Potential pitfalls in budget Volvo XC90 ownership.

[Robson3022]

Originally Posted by oragex

Not the kind of car to be bought for cheap and run for cheap.

There was no mention of running it for cheap. But I imagine the difference between a £1500 car and a £3000 car will be negligible as it always is at this end of the market.

[Tannaton]

If I was buying a SUV at the sub £3k end of the market I would get an XC90 all day long... more reliable than Land Rover/Range Rover, and now there are a good numbers in breakers yards, there are no parts that are prohibitively expensive and with relatively easy access to VIDA/Dice there's no job a competent home mechanic can't do if they're prepared to read and research a bit.

I'm sure early L322's and D3's are probably just as cheap to get parts for but I think the reliability of the XC90 is a key advantage.

I get that some of the Jap 4x4 stuff is probably even more reliable and robust but not nearly as refined or comfortable.

And with an XC90 you don't need to be a welder :-)

[XJSDriver]

This is reassuring being an XC90 owner plus my welding is c*!p. I am hoping to keep ours a very long time

[john.wigley]

Not an XC90 agreed but in my experience big, old Volvos can be run economically (as distinct from 'cheaply'), as the following figures for my V70 indicate:

First registered: 17.02.2000 (Late Ph.1)
Purchased: 06.08.2016 @ 118354 miles
Price paid: £550 Mileage now 130571; 12217 miles covered

Expenditure to date:
Fuel: £2300 (18.83 ppm, 44.35%)
Repairs: £390.28 (3.18 ppm, 7.53%)
Servicing: £203.06 (1.66 ppm, 3.92%)
Fixed costs: £2292.69 (18.77 ppm, 44.20%)
Total running costs: £5186.03 (42.45 ppm, 100.00%)

Capital cost, Depreciation and opportunity cost:
If I wrote the car off today, my depreciation would be £550, or 4.50 ppm, bringing the total cost per mile in my ownership to 46.95 ppm.
If I had invested the capital at, say, 5%, it would by now have yielded something in the order of £113.22, or another 0.93 ppm.

Therefore the car has to date cost me a maximum of £5849.25 or 47.88 ppm.

If you were to double these figures to allow for the larger size and increased complexity of an XC90 over a V70, I think that would still represent (relatively) economical motoring.

Regards, John.

[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.

[WrathOfKain]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Not an XC90 agreed but in my experience big, old Volvos can be run economically (as distinct from 'cheaply'), as the following figures for my V70 indicate:

First registered: 17.02.2000 (Late Ph.1)
Purchased: 06.08.2016 @ 118354 miles
Price paid: £550 Mileage now 130571; 12217 miles covered

Expenditure to date:
Fuel: £2300 (18.83 ppm, 44.35%)
Repairs: £390.28 (3.18 ppm, 7.53%)
Servicing: £203.06 (1.66 ppm, 3.92%)
Fixed costs: £2292.69 (18.77 ppm, 44.20%)
Total running costs: £5186.03 (42.45 ppm, 100.00%)

Capital cost, Depreciation and opportunity cost:
If I wrote the car off today, my depreciation would be £550, or 4.50 ppm, bringing the total cost per mile in my ownership to 46.95 ppm.
If I had invested the capital at, say, 5%, it would by now have yielded something in the order of £113.22, or another 0.93 ppm.

Therefore the car has to date cost me a maximum of £5849.25 or 47.88 ppm.

If you were to double these figures to allow for the larger size and increased complexity of an XC90 over a V70, I think that would still represent (relatively) economical motoring.

Regards, John.

WOW !!! .... you were never in a movie with Tom Cruise were you ? ..... something to do with gambling

Impressive stuff .... wish you had been my accountant/ adviser 20 years ago !!!

[john.wigley]

I'm married to my accountant, 'W.O.K.'!
I just like playing around with numbers and stats. It's just a simple spreadsheet, no more.

Regards, John.

[TeamG]

Just don’t buy a Jeep. My £1200 Cherokee 2.8CRD was beyond agricultural with it’s 4cyl engine. Nosier, dirtier, more vibration and thirstier than a Sprinter train. 7mpg round town, 12mpg if lucky on a motorway at 56mph, in 2wd, strong tailwind, downhill and with the mirrors folded in.

But in 4wd low ratio in deep snow it drove like a bulldozer.

[CondorXC90]

Originally Posted by XJSDriver

You could be better off going for an actual 4x4 such as an older Range Rover;

Oh dear no - spare yourself the anguish of this unless you are truly masochistic or have very deep pockets. Range Rovers - I had a P38 for nearly 10 years - of that era are possibly iconic and all that, but prone to plentiful and expensive failures of just about everything - their build quality is appalling for such an expensive supposedly luxury vehicle, no contest with the Swedes or German vehicles of the same generation.........

None of these cars are cheap to repair and maintain though - expensive new, aimed at well-heeled buyers, they were never intended to be cheapo budget runabouts........

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

If you were to double these figures to allow for the larger size and increased complexity of an XC90 over a V70, I think that would still represent (relatively) economical motoring.

Regards, John.

But you shouldn't need to - the XC90 is a P2 V70 with stretched windscreen pillars.

About the only major differences I can think of are a more complicated audio system and a gyro under the drivers seat. The plus side is much more room under the bonnet.