I'm looking to replace my wife's 2007 Subaru Tribeca (previously had an '00 XC70), which she's just not confortable in (no telescoping wheel, no functional armrests). While a 2006 XC70 is an option, the bargain right now is on V8 and 3.2L XC90's. Here in MA they are giving them away. There's a 2006 Ocean Race V8, with 24k miles, for 23k. The XC90's are going for less than the XC70's. I can only speculate that it was driven by a huge gas price dump last summer.

I've heard that the V8 is solid and reliable. How is the 3.2? Having experienced the 2.5T in or 2000 XC, I don't think it's adequate for the weight of an XC90. The 2.9 is off the list for obvious reliability reasons. The EPA mileage for the 3.2 is better than the V8, but I wonder if the real world bears that out. The car will mostly be a suburban hauler, school, shopping etc., but not true stop and go city driving here (few lights). Other than that, it will be our long haul vehicle for trips to Vermont.

I'm considering a newer XC70 as well, pretty much know what I'm getting there. Any idea why the XC70EPAmileage improved from 2005-06? The weight is about the same. In 2007 it seemed to go back down.

 

I would go with the Yamaha V8 powerplant. I also believe the transmission for this engine is not the notorious GM-built but double check.

When you drive in Vermont, make sure to follow the speed limit around ski resorts, ESPECIALLY in the town of Ludlow; the town makes half of its budget from speeding tickets. At least that is what my friends & I used to say. If you exceed the limit by 5 mph, good luck.

P.S: Woodstock is as bad[8D].


JPN

 

Last April I took delivery of a new XC90 V8. I drove both the 3.2 and the V8 prior to deciding between the two. The 3.2 seemed "busy," constantly shifting to keep the mass moving. The V8 was much more "relaxed" and able to move in a less hurried way. In monitoring this and a couple of other forums, it appears the V8 fuel economy is very close to the 3.2. I do a lot of long distance driving (put 12,000 miles on my XC in the first three months) and highway miles for me at 75-80MPH was between 24.5-25.3. Urban driving using a light foot nets about 18 MPG. The 3.2 is very close to this and in many cases not as good, just because it has to "work harder" to move the mass.

Although I have no evidence to support my feelings, it just seems logical that a transmission that shifts much more (3.2) than another (V8) will ultimately fail or have problems first. The cost of a transmission repair on a front wheel drive vehicle such as the XC90 (AWD is really rear wheel "assist") is much more expensive than any difference in fuel economy over the life of the vehicle. BTW, I always use the cheapest fuel I can find, 87 octane at low altitude, 85 at higher altitudes when available.

Verified by two service managers, both the 3.2 and V8 are good engines mechanically. One said his dealership had only seen one V8 in for a mechanical problem. Although the issue was minor, Volvo want to see the engine so the dealership crated it up and shipped it to Volvo for inspection. Volvo replaced the engine with a crate engine. It was the only V8 he'd seen with a problem. The other service manager (large dealership) has never seen a V8 with a mechanical problem. One thing about the 3.2, when replacing the alternator, power steering pump, or a/c compressor a special alignment "tool" (?) is needed. I don't have any idea what that means and it seems odd to me, but that's the info from one of the service managers. I read that as expensive and as dealer-only repairs.

So from reading my point of view, I'm a supporter of the V8. Currently my XC has 14,500 miles and MPG remains constant and it's only one of two vehicles purchased in my long life of many vehicles, that have never had initial warranty issues. It's never been back to the dealer (I change oil/filter myself - Mobil One).

I don't know if Volvo does this or not, but you can plug a VIN to Ford's computer at any dealer and Ford's data base will tell you if there have been recalls, significant service, warranty work, etc. on that vehicle. It goes back about 18 months (it's vehicle dependent). Since Volvo is owned by Ford perhaps that ability has been cross-platformed. Might check with the Volvo dealer on any used Volvo you are interested just to see.

One thing to consider. You noted the fact that dealers are almost "giving them away" currently. Be honest with yourself and how long you intend to keep your XC90 should you purchase one. If you are a person that keeps a vehicle for 2-3 years, you may find that current good deal works against you when the time comes to sell. I keep my vehicles for close to 200,000 miles and run the wheels off so that's not much of an issue for me, but it something for you to think about. It's not likely SUVs will be worth much anytime in the future so getting a "fair" price for a trade in a few years is doubtful. If you are okay with that going in, well, no matter. Just be aware.

 

Ive had my v8 xc90 since 06. It is awesome to drive. Very comfortable. With that said I would like to inform you that repairs on this truck are super expensive. Nothing is accesible. They have to remove the suspension just to service the alternator. 1300 us bucks. The navigation sucks major **** and the dvd drive has failed 2x. Thats 999.00 each time. The radio is crap, and you cant replace it. Dont get me wrong untill this stuff popped upI loved the truck.