Specifically this one:
https://www.uniquemotorsnw.com/details/used-2007-volvo-xc90/66279487
I've read the old threads here and gotten that I don't want an early V8, or a turbo one. I'm looking for a 6-seater with towing capability that's going to be fun enough to drive and not be a giant pain in my rear to work on. High maintenance is fine, just not unexpected repairs and ridiculous cost-savings engineering.
I have zero ownership experience, but they look pretty good for what they are, that one seems really clean, and they sound surprisingly great.
Have no clue.
Am interested to see what you buy.
850 R in canary yellow is only volvo I want
that said, I wanted to congratulate you on getting rid of the POS Flex.
Duke said:I have zero ownership experience, but they look pretty good for what they are, that one seems pretty clean, and they sound surprisingly great.
Oh goodness me yes, yes they do:
Transverse V8. I never knew.
That looks like a hell of a nice car for $7700.
[edit]
Actually, that looks like an astoundingly nice car for $7700. If the history looks good and it won't stress you out financially, I'd jump on it.
Duke said:Transverse V8. I never knew.
That looks like a hell of a nice car for $7700.
Right? Built by Yamaha, 60 degree banks, 311HP/325TQ out of a 4.4L. It can tow almost 5000 lbs!
So you got rid of the Flex? What about the Audi and Boxster?
I say, if you got rid of the Audi, get one. If you still have the Audi, get a sienna.
In reply to CyberEric :
Not yet. Current plan is to replace both the Flex and the Audi. I hate them both. The Boxster is doing great.
My sister has a similar XC90 (forgive me, I can't keep the SUV blobs straight, so it could easily be slightly older or newer, but 2007 sounds about right), and I think it's been decent for her for some years now, with IIRC one ugly tossed-serpentine-belt episode taking out some alarming amount of stuff. But I didn't get the details, may be remembering them wrong, and/or may have gotten a strangely abbreviated summary.
I will say that the one time I drove it for any length of time was when she lent it to me for a wintry trip to Kennewick, and it was awesome at eating up a few hours on I-84.
EDIT: Just out of curiosity, what's the anti-Flex story? I'm pretty sure they're too big for us, and we're not up for the MPG hit, but I think they look neat.
The 3rd row legroom is laughable, especially when compared against a Flex. These were high on our list until I saw the third row legroom in person. We bought a minivan instead, no regrets.
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:Duke said:I have zero ownership experience, but they look pretty good for what they are, that one seems pretty clean, and they sound surprisingly great.
Oh goodness me yes, yes they do:
That is a wholly unexpected noise from an XC90. It sounds so mean. The dichotomy reminds me of that V12 Merc that sounds like an F1 car.
In reply to Jesse Ransom :
The Flex is a brilliant idea that is completely knee-capped by ridiculous cost-cutting engineering measures in the drivetrain. That and the electronics are less reliable than the Audi.
I believe the angle gear (kinda like a transfer case) is a sore spot on those. Similar to the ford PTU problems.
The XC90 and Flex share the same platform, both have a failure-prone PTU and fragile electronics.
This would be a lateral move
I love the o.g. XC90 design in general, and im a big enough fan of Volvos of that era that when my mom wore out her first S80 (95k to 233k in that car), i found her another s80 because she still liked it a lot after 10 years.
Having said that, I don't know of a single thing one of those XC90s is better at than the contemporary Cayenne i own, other than having a 3rd row that.. technically exists? They aren't even cheaper. I'm not convinced they're more reliable, either.
If you're ok with the value proposition (which is worse than both the S80 and Cayenne i've already bought, thus my reticence) then i think it's pretty cool. If i came across the right one at the right price, i'd be sorely tempted even though it's 100% superfluous as long as i have this Cayenne.
Funnily enough, if you look underneath it you might see some similarities with the Flex. Ford dumbed down the circa-'99 Volvo full size platform to build their blase 500/montego/taurus/flex/edge/blah/blah/blah cars. People complain about the 3rd row in the Explorers too. At least the XC90 doesn't undermine its lack of 3rd row space by also being huge on the outside.
fanfoy said:The XC90 and Flex share the same platform, both have a failure-prone PTU and fragile electronics.
This would be a lateral move
Sort of technically correct like how an Aston V12 is just two Mondeo/Contour V6's welded together but not really. The Ford version of the platform uses steel suspension arms instead od aluminum and has less links, along with a longer wheelbase, wider track, and a lot more weight. This is like going from the pudgy younger sister to the athletic older sister who does track and field.
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:fanfoy said:The XC90 and Flex share the same platform, both have a failure-prone PTU and fragile electronics.
This would be a lateral move
Sort of technically correct like how an Aston V12 is just two Mondeo/Contour V6's welded together but not really. The Ford version of the platform uses steel suspension arms instead od aluminum and has less links, along with a longer wheelbase, wider track, and a lot more weight. This is like going from the pudgy younger sister to the athletic older sister who does track and field.
That might make performance driving a little nicer, but your complaints about the Flex drivetrain and electronics might carry over. And it would be less good at family hauling thanks to that shorter, narrower body.
It's all just "needs" vs "wants". You need a family hauler. You need it to be reliable. It doesn't need to be fancy, sporting, etc. You have other vehicles to cover those aspects. This is a case where boring is good. Deep down you know this. You're going to cause yourself lots of pain, and go through lots of expensive, complex, luxurious vehicles that don't do what you need them to do because you're prioritizing what you want. Cheap, sporty, reliable family haulers with 3 rows aren't really a thing that exists unless you go back to a Mazda 5, but that might be a bit small for your needs if I remember right. You might be able to look for a Durango SRT, but those are probably out of budget, and they're an Italian Chrysler based on a Mercedes so... reliability may not be in the cards.
Love the sound from that vid. I had a '94 Grand Cherokee back in the day with the 5.2 that I have a Flowmaster 40 series on. Loved the sound of it and turned lots of heads.
Duke said:Transverse V8. I never knew.
That looks like a hell of a nice car for $7700.
[edit]
Actually, that looks like an astoundingly nice car for $7700. If the history looks good and it won't stress you out financially, I'd jump on it.
It's an update to the V8 from the 3rd gen Taurus SHO
In reply to STM317 :
Except that my issues with electronics (wonky collision warning system, SYNC being useless, capacitive touch buttons, and glitchy backup camera) and mechanicals (leaky poorly designed oil lines, leaky poorly designed coolant hoses, lazy transmission programming, lack of towing capacity) are specific to the Flex. The Volvo lacks those systems and has a different transmission and a towing capacity that's more than double. The V8 XC90 does not seem to have any major mechanical issues when maintained and the electronics seem much more robust. Most of the Volvo issues are with early turbo ones and transmissions in the lessor models, same story with the angle gear, it's a different unit in the V8.
you need a suburban.. 2000 to 2006 so no AFM issues..
https://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/cto/d/portland-1999-chevy-suburban-x4-lt-very/7186282158.html <454
https://portland.craigslist.org/clk/cto/d/vancouver-2001-suburban-1500-lt-4wd/7185572879.html < this looks nice.. I'd jump on it. should run for another 100K miles.. Seriously.. if this was abaialbe in minneapolis.. I woudl have purchased it by now.
Nissan FM cars are actually fun to work on - good clearances, no corrosion, holes where you want them - and you'll have to work on them a bunch less than a car with a transverse V8 put in a Volvo 850 engine bay.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I need to hold 2 adults and 4 kids, not 5 adults and 3 kids and 3 dogs. A Suburban won't even fit in my driveway. That said, I did look at Tahoe's. I'm still honestly really turned off on GM's after my Saturn Vue Ecotec and Grand Prix GT. Drivetrains run forever, but man does the rest of the car fall apart bad.
In reply to Javelin (Forum Supporter) :
The benefit of a suburban of this era is that every mechanic in every town has worked on a million of them. They can do the fixes cheap and easy.
2 adults and four kids is perfect in the suburban. The Tahoe has 0 room behind third row seat.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I know. I probably sold 100 gauge clusters for those back when I was a regional commercial sales rep. We used to keep six power window motor/regulators on the shelf in each store because they would sell so fast. My best transmission shop's bread and butter was reflashing the TCM's on these, at least a dozen a week. That said, they are like cockroaches, abundant and hard to kill, even when they are missing half of their limbs.
You'll need to log in to post.
