Reliability

[renesis]

the fact there are so many xc90's on the road suggest there are alot of satisfied people out there. otherwise we would all be in Kias

[CO2000]

give it 5 years !

[wagga]

Had my XC90 3.2L AWD near to 3 years now. Fantastic and ever reliable.
Not great on fuel but you don't expect that from a SUV. Otherwise, great drive and feel safe.

Only drawback drive was I got stuck on softsand. BUt then again partly due to not depressurizing the tyres and put DSTC to OFF - laziness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkbMG...6fAUAAAAAAAAAA

[GerryS]

The drawback of reading a forum like this is that it can make you paranoid while you wait for a problem to show up!

If you like the car, go for it! It all come down to chance and statistics whether you end up with any major issues...

Personally, I'm not desperately impressed with my XC90's reliability - but then I may have too high expectations.

In two and a half years I've had the AWD splined shaft failure fixed (and mines a 185bhp), a failed clutch slave cylinder (very expensive) and a distinctly dodgy parking brake. Also have intermittently squeeky suspension (probably drop arms links). Of course, mine was second hand, so there will be ageing issues - however it leads a very gentle life and tbh I expected a bit better from it. Some of the design and engineering is excellent (e.g. the interior, the middle child's seat, the way the headlight units can be removed), some is frankly rubbish (the aforementioned parking brake - why on earth couldn't they dampen the mechanism?)

[Rawas]

Originally Posted by GerryS

The drawback of reading a forum like this is that it can make you paranoid while you wait for a problem to show up!

If you like the car, go for it! It all come down to chance and statistics whether you end up with any major issues...

Personally, I'm not desperately impressed with my XC90's reliability - but then I may have too high expectations.

In two and a half years I've had the AWD splined shaft failure fixed (and mines a 185bhp), a failed clutch slave cylinder (very expensive) and a distinctly dodgy parking brake. Also have intermittently squeeky suspension (probably drop arms links). Of course, mine was second hand, so there will be ageing issues - however it leads a very gentle life and tbh I expected a bit better from it. Some of the design and engineering is excellent (e.g. the interior, the middle child's seat, the way the headlight units can be removed), some is frankly rubbish (the aforementioned parking brake - why on earth couldn't they dampen the mechanism?)

But this is the case of all cars, right?
personally, I would rather prefer to do some maintenance work on my car once a year, and not see cheap plastic interior of a Toyota everyday.

[Rawas]

Originally Posted by Rawas

But this is the case of all cars, right?
personally, I would rather prefer to do some maintenance work on my car once a year, and not see cheap plastic interior of a Toyota everyday.

Not to mention how absurd and awful they look!
sorry for all Toyota owners, nothing personal.

[GerryS]

Originally Posted by Rawas

But this is the case of all cars, right?
personally, I would rather prefer to do some maintenance work on my car once a year, and not see cheap plastic interior of a Toyota everyday.

Well, no. Not all manufacturers have the same reliability. Just a quick look at reliabilityindex.co.uk shows data from Warranty Direct - based on the claims owners make on their policies, so it seems reasonably trustworthy data.

It seems most large 4x4s don't do terrible well, but the XC90 is rated as "poor". What slightly surprises me is that e.g. the Jeep Grand Cherokee gets a better rating and even the Landrover Discovery is slightly better. Based purely on hearsay, I thought the Disco had a terrible reliability record...

I don't think it's just a choice between an XC90 and a Toyota! There are many other options in between, which may (or may not!) have a better reliability record. Every manufacturer has to make a balanced choice between design, manufacturability, reliability and cost. Each one may make a different choice.

[TruckbusUK]

Originally Posted by GerryS

Well, no. Not all manufacturers have the same reliability. Just a quick look at reliabilityindex.co.uk shows data from Warranty Direct - based on the claims owners make on their policies, so it seems reasonably trustworthy data.

It seems most large 4x4s don't do terrible well, but the XC90 is rated as "poor". What slightly surprises me is that e.g. the Jeep Grand Cherokee gets a better rating and even the Landrover Discovery is slightly better. Based purely on hearsay, I thought the Disco had a terrible reliability record...

I don't think it's just a choice between an XC90 and a Toyota! There are many other options in between, which may (or may not!) have a better reliability record. Every manufacturer has to make a balanced choice between design, manufacturability, reliability and cost. Each one may make a different choice.

Dont forget the bulk of the data is from a 3rd party warranty company, and the bulk of users of these companies services, and therefore the source of data collected are people, who are buying a used vehicle with no other warranty available (and an unverified history/ private sale) and/or people who already own a less than reliable vehicle and want to hedge their bets on further trouble ... what does the likes of JD Power etal say about the XC90 vs the Disco etc ... plus dont forget these companies dont report on the number of warranties sold and never claimed upon ... so this type of data in isolation is only indicative at best and needs to be pooled from a much larger source, say four or five others.

Just my thoughts

[GerryS]

Originally Posted by TruckbusUK

Dont forget the bulk of the data is from a 3rd party warranty company, and the bulk of users of these companies services, and therefore the source of data collected are people, who are buying a used vehicle with no other warranty available (and an unverified history/ private sale) and/or people who already own a less than reliable vehicle and want to hedge their bets on further trouble ... what does the likes of JD Power etal say about the XC90 vs the Disco etc ... plus dont forget these companies dont report on the number of warranties sold and never claimed upon ... so this type of data in isolation is only indicative at best and needs to be pooled from a much larger source, say four or five others.

Just my thoughts

Not my role to defend a warranty company, but,

As I understand it, they base their ratings on all the policies taken out - so if someone hasn't made a claim, that is included in the data and acts to improve the reliability rating. All they say is that data has to be based on a minimum of 50 policies, so on that basis it may or may not be statistically valid.

However, the other points (reasons for taking out this type of warranty) may or may not be true! Got any references?? Ultimately, it doesn't affect the comparison, because they use the same method for all the cars.

Had a quick search for JD power. Bit more complex because you have to search by exact model year, but the quick search I performed didn't look too different from the Warranty direct results (e.g. 2/5 overall reliability for a 2006 XC90). As an owner I'm not trying to put the XC90 down - just interested in any statistics that give a measurable view on how reliable it is.

[Beavis]

i think it fares poorly on reliability indexes as when things go wrong, they're expensive things. i've my 2006 model 4 years - no problems whatsoever other than servicable items until last month, when the ICM went - bang - £1120 bill.

in context, a cheaper motor with no where the same technology levels would be no where as expensive to fix - £50 stereo from halfords.

think all big cars/suv's are going to be costly when they wrong.