Volvo Community Forum. The Forums of the Volvo Owners Club

Forum Rules Volvo Owners Club About VOC Volvo Gallery Links Volvo History Volvo Press
Go Back   Volvo Owners Club Forum > "Technical Topics" > XC90 '02'15 General
Register Members CarsBlogs Help Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

XC90 '02'15 General Forum for the Volvo XC90 Phase 1 Series

Information
  • VOC Members: There is no login facility using your VOC membership number or the details from page 3 of the club magazine. You need to register in the normal way
  • AOL Customers: Make sure you check the 'Remember me' check box otherwise the AOL system may log you out during the session. This is a known issue with AOL.
  • AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net users. Forum owners such as us are finding that AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net are blocking a lot of email generated from forums. This may mean your registration activation and other emails will not get to you, or they may appear in your spam mailbox

Thread Informations

Lower mileage 185 upgrade..or downgrade?

Views : 328

Replies : 9

Users Viewing This Thread :  

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 13th, 2019, 14:44   #1
Bigjimknickers
Member
 

Last Online: Yesterday 09:08
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Guildford
Default Lower mileage 185 upgrade..or downgrade?

Just thinking out loud really!
My xc90 is on 173k Currently fitting a new gearbox but obviously reliability is what Im needing- so Ill give my xc the benefit for now but Im considering an upgrade to a slightly newer 185bhp model, but...

Are all 2006 185s 540 a year tax?
Bigjimknickers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13th, 2019, 16:08   #2
xco
Master Member
 
xco's Avatar
 
Blocks 2 Champion!
Last Online: Today 03:55
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Near Plymouth
Thumbs up

i think so yes until they had a change again 2009-10.

Also if you've been used to 163 type mileage be prepared for a drop to 28.5 mpg ish. 32-35 ish on a run (cruise control on @75mph ish.)

However i have the 185 in my MY2008 XC90 and am quite happy with it.

The 185 gives you 400 newtons of pulling power which puts it not far behind the V8 which gives 460 N (but not far off the V8's consumption figures un-fort unately).
__________________
MY08 XC90 D5 185 SE LUX SATNAV GEARTRONIC

WHERE EVER YOU GO................THERE YOU ARE!!!
xco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13th, 2019, 19:32   #3
Tannaton
Premier Member
 
Tannaton's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 12:17
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Beverley, East Yorks
Default

There's no correct answer, it's a balance.

The 163 BHP is a more reliable (simpler) engine, more refined, more economical and cheaper tax.

The 185 BHP is a better drive with more power, but not as refined, economical and the engines are more prone to niggling issues (but still structurally reliable) however the 6-speed box on the 185 BHP engine is much better and more reliable than the AW55 and the "geartronic delay" is much less.

Most post 23rd March 2006 185's are high tax (except manual gearbox cars).

If you can find a pre 23/3/2006 low mileage 185 then lower tax but it will be a pre-facelift model.

If only they did a 163 E3 engine with the 6-speed TF80......... :-(
__________________
2012 V40 D3 SE, 2003 XC90 D5 SE, 2009 Ford Ranger SC, 1977 Triumph Spitfire 1500

Last edited by Tannaton; Mar 13th, 2019 at 19:35.
Tannaton is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tannaton For This Useful Post:
Old Mar 14th, 2019, 12:19   #4
Bigjimknickers
Member
 

Last Online: Yesterday 09:08
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Guildford
Default

I think with my budget & the 540 pa tax on the 185, Im going to have to stick it out with my old girl for now, then leap to a 200bhp 2011 one when I can afford one.
Bigjimknickers is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigjimknickers For This Useful Post:
Old Mar 14th, 2019, 13:16   #5
Tannaton
Premier Member
 
Tannaton's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 12:17
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Beverley, East Yorks
Default

I'd just get the car you want and pay the tax.... the difference between 315 and 540 is 18.75 a month if you pay by DD, there's no sense in spend 000's more to get a car where the higher depreciation loss in value will be substantially more than that a month...
__________________
2012 V40 D3 SE, 2003 XC90 D5 SE, 2009 Ford Ranger SC, 1977 Triumph Spitfire 1500
Tannaton is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tannaton For This Useful Post:
Old Mar 14th, 2019, 22:44   #6
xco
Master Member
 
xco's Avatar
 
Blocks 2 Champion!
Last Online: Today 03:55
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Near Plymouth
Default

Thats exactly what I thought when i bought mine in 2014.

Plenty of 315 tax ones about but either too much to buy or didn't have the toys I wanted.
__________________
MY08 XC90 D5 185 SE LUX SATNAV GEARTRONIC

WHERE EVER YOU GO................THERE YOU ARE!!!
xco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15th, 2019, 11:07   #7
S60D5-185
Me ? Surely Not!
 
S60D5-185's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 14:29
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Durham City
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tannaton View Post
I'd just get the car you want and pay the tax.... the difference between 315 and 540 is 18.75 a month if you pay by DD, there's no sense in spend 000's more to get a car where the higher depreciation loss in value will be substantially more than that a month...


My view exactly and the very reason that I bought my 2007 XC90 .

Yes 540 is eye watering but when you look at the monthly difference between that and the lower tax band ones it's not enough of an incentive to avoid a really nice car in the higher bracket.
__________________
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
S60D5-185 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to S60D5-185 For This Useful Post:
Old Mar 15th, 2019, 12:29   #8
owenfackrell
Premier Member
 

Last Online: Today 14:36
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: southampton
Default

Ours is a 2005 163bhp manual and at some point in the near future we will be looking to replace it with a newer one but Im looking to jump to the 200bhp one for a number of reasons it is supposed to be better on fuel than the 185 and they also fitted Bluetooth rather than the built in phone which i have now.
owenfackrell is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to owenfackrell For This Useful Post:
Old Mar 15th, 2019, 18:52   #9
Bigjimknickers
Member
 

Last Online: Yesterday 09:08
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Guildford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by owenfackrell View Post
Ours is a 2005 163bhp manual and at some point in the near future we will be looking to replace it with a newer one but Im looking to jump to the 200bhp one for a number of reasons it is supposed to be better on fuel than the 185 and they also fitted Bluetooth rather than the built in phone which i have now.
Exactly my reasons too.

Fingers crossed for tonights lotto!
Bigjimknickers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15th, 2019, 18:57   #10
XC90Mk1
Master Member
 

Last Online: Today 06:09
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Southampton
Default

At this current age I don't really see the point of the 185BHP version.

I have the 200HP version and get 32plus MPG driving 75% mtorays at 70 and 25% local. I get around 30 driving locally.

The 200HP is not much more than the 185HP (later 185) and yet is a fair bit more efficient and cheaper to tax.

If you are on a budget then get the 163 model as whilst it is a bit slower it is more economical and cheaper.

The 185 is simply too thirsty and expecsive to be purchased.
__________________
2012 XC90 SE Lux 85,000 miles
XC90Mk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:52.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.