Volvo XC90 - Any good

stealthn · 08-06-2010, 03:25 PM

My wife is really interested in a loaded 07 XC 90. I searched here and the responses were positive, but like Porsche expensive repairs.
Does anyone have one and how is it; depreciation, service, in winter, reliability, etc.

As always looking to my fellow Pelicans to steer me right

Thanks in advance,

RWebb · RWebb's Garage

how much gnd. clearance do you need?

Don Plumley · Don Plumley's Garage

We bought a new 04 XC90. Very happy with it. Great in the snow/ice/mountains. Eats front brakes. We have the 5 cyl, the 6 cyl turbo eats gas, I've heard the V8 is nice. We have 135K miles, just did the big timing belt service (ouch), but otherwise is typical maintenance wise for a Volvo.

stealthn · 08-06-2010, 04:06 PM

This is Canada man we all need Unimogs for the seal hunt

How much was the timing belt repair?

Thanks and keep them coming

onewhippedpuppy · 08-06-2010, 04:20 PM

I looked at them before I bought our SRX years ago. If I remember my research correctly, avoid the early models and they're pretty good SUVs.

Dottore · 08-06-2010, 04:51 PM

Well I considered one.

I strongly urge you to look at a 2007 ML 320 CDI instead. For similar money you get much more car IMO—and that gorgeous diesel engine.

EarlyPorsche · 08-06-2010, 05:00 PM

Mercedes GL. It is UNREAL! The GL450 is a really nice ride and the air ride is smooooooth.

Steve Carlton · 05:13 PM

They're all good except for the T6, which is a disaster. GM transmission, grenades from the inside, fouls the cooler lines and radiator. $7,500 typically every 50-75K miles. All the motors are good. The V8 is awesome, built for Volvo by Yamaha. On a used XC90, it doesn't jack up the price much and only hurts it by about 2 mpg city/highway. Moves the car nicely. On a new one, it adds over $6K to the price if you subtract for the stuff that comes with it. If you buy a used one like an '07, the lion's share of the depreciation has passed. Safe car, 4,800 pounds. Seatbelt pretensioners on all 7 seats, side curtain airbags all the way to the rear.

cantdrv55 · 08-06-2010, 05:12 PM

Per Top Gear, the Noble M600 uses the XC90 motor, plus two turbo chargers though.

artplumber · 08-06-2010, 05:19 PM

The T6 needs another 100 horses to be really fun, but I've driven past sports cars with it, in relatively low speed corners on stock tires.

Longest ours was laid up was because I knicked a sidewall (in a rush on dirt/gravel oops there's a rock too roads) and we were looking for only 2 tires, but Tire Rack was confused if they had stock or not. Eventually we bought 4 new Conti's which suck - major understeer. YMMV

It's actually a improved dirt road & people mover for us.

JavaBrewer · JavaBrewer's Garage

This...

Joking. The Volvo will be miles better...but not nearly as cool.

slow&rusty · 08-07-2010, 05:19 AM

I agree with Dottore..ML would be sweet or a GL if it is your price range and no pesky timing belts to change! MB > Volvo

BGCarrera32 · 08-07-2010, 06:14 AM

I wouldn't touch a Land Rover with a 10 foot pole. Talk about losing your shorts on resale...

I was invited to a BMW Ultimate Driving Experience in '05 where ala autocross style I got to push a Volvo XC90, BMW X5, MB ML500, and the Lexus thing back to back for several laps of full throttle and hard on the brakes. The Volvo was nice but the transmission kept getting confused and it was a rattle trap. The X5 was the best all around, the ML 500 had thee nicest engine and was the quietest. The Lexus (the large one, not the RX) was rubbish. YMMV of course. All of the vehicles had under 5k miles on them, but obviously as this was a BMW day I am sure the X5's were cherried for the demos, not so much the others.

For the others in the know, I think the XC90 has a transversely mounted engine (yes?) meaning the 4x4 is sort of a Haldex scenario. If that is the case I would probably avoid it. Oh yeah and I HATE timing belts.

1990C4S · 08-07-2010, 06:39 AM

Subaru? Or not big enough?

Talewinds · Talewinds's Garage

I did a GM sponsored event like the BMW event BGCarrera describes above. The lineup was
Volvo XC90
ML(something)
Infiniti QX
Acura MDX
Lexus GX?
Chevy Trailblazer (loaded)
and a few other.

The test was sad in a way because this was GM's attempt to show that their cars are great, but people's observations went quite contrary to that idea. The Trailblazer was SO subpar, just such a blatantly cheap piece of schit.

I know the new Merc ML is a terrific car, much improved over the W163, however, that earlier model was designed from the beginning to be the "poor man's" Mercedes, and the engineering and build quality screamed it (just look at the size of the tri-star on the grill for evidence). Unfortunately, around here it has become synonymous with the ghetto "I gots mine" philosophy, which is, find the cheapest cost of entry into a brand and flaunt it. The ML320, 318i, 525, C220, X-Type, Infiniti G20,etc.

I like the Volvo very much. I've always like the exterior proportions, and everything on the interior seemed right and made of very agreeable materials and placement. Of all the ones driven this is the one I would buy (only because I will probably never buy an Acura, see below).

The surprise of the test was the Acura MDX. It would be tough to describe how much better this car was than EVERYTHING else in the test. It handled SO much better, no doubt because it was the most car-based of the group. It accelerated so much better, braked so much better, and as good as the Volvo interior was the MDX was as close to perfection as I could imagine. The materials were superior, and the ergonomics superb. If you'd buy a Honda (I won't), and would consider piloting a car shaped somewhat like a jellybean, it was a huge surprise to discover how incredibly good the MDX was.

kanadary · 08-07-2010, 07:51 AM

my wife got the mdx after test driving the lineup you listed. she liked the looks, not sure why, but she did like the truck all around. we had a 94 855 and loved it till the tranny went south. i had heard that the v-8s had issues when it was first introduced on the brickboards

kaisen · 08-07-2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

They're all good except for the T6, which is a disaster. GM transmission, grenades from the inside, fouls the cooler lines and radiator. $7,500 typically every 50-75K miles. All the motors are good. The V8 is awesome, built for Volvo by Yamaha. On a used XC90, it doesn't jack up the price much and only hurts it by about 2 mpg city/highway. Moves the car nicely. On a new one, it adds over $6K to the price if you subtract for the stuff that comes with it. If you buy a used one like an '07, the lion's share of the depreciation has passed. Safe car, 4,800 pounds. Seatbelt pretensioners on all 7 seats, side curtain airbags all the way to the rear.

Only partially true.

The transmission is a GM 4T65E (4= 4 speed, T= transverse, 65 = torque rating, E= electronically controlled). That transmission is used in the Supercharged 3800 versions of GM front-drive cars (i.e. Grand Prix GTP, Monte Carlo SS, Impala SS, etc). It holds up pretty well up to the 280 ft-lbs rating.

Volvo's version is 4T65EV/GT (V= Volvo) is modified by Volvo (duh) with a completely different valve body, transmission control unit (TCU), oil cooler, and Haldex all wheel drive piggyback unit. The TCU/Valve body programming is thought to be why the Volvo versions fail and the GM versions do not. There have also been failures from the coolers allowing cross-contamination where coolant can mix with transmission fluid.

In late 2005, Volvo started purchasing the upgraded version of that same transmission that GM used in the LS4 V8 versions of the same cars. That helped, but the software was still not a perfect match.

When Volvo developed the Ford/Yamaha V8 version (also late 2005) they used the 'new' Aisin 6 speed which is used in lots of other Ford, Mazda, and Volvo applications. Not bulletproof, but a good transmission.

So 2006 and newer transmissions in all XC90's should be better. I'd buy a 2007/2008 off-lease for the facelift, changes, and remaining warranty. You should be able to buy a nice 2007 in the low $20's.

kaisen · 08-07-2010, 08:09 AM

BTW, there are much better choices in the large CUV segment. But the Volvo represents good bang-for-the-buck for the initial purchase price.

Do you need three rows of seats?

Steve Carlton · 06:48 AM

So, which part of my post is untrue? Only the T6 has the GM-sourced transmission. Would you want to risk a failure on a late 2005 or 2006, hoping the update solved the problem? Even if you dodged an expensive replacement, you'd still have a car of tainted resaleability and value.

onewhippedpuppy · 08-08-2010, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talewinds

I did a GM sponsored event like the BMW event BGCarrera describes above. The lineup was
Volvo XC90
ML(something)
Infiniti QX
Acura MDX
Lexus GX?
Chevy Trailblazer (loaded)
and a few other.

The test was sad in a way because this was GM's attempt to show that their cars are great, but people's observations went quite contrary to that idea. The Trailblazer was SO subpar, just such a blatantly cheap piece of schit.

Someone in GM marketing should have lost their job for that. Couldn't they find a Lada or something?