General: Xc 70 or Xc 90 ?

[XC90Mk1]

I owned a 2003 Grand Vitara and now own a 2012 XC90. Clearly the XC90 is considerabl larger, quicker and relaxing. But off road the vitara is much better. Mine was also a lot cheaper than the XC90.

If you are going off road it would have to be a GV with the 1.9 Diesel engine for me. Much better off road, lighter to recover if you ever bog it down etc.

I love k XC90 but it is like a tank!

[Forg]

Originally Posted by Sotosound

I've never owned an off-roader, but the terrain that you describe sounds a bit more XC90 than XC70 to me.

I don't know of any Volvo that's actually an off-roader, they're all road cars with jacked-up suspension to reduce handling/safety & with offroader/SUV styling applied because, like an onion on the belt, it was the style at the time. I don't think one has better ground-clearance than the other. It's really down to personal preference & what suits (eg. if you've got 5yo's or kids no larger they can fit in the 3rd row of a 7st XC90 whereas there's no 3rd-row option for XC70's - Volvo probably knew the XC90 was more likely to be pranged so they'd get more sales by enticing multi-seat buyers into those).

[S60D5-185]

Originally Posted by EssexExile

The trouble is that little Fiats have tended to have too many soft spots in their bodywork over the years.

That has not been the case for many years.👍

[S60D5-185]

Originally Posted by XC90Mk1

I owned a 2003 Grand Vitara and now own a 2012 XC90. Clearly the XC90 is considerabl larger, quicker and relaxing. But off road the vitara is much better. Mine was also a lot cheaper than the XC90.

If you are going off road it would have to be a GV with the 1.9 Diesel engine for me. Much better off road, lighter to recover if you ever bog it down etc.

I love k XC90 but it is like a tank!

We bought our Suzuki GV as a second car, new in 2004 and sold it in 2018.

Well over 100k on it and in that time other than consumables such as brakes and tyres absolutely NOTHING went wrong with it .

[Tannaton]

The 2008 XC70 is a P3 car which has Ford bits in it - the same year XC90 is a proper P2 Volvo.

That said - engine, gearbox and drivetrain they are identical and the only differences are the ground clearance (which is marginally more on the XC90) and the robustness of the suspension which again in my opinion having owned both is stronger on the XC90.

But if you are doing muddy gravel tracks and across fields, that's not off-roading that's soft-roading and either will do the job very well with the correct tyres on them (choice of tyres I suggest is as important as the choice of car...)

Where you have rough terrain, rocks, ruts and risk of grounding then a permanent 4x4 vehicle like the Suzuki will be better. But if it's a few undulations with loose our slippery surfaces then a electronically managed AWD car (with the same tyres) might be a better choice.

A few years ago I had a 2003 XC90 and 1997 Discovery and used them both on our small holding for navigating fields and lugging trailers - on muddy hills the XC90 with Haldex AWD and traction control was more capable than the Disco which would tend to cross axle. Later D3' with full traction control will not have that problem. Now using a XC60 and a Ford Ranger and I've not managed to get either of them stuck.

[Dicky Boy]

Hi Guys,

Thank you so much for your honest and sensible answers. My Vito is BRILLIANT off road and has never let me down on or off road. Main problem is it's starting to show signs of rust and I will be lucky to get it through one more MOT. I have off road tyres on the back and all terrains on the front and there is no denying that it's noisy on the road. The big issue for me is that it takes about a week to get to 60 mph and I am thinking turbo and associated equipment is are on their last legs so uneconomical to repair. My darling wife bless her has offered to sell her Corsa so we can buy a better/later Volvo and she will drive that. I know some of the Volvo's had transmission problems with certain years but do they all suffer from it or did they fix it ? Normal servicing is well within my grasp as is changing steering components etc but AWD is a new beastie to me and I'll be honest I am a bit nervous of it. Thanks again for your help folks.

[Volvo6]

I know some of the Volvo's had transmission problems with certain years but do they all suffer from it or did they fix it ? Normal servicing is well within my grasp as is changing steering components etc but AWD is a new beastie to me and I'll be honest I am a bit nervous of it. Thanks again for your help folks.

I think 2008 is beyond the year the AWD typically fails, but 2008 is now quite some time ago and nothing lasts for ever. I know haldex is pretty much standard on most family SUVs now, but a traditional and robust 4WD system is still in my opinion less likely to fail long term.

I remember buying a 2005 XC90 years ago and despite checking that the prop could not be moved by hand, it still had a problem with the haldex that cost about £1k to fix. Got the car for what was then a good price so was not hugely disappointed.

We also have a 2008 XC70 at the moment, it's actually a rare 3.2 petrol but most considered opinion is that the D5 is best. The D5 in our XC90 felt like it would go forever. Both have been reliable generally, the XC70 did throw an ABS sensor, which was a pain because it went into limp mode in Cornwall, but other than that no surprise bills.

I would avoid the autos - in 80s/90s Volvos seem to have some very hardy 4 speeds, unfortunately a lot of the 5/6 speeds don't seem to last more than 150k without rebuild and even if they do get grumpy with age as the valve body and clutches wear. Our XC70 is an auto and I don't really rate the box even though its currently working as it should.

As others have said the platforms are very similar, in terms of running costs and reliability there is not much to split them. Personally I liked the higher driving position of the 90, but both really drive the same handling wise.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Volvo6

I think 2008 is beyond the year the AWD typically fails, but 2008 is now quite some time ago and nothing lasts for ever. I know haldex is pretty much standard on most family SUVs now, but a traditional and robust 4WD system is still in my opinion less likely to fail long term.

I remember buying a 2005 XC90 years ago and despite checking that the prop could not be moved by hand, it still had a problem with the haldex that cost about £1k to fix. Got the car for what was then a good price so was not hugely disappointed.

We also have a 2008 XC70 at the moment, it's actually a rare 3.2 petrol but most considered opinion is that the D5 is best. The D5 in our XC90 felt like it would go forever. Both have been reliable generally, the XC70 did throw an ABS sensor, which was a pain because it went into limp mode in Cornwall, but other than that no surprise bills.

I would avoid the autos - in 80s/90s Volvos seem to have some very hardy 4 speeds, unfortunately a lot of the 5/6 speeds don't seem to last more than 150k without rebuild and even if they do get grumpy with age as the valve body and clutches wear. Our XC70 is an auto and I don't really rate the box even though its currently working as it should.

As others have said the platforms are very similar, in terms of running costs and reliability there is not much to split them. Personally I liked the higher driving position of the 90, but both really drive the same handling wise.

The AWD splined sleeve issue was specific to the AW55 5-speed box which was replaced in the XC models in MY2005 with the TF80 6-speed.

The reliability of the 6 speed boxes is fine, the main issue is that Volvo does not include a transmission fluid change in their standard services which other manufacturers who use that gearbox do - including Peugeot/Citroen, GM/Opel/Vauxhall/Saab & Jaguar/Land Rover.

So if you get one - change the fluid.

[Volvo6]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

The reliability of the 6 speed boxes is fine, the main issue is that Volvo does not include a transmission fluid change in their standard services which other manufacturers who use that gearbox do - including Peugeot/Citroen, GM/Opel/Vauxhall/Saab & Jaguar/Land Rover.

So if you get one - change the fluid.

You're probably right Tannaton, I think I'm biased by the fact that the early AW55 in the V70 got seriously grumpy after 100k or so and is currently in bits. Probably in our ignorance at the time we assumed following the Volvo service schedule (with its lack of fluid change) was OK. I'm also just not a fan of any of the modern autos...even the one in the V40 seems bit dim witted, but that's probably just me.

[Bonefishblues]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

The AWD splined sleeve issue was specific to the AW55 5-speed box which was replaced in the XC models in MY2005 with the TF80 6-speed.

The reliability of the 6 speed boxes is fine, the main issue is that Volvo does not include a transmission fluid change in their standard services which other manufacturers who use that gearbox do - including Peugeot/Citroen, GM/Opel/Vauxhall/Saab & Jaguar/Land Rover.

So if you get one - change the fluid.

Nowt wrong with the '55 box either, as long as its fluid's changed on (say Saab's) schedule. It wasn't the autobox that killed our Euro 3 XC70 at knocking 190K, it was a transfer box that was an uneconomic repair.

Trouble is, these 70s & 90s have the capability at almost any time to throw a big bill without trying, hence me going down a completely different rabbit-hole for the OP's requirements.