For my edification, please discuss the merits and detriments of the XC-90, I beseech thee

My wife is smitten. Volvo XC-90, that is. 2009 is the year where depreciation and budget overlap upon the 3.2L model.

What do I need to know about these to either run away screaming or make an informed purchase?

Clarkson likes 'em.

I remember the early XC90s had no end of problems with their transmissions but it seems like the post-06 models are more reliable (or at least less obvious). So at least that big problem is out of the way.

It seems like the platform is pretty much unchanged from the original '02 model through to the present so at least there's a lot of engineering conservatism at work making it incrementally better. The tradeoff would be that it's not flashy and sexy but this is not a time to be sexy anyway with so many new diseases around.

A big SUV like that is obviously not going to be very good on gas (though at least it's not the V8, right?) and probably murder on consumables like tires and brakes. I'd try and figure out if the cheapo part store brake parts are fine to use or if only official Volvo parts make fiscal sense to buy - for some heavier cars they can just chew through parts store rotors.

I sure see a lot of them. Not so many of the earlier models.

Great driving for an SUV. Comfortable yet not wallow y. Great in the snow if you get the AWD

It's based on the large FWD Volvo platform (V70, s60, s80, etc), so the brakes are at their limit. You will change them often, no matter how you drive. And the rear uses those stupid screw-in calipers piston that are CW on one side and CCW on the other.

Also, you will pass thru a lot of front end parts. Swaybar end links go pretty fast (about 40 to 60k on our rough roads) and ball-joints don't last much longer (about 60 to 80k). The end links are easy to change but the ball-joints are integral with the control arm (it's alu I think), so it's pretty expensive.

The engine is super reliable and smooth but weak. The AWD and transmission in later models are tougher but don't try to use it as a truck. It's an overgrown station wagon. Treat it that way and you will like it. If you want to charge it and tow, get something else.

Before we bought our Kia, we checked out pretty much every 7 passenger SUV out there - and the Volvo XC-90 was our clear favorite. The big issues (low power, weak trans) of the early models were pointed out in previous posts. The only reason why we don't have one now is budget - we got our V6 Sorento brand new for $26K out the door. XC-90's for that price were about 5 years old with over 50K miles and no warranty.

PS - get one with a backup camera. I thought they were an expensive gimmick at first, but I swear it's useful every single time we back up.

I can only add this. My father traded up from his Jetta TDi to one after borrowing my 850 last year. He loved the volvo but needed the height to make it easier to get in and out with his artificial hips.

He got the FWD version and loves it

fanfoy wrote: It's an overgrown station wagon. Treat it that way and you will like it. If you want to charge it and tow, get something else.

It only needs to accommodate my wife and her "crew" and equipment. I have a man sized tow rig for the race car so "overgrown station wagon" is perfect. She is two seats and a couple cubic feet shy of what she needs in her 325iX wagon so ... this is bigger. Her other choice was a Suburban but I'm trying to avoid another truck that won't fit in the garage or be kind to the gas bill.

Did she try the XC 70? I realllly liked that wagon.

before I opened this thread I was thinking you were asking about those funny suzuki things.

I am actually a little disappointed its not a thread about the X90

me too, but i saw a post about something called an xc70 and realized i was in for a disappointment.

i dont see the attraction. average interior space. below average power. average efficiency. below average parts availability. above average entry price.

personally, I think the V70/XC70 is an all around better vehicle

I read X90 and was expecting an awesome thread about some silly challenge car and now that I see its the XC90 I had a sad

and here I thought I was the only one who liked the X90?

My brother has had 2 of them (he leases his dd cars). They were very nice. My original impression Is that it feels like you are driving a stone house. I.e. very solid and very quiet.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: GPS, 2006 Honda pilot, boring yes,dead nuts reliable hell yes. I'm in yr 6 of ownership, I change the oil once yr, tranny every other yr. tires and brakes every 3 yrs. and just drive and gas it. I also throw in some windshield washer fluid every 6 months whether its needed or not. 3rd row seat when needed, fold down 2nd and 3rd row when max space needed. Oh and all wheel drive to get to the top of the mountain.

Drive a Pilot back to back with an XC90 and you'll see that though they look similar on paper, they are two wildly different approaches to the same problem. The Pilot appeals more to the 'used to drive a truck' crowd, the Volvo appeals more to the 'used to drive an import sedan' crowd. You'd know better than us what camp your wife falls in.

Mrs. BDT loves her XC70, so if she's happy - I'm happy.

One big warning about late model Volvos - they are handcuffed to the VADIS diagnosis system, for which there are no easy/inexpensive DIY alternatives.