD focus in the US with a 35 MPG, and it is a big hit despite its awful out-of-date design, BUT Honda is now going beyond BOTH Reliability and MPG and is aiming to improve its SAFETY too.
The Big 3 are trying to catch a moving target and are still way behind.

I disagree with you here Ed,
Now Volvo might not be the venerable brands of BMW, Mercedes, or Audi, but it defenitely is a good car, and I understand that you are quite a fan of Japanese built cars. But truthfully, if you think that the Nissan Cube, Scion brand, or Honda Element are artistic cars, then I think you've lost your marbles. In fact, the problem I have with Japanese cars, is that they have no character. Sure they're great machines to get you from point A to B, but they have no soul, and all Japanese cars suffer from this. Vovlo, has had better reliability, designs conservative to radical cars, and has some innovative safety features. I'm sure any company could build a steel box and put in on wheels, and they'd have a safe car. Professors aren't usually interested in cars, they're a tool or necessity for them. Old Vovlo's were just practical and safe, (things academicians look at, trust me, my father is one), but truthfully, Vovlo has really become a great brand. It's not ostentatious like its German rivals, but offers a lot of bang for your buck, and i can tell you personally, that our two Volvos V50 and S60 have had no problems to date.
Ford wasn't smart to buy ailing brands that even BMW with its engineering could work, but Volvo was a great brand to buy, and ford helped them think outside the box (pun intended). Furthermore, Volvo has had lots of independence from Ford, and many design elements and features of Volvo are in house, but would not have been realized without Ford former dollars.
Lastly, if we were all to drive Honda's, that achieve high MPG, good reliabilty and safety, this forum board wouldn't exist as everyone would be driving much of the same. For those who choose practicality and reliability as there main criteria for purchasing a car, the Japanese brands come to mind first, but many other brands have good reliability and relatively good MPG. BTW, Volvo is conservative in the US, but in Europe they offer many different engines that achieve better fuel economy. Strange that European brands have to live up this image of being powerful, while in Europe they're frugal fuel sippers.
Also, I think Japanese cars also are not at the forefront in technology and engineering for driving dynamics. Without global competition, Japanese brands wouldn't be where they are. Volvo has been known for safety, it's their trademark, so Japanese brands had to combat that. The Germans have been known for good driving dynamics, so the Japs have been working on that. If we were to drive all the same, cars would actually get worse, and nobody would notice.
So in the end of this rant, I'm happy for you Ed that you enjoy driving the car you own, but everyone is entitled to drive what they like, and that may differ from what you believe is right. You state many facts in your posts, which is commendable, but facts alone cannot cause shifts in consumer behavior.

VOLVO USED TO BUILD PRACTICAL SALOON WITH UPRIGHT "C" PILLAR WITH GOOD REAR LEGROOMS AND FEELING OF ROOMINESS . NOWADAYS WITH STEEP "C" PILLAR DESIGN EVERY FAMILY REFUSE TO OWN A VOLVO BECAUSE THE REAR HEADROOMS AND LEGROOMS IS NOT GENEROUS AND HENCE GETTING INTO THE BACK SEAT OF THE CAR PROOF DIFFICULT AT TIMES. VOLVO IS GOING TO BE DEAD OR NO SALE IF IT DOES NOT REMOVE IT STEEP AND RAKISH "C" PILLAR DESIGN ( COUPE DESIGN CONCEPT)FOR EACH NEW FUTURE MODELS TO A MORE SLIGHTLY UPRIGHT "C" PILLAR DESIGN FAMILY AND EXECUTIVE SEDAN TO IMPROVE SALES( THIS IS MARKET SURVEY FEEDBACK FOR VOLVO CARS).

Families won't buy them.....that's absurd. Have you ever been in an accident? I have, and it was in a Volvo. I will sacrifice MPG's for safety any day. Also, Volvo's are still made of METAL! Not plastic or tin like your precious Haond/Toyota, or the Volvo wanna be Subaru. Just to let you know Volvo gets $40 per car sold in the world for letting other OEM's use their patent for AIRBAGS, SEATBELTS, and ABS......do some research before you start bashing!

Volvo is a great car in many ways and one of the safest produced by the auto industry in our home soil. I drive one myself (S40) and I cannot wait to get one of the greatest evolution an S60, what a car!!!!!!!!!! It is young, sexy, viby, upbeat, catchy and ambitious. I do agree the volvo make does not come cheap, however, compared to the likes of VW GTI/Merc's Volvo's are reasonable and solid.