Somewhat tangential, I just visited a Polestar 2 booth set-up downtown Toronto, it's designed by Volvo but will be manufactured in China, it is really impressive vehicle, both looks and specs.
Edit: Why is this an unpopular opinion? If I offended the fanboys by implying Tesla or Toyota or Apple made overpriced products I would understand but I'm struggling to understand what thought process leads to disagreeing with my statement in the general case.
You can read the comment you replied to as “but it costs more, and more expensive things tend to be better”.
in this case i would tend to think it's appropriate, whether or not they were given for the right reasons. your nitpick only serves to detract from substantive conversation.
nitpicks (other than security nits, which tend to be substantive) and typo corrections are highly discouraged here.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/19/america...
First, if you have a lot of money, the relative or marginal value of money for you is probably pretty low. You could spend a lot on something, and actually get lots of utility and value from it, exceeding the value of the money.
Second, you could just have useful information about the thing that you're purchasing that the seller lacks, or you could have skills or some other ability to extract greater value out of the item you purchase. For example - a property or building that you happen to be able to rent, sell or otherwise turn into a profitable business.
If a widget is generally sold for $5 and you can make some amount of that back using the widget doesn't mean you're getting more than you pay for if you pay $5 for it.
My coworker is buying a lightly used $7500 Chevy spark. It's a $7500 car for a reason. Most people don't want it because its small, pretty slow and the specs aren't that great. It is a great car for his use case, equal or better than lots of $10k cars. That doesn't mean he's getting more than he's paying for.
I'm saying that in any transaction, the value transferred could be more or less for either party. If I go to auction, I can buy something for $1 and sell it later for $100. Did I get more than I paid for? I think so. Because the auction house doesn't want to do the leg work of finding a qualified buyer, they are happy to get $1 instead of dumping the item in the trash, but it's still more valuable than the purchase price.
Purchase price does not dictate ultimate value. There are many ways to evaluate the value of something.
Look, they're nice driving cars with really nice design and safety features. But:
- https://www.businessinsider.com/car-brands-least-reliable-20...
> Volvo ranked last with an average reliability score of 22 out of 100, and Cadillac ranked second-to-last with a reliability score of 32.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2018/10/25/the-mos...
> Volvo is the lowest-ranked brand for reliability, due largely to problems with its electronics.
- https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/most-reliable-car-brands
> Bear in mind that luxury doesn’t necessarily equate to reliability, with Volvo and Land Rover falling near the bottom.
The only thing I think of when I hear "Volvo" is safety. Not luxury, not performance, not quality, not reliability, not anything but safety.
I would be very surprised if they were less reliable than most sports cars.
A fairly detailed statistics is from TÜV annual inspection reports, found here: http://www.anusedcar.com/
There, Volvo is rather average. Where I live (Finland), Volvos tend to get a bit more kilometers than most other brands, so being not at the bottom of listing means they're doing reasonable quality.
This is just one data point, sourced from Consumer Reports. They put Volvo last behind Cadillac and Tesla.
Then I look here... https://www.jdpower.com/Cars/Ratings
And Cadillac is on top. But I'd personally trust Consumer Reports over JD Power.
Really? The infotainment system makes it rank low?
edit: and looking at the _actual_ report https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisf... - no volvo's on the list?
Yes, because modern cars are so good nowadays that people expect perfection.
We are a two car family. In the past decade I've owned Volkswagen, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, Subaru and Nissan. All have been perfectly good cars, reliability wise. My last two leases I didn't do a thing beyond oil changes for four years, not even tires or brakes. Besides the odd car having some random thing replaced at the dealership under warranty, nothing ever went wrong with any of them.
I realize that's not everyone's experience, but I'm not a lottery winner either. Modern cars are a feat of engineering.
It makes sense to me. A new car shouldn't have problems, full stop. My 25 yo car got its first maintenance in 5 years apart from oil, the only problem it has is the air switcher is cranky, and that took over 20 years to crop up. If i bought a Volvo (which I’ve been considering because all I want to upgrade on is safety) and it has a problem in the first few years of ownership, even if it was under warranty, I’d be LIVID! And while we are on the topic of reliability, with the warranties that come with most unreliable cars, why _wouldnt_ a bugged infotainment system rank the car lower just as much as mechanical issues—either way it’s just a trip to the dealer.
I see cars as an appliance, I don’t want to think about it, I just want to use it. So none of this really makes sense to me, if all consumers shared the same sentiment, I feel certain that the market would look considerably different.