In the market for a Volvo XC90

Victor_M

I've been looking at a more practical form of transport for the family, the Volvo XC90 seems to tick all the boxes for my needs.

Other than they get rave reviews from most motoring critics for their family practicality, safety and residual holding, I don't know much about them.

Are they reliable? What are the servicing costs or maintenance cost like on Volvo's?

Would an older low mileage one like THIS be a better choice than a newer higher mileage example like THIS.

Does any one know the real world MPG from the 3L petrol, is there much difference between it and the 2.5 petrol, there seem to be more of them for sale than the diesels, but the diesels are usually a fair bit pricier. I drive 10-12K miles each year so I'm trying to weigh up whether the lower cost to purchase with the higher running costs makes more sense than the higher upfront cost versus the cheaper day to day running.

Any feed back on what to look out for or what to avoid would be appreciated.
thanks.

Anan1

A friend's wife has one, it replaced a Lexus RX300. I remember hearing that they wished they'd kept the Lexus but I didn't ask why - i'll be seeing them tonight, i'll get more details.

frank gooding

Why the need for such a big car.

What about a diesel estate.

You could easily get a newer cheaper to run maintain tax car for that sort of money.

BMW 520d estate springs to mind.

VolvoMan

Victor_M wrote: »

I've been looking at a more practical form of transport for the family, the Volvo XC90 seems to tick all the boxes for my needs.

Other than they get rave reviews from most motoring critics for their family practicality, safety and residual holding, I don't know much about them.

Are they reliable? What are the servicing costs or maintenance cost like on Volvo's?

Would an older low mileage one like THIS be a better choice than a newer higher mileage example like THIS.

Does any one know the real world MPG from the 3L petrol, is there much difference between it and the 2.5 petrol, there seem to be more of them for sale than the diesels, but the diesels are usually a fair bit pricier. I drive 10-12K miles each year so I'm trying to weigh up whether the lower cost to purchase with the higher running costs makes more sense than the higher upfront cost versus the cheaper day to day running.

Any feed back on what to look out for or what to avoid would be appreciated.
thanks.

The 2.5T is a 2.5 litre five cylinder petrol engine familiar to most of the Volvo range. It is a fine unit by all means but apparently quite gutless in the XC90. The T6 is a 2.9 litre twin-turbo 6 cylinder linked to a poor GM sourced four speed auto that is known to be quite troublesome. Both of them are petrol engines in a two tonne SUV body, so poor fuel economy is to be expected.

The XC90 as a whole shook up the SUV class when it was launched in 2003. You will notice that it lead the way for many SUV's that followed like the Discovery 3 and second generation X5 in its seating layout and many other versatile features. Even today it seems that people can't seem to get enough of them, with sales still quite strong nearly eight years after its launch.

Anan1 wrote: »

A friend's wife has one, it replaced a Lexus RX300. I remember hearing that they wished they'd kept the Lexus but I didn't ask why - i'll be seeing them tonight, i'll get more details.

Somehow I highly doubt that to be honest.

Victor_M

Thanks VolvoMan! What sort of MPG are you talking about when you say poor economy? I'm used to around 21-22 from my M3 so I can live with that, the fear is that it will be much worse as the trip computer on the one I took out for a drive on Sat was reading 24.5 L/100km or 9.6 mpg!! I'm sure it's not that bad day to day and just from test drivers flooring it.

Are there Volvo specialists out there who car competently service XC90's? In the same way as there are a few Indy BMW dealers that are arguably better than the main dealers themselves?

The BMW X5 is also on the cards but the Volvo seems to be market leader in terms of practicality and family friendliness.

It's also huge inside, I will be using this a work vehicle also so the flat folding seats in the rear are important for storage.

Henry Ford III

I've driven both the 2.5T and the 2.4 diesel in XC90's.

Firstly the 2.5T is seriously thirsty. 20mpg maybe on average. It goes well enough ok. It is saleproof however, and I'd only look at one used if it was dirt cheap and I was doing very limited mileage.

The 2.4 diesel is better suited to pulling the big body. I liked it.

L-M

Victor_M wrote: »

Would an older low mileage one like THIS be a better choice than a newer higher mileage example like THIS.

LOL I'm struggling to see the argument there, pay 3,200 more for it to say 4 instead of 3 and have twice the mileage?

I drove a 06 diesel one of these, I didn't like it at all. The interior was very dated and Volvo-ey, the gearknob for the auto felt like it was made of lego. I can't see why so many people love them.

As mentioned above I'd try scrape for the diesel, what ever about running costs and initial costs, resale is little to none on a 2.5 petrol. I wouldn't touch one anyway. I was talking to a fella who was trying trade his in recently and he actually couldn't get a trade in price.

mathepac

I never thought I'd write this, but my daughter has a Volvo XC90 D5 AWD (6-speed manual) for the last year and I have to say I'm very, very impressed. Having driven it a bit, including out of sheer necessity in the snow and ice last Christmas, I'm a convert if this is the kind of car you need.

It offers decent equipment as standard (including rear park-assist I think), good power and flexibility (185 bhp 5-cylinder diesel engine), great safety (special light-weight roof and passenger cell reinforcement), is fairly frugal (35 mpg is not a problem usually), has 7 good seats and a useful boot (5 good seats and a very big boot with the two rears folded), drives more like a car than your typical slab-sided MPV/SUV and is very comfortable even on long journeys, fully laden.

My one criticism of the car is the parking brake arrangement (left foot to apply brake, right hand to release) and that the brakes generally are not great IMHO, but then most cars' brakes seem poor in comparison to what I'm used to.

I believe it belongs close to the top of the short-list for anyone who needs a vehicle in this class.

Zubeneschamali

mathepac wrote: »

I believe it belongs close to the top of the short-list for anyone who needs a vehicle in this class.

Can anyone tell me who needs a vehicle in this class, exactly? It's not a real farmer/horsey Land Rover, it's much dearer to buy, tax, insure and fuel than a 7 seat MPV, it has a plasterer's-wife-from-the-Tiger-years image...

R.O.R

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can anyone tell me who needs a vehicle in this class, exactly? It's not a real farmer/horsey Land Rover, it's much dearer to buy, tax, insure and fuel than a 7 seat MPV, it has a plasterer's-wife-from-the-Tiger-years image...

I did one this year for a guy with 4 kids, a boat, and living in the wilds of Donegal. He's probably one of the few people in the country that needs a 4x4 7 seater.

If he didn't need the 4x4 for harsh winters and pulling the boat up the sliproad, he would have gone for a 5 series Touring or a E Class Estate.

I have no problems with people going for a 4x4 if they want one, but the handling on the XC90 is pants and the dash layout is proper old skool.

D5 does a good job of pulling it around. I haven't driven a Petrol version but we do have at least one on fleet which we have to collect for service. €30 gets it from Rathrdrum to Tallaght and just about back. They are an animal on the juice and we are dreading it coming back (2.5T Manual) as it will be worth a hell of a lot less than it stands us.

Zubeneschamali

R.O.R wrote: »

I have no problems with people going for a 4x4 if they want one

Me neither, I just can't understand why so many people like these yokes.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Me neither, I just can't understand why so many people like these yokes.

I see your point, but I'm a single 29 year old with no kids and never tow anything, I quite fancy a V8 Range Rover (won't buy one though)

mathepac

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can anyone tell me who needs a vehicle in this class, exactly? ...

My daughter does because she has a special needs child who has a dedicated safety-seat permanently installed in the rear of the car. Its electrically powered and rotates in place to facilitate easy access to straps, head-rests and restraint adjustments.

My daughter also has to carry a separate folding wheel-chair in the boot, a "portable" oxygen tank and masks, a battery-powered rechargeable nebulizer, a special powered feeding pump, a dedicated kit-bag with emergency medications, as well as the usual bag of personal hygiene products for her child. The extra 12v power-points installed in the car are an absolute boon to her.

Fully loaded, the car has seats for at best two or at a stretch three adults apart from a driver and my grand-child.

Using the full capabilities and facilities available in a car for on-the-road care as well as for loading and unloading (horizontally split tail-gate, flat loading area with no "lip") means having access to the extra-large disabled car-parking spaces now available across the country. These are painted blue and reserved for cars displaying a blue Disabled Parking Permit.

I'd like to thank the BMW driver in a Cork car-park last week-end (I have the number and the photographs) who managed to park across two of them. It goes to prove yet again that we seem to have an excess of mindless, thoughtless morons everywhere in the country.

EPM

mathepac wrote: »

I'd like to thank the BMW driver in a Cork car-park last week-end (I have the number and the photographs) who managed to park across two of them. It goes to prove yet again that we seem to have an excess of mindless, thoughtless morons everywhere in the country.

There's a thread where you can throw those up in;)

VolvoMan

Victor_M wrote: »

Thanks VolvoMan! What sort of MPG are you talking about when you say poor economy? I'm used to around 21-22 from my M3 so I can live with that, the fear is that it will be much worse as the trip computer on the one I took out for a drive on Sat was reading 24.5 L/100km or 9.6 mpg!! I'm sure it's not that bad day to day and just from test drivers flooring it.

Are there Volvo specialists out there who car competently service XC90's? In the same way as there are a few Indy BMW dealers that are arguably better than the main dealers themselves?

If you're looking for reasonable fuel economy, the D5 is really the only option. Early models with this engine were underpowed but in 2005 an upgraded version was launched and is supposed to be slightly better.

There are only two garages I know of in Dublin that associate themselves with Volvo by the way and they are First Choice Autos in Dun Laoghaire and Independent Volvo Specialists in the city centre. I don't have any experience of either though, I'm afraid.

Limerick man wrote: »

I drove a 06 diesel one of these, I didn't like it at all. The interior was very dated and Volvo-ey, the gearknob for the auto felt like it was made of lego. I can't see why so many people love them.

Can't see what's bad about a Volvo interior to be honest. It's usually one of the things they do well in their cars. The XC90's in particular is a paragon of simplicity and functionality.

I was talking to a fella who was trying trade his in recently and he actually couldn't get a trade in price.

Similar to a comment you made a while ago about Volvos having uncomfortable seats, I'd say this is somewhat wide of the mark.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Me neither, I just can't understand why so many people like these yokes.

I don't like SUV's either, but credit where it's due, the XC90 is a very innovative family car.

Hellrazer

OP just be prepared for very expensive servicing costs on these.And make sure you get one with a long NCT.

1.They do in tyres very quickly--on average we have customers changing tyres yearly or 10k miles.

2.Discs and pads dont have the longest lifespan.

3.Wheel bearings need replacing quite often--very expensive job especially if its a rear one since the shoes sometimes seize onto the rear hub and need replacing---Approximately 500-700 euros for the job.

4.While Im at it the XC90 regularly fails the NCT on shoes and handbrake cables.A nightmare of a job to do and we quote 500+ just for shoes and handbrake adjustment.


If you can afford the expensive servicing costs then by all means go for it.Theyre a great car and very comfortable to drive and buy a diesel if at all possible.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

A friend's wife has one, it replaced a Lexus RX300. I remember hearing that they wished they'd kept the Lexus but I didn't ask why - i'll be seeing them tonight, i'll get more details.

Following on from this, I asked and they found the RX300 much more comfortable and nicer to be in than the XC90 (it's a D5). Neither car gave them any problems, they just preferred the Lexus. It's a good bit smaller than the Volvo, though.

L-M

VolvoMan wrote: »

Can't see what's bad about a Volvo interior to be honest. It's usually one of the things they do well in their cars. The XC90's in particular is a paragon of simplicity and functionality.

Simplicity and fuctionality? I'd call that boring, plenty of cars have all the credentials required to make a good interior, the XC90 in my eyes fail. This is bland and boring in my eyes, and the green font makes it worse

Similar to a comment you made a while ago about Volvos having uncomfortable seats, I'd say this is somewhat wide of the mark.

Well I didn't give him one, and he wasn't shocked at all and explained to me it wasn't the first place he was turned away from. Especially with the diesel hype that's going on now, IMO a 2.5 petrol Xc90 is fairly saleproof.

Victor_M

Thanks for all the feedback folks.

On the interior I didn't mind it TBH, it's not a patch on the newer Audi/BMW interiors but it's a older vehicle so its to be expected, it's the potential costs/problems/fuel consumption I'm concerned about.

I don't need a 4x4 specifically, but if I'm going to part with my M3 I want to drive something I like to be in every day. I have always loved BM's, the XC90 has caught my eye, but as I said I don't know much about them, the more I read the more I'm tending towards the X5, better the devil you know and all that.
I just can't warm to the sensible option of the estate 520d looks wise. Superficial I know, but I don't physically like the current gen 3 or 5 series, as the X5 is still a bit old school BMW in terms of styling, and does drive very well for a large SUV, the 3.0L D X5 might be the (relatively speaking) sensible way to go for me then.

Thanks again for the feedback, very useful as always.

L-M

Personally I'd pick an X5 over an Xc90 6 out of the 7 days of the week.

The only down side is the extra few bob in tax, but again, both are a welcome change from the current 1500+ that you're paying LOL

Besides the 7 seats, there isn't an other reason that I'd pick an Xc90 over an X5, or even an older RR.

Theanswers

Look at getting a Range Rover

VolvoMan

Limerick man wrote: »

Personally I'd pick an X5 over an Xc90 6 out of the 7 days of the week.

Besides the 7 seats, there isn't an other reason that I'd pick an Xc90 over an X5, or even an older RR.

That's because you're a 'bling' individual who likes black Merc saloons on massive 18 inch rims!:)

By the way OP, whether it be XC90 or X5, the best of luck with your search.

L-M

VolvoMan wrote: »

That's because you're a 'bling' individual who likes black Merc saloons on massive 18 inch rims!:)

Far from "bling" is the argument between an X5 and an Xc90.

I didn't think we even used that word this side of the water.

Anan1

Victor_M wrote: »

I don't need a 4x4 specifically, but if I'm going to part with my M3 I want to drive something I like to be in every day. I have always loved BM's, the XC90 has caught my eye, but as I said I don't know much about them, the more I read the more I'm tending towards the X5, better the devil you know and all that.
I just can't warm to the sensible option of the estate 520d looks wise. Superficial I know, but I don't physically like the current gen 3 or 5 series, as the X5 is still a bit old school BMW in terms of styling, and does drive very well for a large SUV, the 3.0L D X5 might be the (relatively speaking) sensible way to go for me then.

Thanks again for the feedback, very useful as always.

If I wanted an M3 but needed the extra space i'd be looking at a V8 petrol estate - I think you'll be very disappointed in a diesel SUV.

L-M

Harmless mileage, all the kit, and under 10k

http://www.carzone.ie/search/BMW/X5/4-.4-I-V/201026198581424/advert?channel=CARS

Edit: Jaysus! And it's actually taxed for a few months (I assume it's the 11/10 and not the 10/11)

VolvoMan

Limerick man wrote: »

Far from "bling" is the argument between an X5 and an Xc90.

No, but with a Range Rover there is.

Either way, both of them have more of a 'footballer's car' image than the XC90.

I didn't think we even used that word this side of the water.

That's because there are not very many bling people this side of the water.

L-M

VolvoMan wrote: »

No, but with a Range Rover there is.

Either way, both of them have more of a 'footballer's car' image than the XC90.



That's because there are not very many bling people this side of the water.

I can ONLY but laugh at the fact in this episode of Top Gear (I know) where they discussed "bling" that Jeremy Clarkson used an XC90.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmwpylsYLxg

VolvoMan

Limerick man wrote: »

I can ONLY but laugh at the fact in this episode of Top Gear (I know) where they discussed "bling" that Jeremy Clarkson used an XC90.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmwpylsYLxg

Strangely I've never seen that episode before.

If anything, Clarkson proved that the XC90 couldn't be 'blinged'. He's had three himself and the only reason he probably used it was because it was an SUV that he was familiar with.

L-M

VolvoMan wrote: »

was because it was an SUV that he was familiar with.

Because his wife has one... Who is a celebrity wife.

Victor_M

Limerick man wrote: »

Harmless mileage, all the kit, and under 10k

http://www.carzone.ie/search/BMW/X5/4-.4-I-V/201026198581424/advert?channel=CARS

Edit: Jaysus! And it's actually taxed for a few months (I assume it's the 11/10 and not the 10/11)

Nice, you've got me thinking now, save a few K for fuel and potential disaster funding and it's a nice all round no sacrifice required solution. Hmmmmm, now to run it by the wife quickly, without too much specific detail Lovely shiney BMW X5 4.4v8petrol spoken very fast and move quickly on to handbags.

Good suggestions lads thanks again.

Would the 3.0 straight 6 petrol be massively underpowered in the X5?

L-M

Victor_M wrote: »

Nice, you've got me thinking now, save a few K for fuel and potential disaster funding and it's a nice all round no sacrifice required solution. Hmmmmm, now to run it by the wife quickly, without too much specific detail Lovely shiney BMW X5 4.4v8petrol spoken very fast and move quickly on to handbags.

Good suggestions lads thanks again.

Would the 3.0 straight 6 petrol be massively underpowered in the X5?

No, but I'd imagine the 4.4 would be worth the extra few quid in tax, and the fact you'd get a 4.4 much cheaper because no nonconforming Irish person wants one

Get onto bmw-driver.net, great advice from lads could be got there for the 4.4V8...

EPM

Victor_M wrote: »

Would the 3.0 straight 6 petrol be massively underpowered in the X5?

I'd be of the opinion that it might not be much more economical in the real world compared to the V8. A lot of weight to lug around

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can anyone tell me who needs a vehicle in this class, exactly? It's not a real farmer/horsey Land Rover, it's much dearer to buy, tax, insure and fuel than a 7 seat MPV, it has a plasterer's-wife-from-the-Tiger-years image...

Who needs 300bhp? who needs a convertable? Its a silly argument. We would all be driving the same car if this is how everyone felt.

To be more specific, an mpv is a bland boring bigger version of a cheap family saloon where as suv's are much more luxurious, nicer to look at, better image and have 4wd which is nice even for the novelty. If I needed 7 seats or just something bigger than a saloon I wouldn't even look at a ad for an mpv it would definitely be some form of suv.

Zubeneschamali

Kayden Hundreds Tutu wrote: »

suv's are much more luxurious, nicer to look at, better image

So, are you a plasterer or a brickie?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, are you a plasterer or a brickie?

Your not even close!!

Anan1

Kayden Hundreds Tutu wrote: »

To be more specific, an mpv is a bland boring bigger version of a cheap family saloon where as suv's are much more luxurious, nicer to look at, better image and have 4wd which is nice even for the novelty. If I needed 7 seats or just something bigger than a saloon I wouldn't even look at a ad for an mpv it would definitely be some form of suv.

IMO, an estate is nicer to look at, and has a better image than, an equivalent SUV. It'll handle better too, thanks to a lower CoG.

Anan1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, are you a plasterer or a brickie?

Let's not get personal.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

IMO, an estate is nicer to look at, and has a better image than, an equivalent SUV. It'll handle better too, thanks to a lower CoG.

I have actually come around to some estates recently, but I was sort of referring to wanting something with 7 seats or a bit bigger/possibly with some off road abality etc in the post.