My assignment in Gothenburg was in many ways the highlight of my thirty-plus years with Volvo. Representing North America’s interests on the project team tasked with developing the replacements for Volvo’s first-generation S40 and V40 compact sedans and wagons, I had the opportunity to work with engineers and product planners who were adjusting to life in the Ford galaxy (pun intended), as well as the near-total redefinition of the project as our previous joint venture with Mitsubishi was deep-sixed in favor of our new collaborators in Dearborn and Hiroshima.
“Doing a small car is like tailoring a dwarf”, GM’s celebrated Styling chief Bill Mitchell is reported to have said. Adding to this haberdashery challenge, when compared to the existing S40, the new car would be shorter (ostensibly to increase the apparent visual “distance” between it and the mid-size Volvo S60 on the showroom floor), taller, and wider (to provide more passenger room and cargo space). Not exactly a repeat of Harley Earl’s “longer, lower, wider” mantra, but perhaps one better-suited for the compact-class automotive environment of the mid-aughts.
GM’s Bill Mitchell in an uncharacteristically pensive mood, probably contemplating small-car design themes. (Source: www.motortrend.com)
Early in the process, it was necessary to pinpoint a target competitor vehicle – one that would serve as a bogey for the new S40’s continued development – not only in terms of its specific feature content and pricing, but also its positioning in the compact-class market segment. After a long series of sometimes-heated discussions (well, to be honest, never really heated, Swedish culture being what it is), it was agreed that the Volkswagen Bora (Jetta in the U.S.) and Audi A4 sedans were both appropriate competitors. But how to boil this down to a single competitive entry that would be quickly and easily understandable?
We imagined an unholy coupling of the A4 and Jetta as we struggled to define a single target competitor. (Source: www.edmunds.com)
The solution was simple- our target competitor would be the “Audi Bora” – a fictional sedan nameplate positioned somewhere between Volkswagen’s mass-market Jetta and Audi’s well-regarded A4 sedan. After more than a bit of head-scratching and confusion on the part of our design and engineering colleagues, the concept began to take hold and we were able to proceed with the program…
We mapped the existing S40 and its P1 Sedan successor in this size/price comparison chart. The intent was to better separate the new S40 from the (then-upcoming) S60 in size, but also to distance it from the mass-market compact entries.
In early 2000, the design direction for the sedan and companion station wagon had been set, not without a few critical changes from the original, mandated by the use of Ford’s C1 platform. According to designer Fedde Talsma, that reportedly required pushing the A-pillar forward by over an inch, as well as shortening the wheelbase by about three-quarters of an inch, compared to the originally-planned Mitsubishi architecture.
Outside, the new S40 was shorter, wider, and taller. It also offered more front (+0.2″) and rear (+1.7″) legroom than its predecessor. Front headroom was up slightly, too.
The result was a relatively clean, uncluttered design statement. It paid homage to characteristic Volvo styling cues such as the “shoulders” visually supporting the greenhouse (most famously seen on the 140- and 240-series Volvos), the tapering “v-shaped” character lines on the hood and grille (from the P2-based S80 and later S60), and, on the sedan, the six-light greenhouse (from a variety of Volvo sedans).
Old and new S40s. No fair asking which is which. (Sources: www.bringatrailer.com (2000 S40); www.edmunds.com (2011 S40)
A bit more slab-sided than their predecessors due to the search for increased shoulder room (as well as additional safety-related structure), some would say that the biggest design departure for the new S40/V50 was inside, not outside. The instrument panel flowed smoothly down from the base of the windshield, and a wholly new “floating” center stack included climate and audio controls in a vertically-oriented array. (As a side note, the original intent was that the entire dash would “float,” leaving a gap between its forward edge and the base of the windshield. Engineering vetoed this concept, however.)
A side view of the floating center stack. It’s just as well that the small storage bin isn’t fully visible here. ((Source: www.caranddriver.com)
One of the most rewarding parts of my involvement in the P1X project was the opportunity to moderate regular cross-functional meetings which usually included representatives from our “commercial project” team as well as colleagues from design and engineering. At times, these were granular-level updates on specific vehicle systems or components then being evaluated. On other occasions, they became wider-ranging discussions intended to keep everyone informed of potential development-related issues which could negatively affect the entire timing of the project.
Aside from the occasional need to keep the discussions on track and moving forward, I found these meetings to be highly rewarding and stimulating, periodically confirming the complexity of the new-car development process, especially complicated as this one was, with the inevitable compromises necessary when dealing with the requirements of Ford and Mazda, the other two brands involved in the effort.
At length, the new Volvo compact cars progressed through their successive project “gates” which entailed regular, detailed status reports on all aspects of the development project, ending in green, yellow, or occasionally red designations depending on the level of concern expressed in each area. Fortunately, as time went on there were fewer and fewer “red” indications, even though we were still nearly three years away from our intended production start.
Finally, it was necessary to have the typical late-stage discussion regarding the model nomenclature of the new cars. As always, some advocated for retaining the existing S40 and V40 designations, arguing that the (presumed) goodwill and positive reputation generated by the current models would carry over into their replacements, eliminating the added marketing expense required if we needed to acclimate customers to new names.
Others suggested that since these new cars shared few components with their predecessors (especially in North America, where new naturally-aspirated and turbocharged five-cylinder powertrains would replace the old S40’s turbocharged I4s), they should be given new model designations which would make an obvious break from the current models…
Perhaps as an example of the Swedish “lagom” (“just right”) mentality, both sides could eventually claim victory. While the new S40 retained the model designation of its predecessor, the five-door station wagon/estate car version was designated V50, perhaps copying the scheme that would be used for Volvo’s S60 sedan and V70 wagon, where the latter enjoyed a ten-digit higher model number.
Volvo’s compact station wagons, old and new. The V50 is a rare AWD T5 stick-shift version. (Sources: media.volvocars.com (V40); www.bringatrailer.com (V50)
As I prepared to return to the States at the close of 2000, I looked back fondly on my assignment in Gothenburg, which offered me the chance to make a small contribution to the new-car birthing process, as well as providing an insider’s view of the Volvo world, both before and after the brand’s purchase by Ford Motor Company. It was truly the highlight of my Volvo career.
Maybe it not 100 percent belongs here – but somehow it does:
PG Gyllenhammar, Volvo’s long-time legendary and characteristic boss, died on November 21st in Gothenburg.
Pehr Gustaf Gyllenhammar worked for Volvo for more than 20 years, eventually heading the company. He had an enormous influence on the Swedish business world.
However, he began his professional career as a lawyer. He studied at Lund University and graduated in 1959. In the same year he married Christina Engellau, the daughter of Gunnar Engellau, who was CEO of Volvo for many years.
In 1970, PG Gyllenhammar moved to Volvo, where – as already mentioned – he held various management positions until 1993.
Thank you for your telling about your experiences. Always interesting to learn about what is going on inside the factories when cars get replaced.
Regarding the old S40/V40, I regard these as design highlights. They look good, surefooted, happy in all views, the proportions are perfect. Less so for the S40/V50. These seem too narrow or too high, and as you say a bit too slab sided.
The V70 is another example of a near perfect design.