Potential pitfalls in budget Volvo XC90 ownership.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by XJSDriver

Yes- everyone forgets about depreciation. Our XC90 was north of 17K (ouch!) when we bought it 3 years ago and with the high mileage we have put on her, she is probably worth 8-10k so minimum 2k per year lost just in depreciation!
Something a car salesman will never discuss. So if you factor in depreciation when looking at running costs, if the car itself is in good shape you can spend 1000s and still be in profit. The only downside is if the car is written off as your insurance will not pay you what you have invested into it, so you have to be careful how much you invest.

Yeah - depreciation.

My dad bought a 2005 XC70 (early 163 model) which didn't miss a beat until 2013 when the fuel filler remote release failed, cost him £130 to repair, 2 weeks later he bought another brand new XC70 thinking the old one was now going to be expensive trouble. The repair bill was less than 1 weeks depreciation in year 1 of the replacement car....

[S60D5-185]

I still think that my 2005 Euro 3 XC70 was a better screwed together car than my current 90.

The 90 suits my needs better but I actually preferred my old 70.

[eternal optimist]

Originally Posted by S60D5-185

I still think that my 2005 Euro 3 XC70 was a better screwed together car than my current 90.

The 90 suits my needs better but I actually preferred my old 70.

I keep having vague thoughts of replacing my 2004 XC70 with a 2016/17 V90. The XC70 is now on 175k (added 45k in the two years I’ve had it) and it’s had nothing but proper servicing with quality oils and filters, 4 litres of gearbox oil changed every 12k or so, Volvo discs, pads and shoes, handbrake cables, and I’m about to do the cam and aux belts and tensioners. I just can’t bring myself to sell it and get something newer. Even if I buy a cheap V90 for say £16k, the depreciation plus potential electrical/control system glitches makes me shudder.

[S60D5-185]

Originally Posted by eternal optimist

I keep having vague thoughts of replacing my 2004 XC70 with a 2016/17 V90. The XC70 is now on 175k (added 45k in the two years I’ve had it) and it’s had nothing but proper servicing with quality oils and filters, 4 litres of gearbox oil changed every 12k or so, Volvo discs, pads and shoes, handbrake cables, and I’m about to do the cam and aux belts and tensioners. I just can’t bring myself to sell it and get something newer. Even if I buy a cheap V90 for say £16k, the depreciation plus potential electrical/control system glitches makes me shudder.

I sold my XC70 D5 with 182k on the clock and everything was still fine including the geartronic box which was given regular sump dumps.

The seats in particular were far better quality than the XC90.

Don't get me wrong , the 90 was needed for the extra seating ( grand kids ) and it definitely tows the caravan better than the xc70 but nonetheless , in my opinion the 70 was better built.

[Moose Test]

Originally Posted by S60D5-185

The seats in particular were far better quality than the XC90.

.. in my opinion the 70 was better built.

I concur. Whilst I appreciate the extra ground clearance of my XC90 and the petrol V8 power train makes it a pleasure to drive, I recognise that my 08 XC70 had a higher quality and better put together cabin and I miss it for that.

On the quality of seats specifically, neither come close to the comfort nor general quality of leather that those of my 03 V70 had.

[Javaman365]

An earlier comment mentioned doing the own servicing and maintenance.... I'm all for that if you know what your doing and can follow the Volvo service regime.

I have zero mechanical sympathy,as my tail light misadventures testify.
Find yourself a good, trusted mechanic who can read a Volvo service schedule. I did, and he's almost £100 cheaper at servicing time. YMMV, obvs. But I have no concerns over the quality of the workmanship and know corners haven't been cut.

[ommony]

A couple of years ago I bought a 2006 XC90 3.2 that was, at the time, one of the cheapest available in the country. Base model, very few options (less to go wrong) and with the understressed non-turbo petrol engine, which has a different (and less problematic) transmission than the turbo motors. Car had about 130k on the clock, no service history, nothing.

Two years later and I'm just about to tip over 200k, and during that time I have spent a fair bit on the car, but nothing surprising for a car of that age/mileage and pretty much all consumable parts that would be looking tried on any car by this point. So, for example:
4x new hub units/wheel bearings,
4x new brake discs
2x front lower control arms/wishbones + various other suspension bushes/drop links/etc
Drain/flush/refill all fluids (again, no service history, so preventative rather than absolutely necessary)
Few minor electrical gremlins
And that's about it, really.

In short, it's not going to be as cheap to run as some mid-90's econobox where parts and tyres and everything else are dirt cheap and there are very few electrical components to go wrong, but considering it's a big comfortable 7-seater with AWD and all the rest, it hasn't been bad at all.

I'm really happy with the car and it does exactly what I need it to, so I'm going to try and run it until 300k and see how things are looking then. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the 3.2 runs great on LPG and I can get the money equivalent of about 40mpg.

[ianu]

Originally Posted by Clan

With any xc90 have £3000 put by to get it up to scratch ... There is nothing fundamentally wrong with them , but they do need maintenance which will have been non existent for many years if you are going to be paying those sort of prices for one . You will still have a fine car when you have got it up to scratch .

Tend to agree with Clan here. You're right at this end of the market you're probably looking at high mileage (mine has 307k on it ..and I can definitely vouch for it off road).
You're likely to be in the 163bhp territory (up to 2005 iirc) so no dpf to worry about.
Biggest gotchas likely to be:
AWD spline/bevel gear.
Clutch if its manual (although rare at this age). Autos at this age I don't think are really an issue tbh.
Cambelt ...unless you've got evidence of it's last replacement - these are every 96k so not worth gambling on an assumption it's been done.
General heavy wear items - front suspension bushes.
Injectors - I've never had an issue and all mine are still original - as is the steering rack, gearbox (manual), turbo, shocks, engine, radiator (intercoolers are vulnerable - but relatively cheap to replace).
I'd probably not hesitate buying another one with high miles - BUT you need to try and gauge the general condition all round really. Mine has been a real work horse - but maintenance has always been regular and timely - you need to try and get a feel for that whatever you look at.
Good advice on here on how to do some of the jobs anyway. Spend 1500 quid (budget a couple of extra K contingency) and you'll have a great comfortable genuinely versatile machine.
You can always check back if there's a particular car you're looking at and want some advice on any specific issues.

Cheers
Ian.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by ommony

A couple of years ago I bought a 2006 XC90 3.2 that was, at the time, one of the cheapest available in the country. Base model, very few options (less to go wrong) and with the understressed non-turbo petrol engine, which has a different (and less problematic) transmission than the turbo motors. Car had about 130k on the clock, no service history, nothing.

Two years later and I'm just about to tip over 200k, and during that time I have spent a fair bit on the car, but nothing surprising for a car of that age/mileage and pretty much all consumable parts that would be looking tried on any car by this point. So, for example:
4x new hub units/wheel bearings,
4x new brake discs
2x front lower control arms/wishbones + various other suspension bushes/drop links/etc
Drain/flush/refill all fluids (again, no service history, so preventative rather than absolutely necessary)
Few minor electrical gremlins
And that's about it, really.

In short, it's not going to be as cheap to run as some mid-90's econobox where parts and tyres and everything else are dirt cheap and there are very few electrical components to go wrong, but considering it's a big comfortable 7-seater with AWD and all the rest, it hasn't been bad at all.

I'm really happy with the car and it does exactly what I need it to, so I'm going to try and run it until 300k and see how things are looking then. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the 3.2 runs great on LPG and I can get the money equivalent of about 40mpg.

.....and with unleaded available at under a quid a litre at the moment?

FYI the 3.2 has the same gearbox as all post 2006MY XC90's (but not the same as the petrol T6).

[ommony]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

.....and with unleaded available at under a quid a litre at the moment?

FYI the 3.2 has the same gearbox as all post 2006MY XC90's (but not the same as the petrol T6).

Oh for sure, petrol is pretty cheap at the moment (though not under £1 where I live), but I can still get LPG at roughly 50-60% of the cost, and with LPG and petrol tanks combined I get double the range (which is important to me as I do very high mileage). And let's be honest, the likelihood of petrol staying at this price for very long isn't great.

With regards to the transmission, my point was just that it's NOT the T6 petrol transmission that is a known weak point, and the reason why you will often find cheap T6 XC90's at the bottom end of the market.