XC90 or Highlander?
 

I'm shopping for a mid-size/crossover SUV. We had pretty much decided on the Highlander, until I saw the XC90.

Now I'm stuck. The Highlander seems to get great reviews in terms of reliability, whereas the XC90 gets terrible reviews (according to Consumer Reports and other random google-ing I've done).

I like the looks of the Volvo better, and the safety factor is huge. I would like a car that I know will last a LONG time, but I don't want to have to worry about huge engine/transmission/drive system issues down the road, which is what concerns me about the XC90.

Hoping to buy used, and it seems like it will be easier to find a Volvo used and at a better deal than a Highlander. Not opposed to buying new though...it's just hard to stomach the drive off the lot depreciation!

Any suggestions or advice to help make the decision easier?

THANKS!

With the XC90, expect little, annoying issues (speakers falling off, windows not closing, broken interior parts) and high maintenance costs. The XC90 also eats tires. I cannot recommend the T6 ('03-'05). Stay away no matter the deal.

XC90 gets my biased vote
 

I bought mine used and have had 15,000 beautiful problem free miles. Mine was taken good care of and I simply love it. I would get this over the highlander any day. 1) looks better as you said 2) is a luxury company and Toyota is not 3) drives like a tank yet is very fast for a heavy SUV and feels safe. I get good mileage as well. Every used car needs TLC so I say go with an XC90, just not the T6 as so many people would say. I didn't go wrong and I hope this helps.

I can't recommend XC90 -just traded in a 2005 V8 w/ only 46K miles -had too many problems, some of them more then once...

Two Different Vehicles
 

Hello,

I'd say they are two entirely different vehicles and you'd need to drive each for a little while. I don't own a highlander but I do own a Toyota Sienna and an XC90. The Toyota has very few problems - the XC90 has had some minor problems - bad tires, bad alignment (fixed with a recall), bad radio. Not having driven a Highlander I can only guess that they must feel lighter - the XC90 is a bit of a tank - meaning it feels solid (it accelerates fine and handles well) - it feels very safe. I'm not sure about how the engine and tranny will hold up as we "only" have 40K miles on ours - I'm guessing they will be fine based on past Volvo's we've owned - but the little things do seem to break a bit more. I'm guess though that they will feel very different when driving them - see if you can borrow someones highlander and an XC90. One thing with the XC90 is I find visibility out the front a little limited by the wide A pillar.

One other thing to consider, and maybe this is just bias - I think the XC90 will look fantastic 10, 15, 20+ years from now - whereas the highlander is going to get dated much faster. So if you plan on keeping your car for awhile that might be a consideration.

Best,

TT

I have a 2001 Toyota Highlander with 165K miles...it's been a reliable car but after the first 100K miles it hasn't been trouble-free:

• Bad oxygen sensor at around 100K - $200 fix
• Brake caliper seized at 105K miles - $500 fix
• Ring on rear axle broke at around 120K which caused ABS to incorrectly activate - had to replace the axle which was only available OEM so it was a $900 fix
• Broken wire in the temperature control panel fixed (may have been able to DIY but I paid a mechanic $300 to do it)
• Lockup torque converter relay bad at 160K - $500 to fix (but tranny fluid in the pan looked great according to the mechanic)

The rear axle and temperature control knob problems are not uncommon according to some Internet searches I did.

My car is also one of those that Toyota provided an 8 year warranty for because of sludge build-up issues...I've been pretty faithful about oil changes so I think I've dodged that bullet.

My other car is a 2009 S40 which I purchased in July (yes I know, different car entirely). I went into that purchase with eyes open (and wallet ready after the 60K warranty), but the main difference in driving both vehicles is that I definitely know that the S40 is a more upscale vehicle than the Toyota.

A co-worker purchased a pre-owned XC90 about the same time and I haven't heard about any problems so far.

I have an '08 XC90 and it has been beautiful the whole way, it is a tank as most have said, but it doesn't slow it down any, that's for sure, safety ratings are great, so insurance isn't too bad, and, it is a luxury vehicle, which is appealing nice inside and out. I don't know all too much about the highlander, but I do know a person with one, and they just don't go in the snow like the XC90. I have had tiny problems with my '02 S60, but when you're pushing 100k miles, a light under a mirror and a thermostart is nothing, volvo has my vote.

My dad had an 06 Highlander which was pretty reliable (what car needs 4 new rotors at 14,000 (mostly highway) miles!?) and boring. It was good enough in the snow, not too bad on gas but even brand new, with the leather interior and fake wood trim, it never had the luxury feel of my 05 XC90. Even their Mazda6 seemed fancier. He dumped both cars and got a 2008 XC70 and is pretty darned happy with it.

Just curious...are they about the same size on the inside? How does the towing capacity compare?

Dimensionally, the XC is larger, inside and out. I know the new Highlander (2009+?) has the third row seats which may make a difference. Dad's 2006 Highlander was almost "cute" in size for an SUV, but with the seats folded down it offered an 80 cu. ft. cargo area while the XC90 has 85. Not that much difference. I also think that, with the factory towing packages, they both claim to pull 5,000 pounds.

Thanks...I'll be looking to replace my Highlander in a few years (when it goes over 200K miles and the S40 is paid off). The new Highlanders seem to be too big...but I don't think I want to get a RAV4.

I can't imagine that going from a Highlander to a RAV would be a fun experience. The new Highlanders are much larger from what I can tell, so they're competing with a whole new batch of overinflated competitors. My wife has a 2002 Pathfinder which is tiny compared to the newest crop of its namesake.

Good luck in your choice.

I started to post a reply and killed it. Then had a conversation with my girlfriend, whom I forgot, owned a highlander. She re-enforced my initial post so here it is. You have to compare apples to apples.

The two are in a totally different class. The XC90 is a luxury SUV, the highlander would not fit in the luxury class. the highlander might be dependable but it will not provide the solid, safe and comfortable feel of the XC90. My mother bought the first or second year XC90, 05?? nice car, I drove it, the leather seemed a bit to stiff and not as plush as the V70's but still a very high quality vehicle.

I've own three Toyota's, a 79 Celica, an 82 Celica GTS and an 84 Supra. The GTS and Supra were during an era when Toyota was trying very hard to change their image ie recarro seats, wide tires and wheels, innovative design. It worked and here we are today???

I too had the highlander 2008 on my list together with the XC90 and a Acura MDX. I decided to go for the XC90 2007 as just the looks and ride and comfy seats just blow's the competition. Highlander was too bland. MDX was too stiff for my bum and the dash with all the electronics just was too busy for my eyes. XC90 was classy and like somebody's comments' 10+ 15+ years still looks good. Reliability i guess is base on usage to my point of view.

cheers

Before I got my '10 Volvo XC 90, I was looking at the '10 Acura MDX, didn't compare to Highlander because I wanted luxury feel and reliability and safety. I didn't choose MDX because previous years MDX 01-03 had transmission problem, 04-06 is too common and due to the popularity, price did not go down, and 07-10 is new body style, smaller and too much gadgets and price jacked up $10K from last model to this model for not much benefits but more electronics.

I chose the Volvo due to it's free 60,000 miles 5 year free maintenance and oil change and brake replacements, CAREFREE for the next 5 years, which is great so that you know your car has all it's maintenance done for it continue the smooth ride after that.

The Volvo curve on the exterior makes it harder so less likely when it comes to impact (dings dents and whatever) and per history, the Volvo engine and reliability has been great, many 1990's volvo's are still running smoothly on the roads today.

Love the car so far and fuel wise, all SUVs are the same you know what you are getting into so no complaints about that :)

I'm curious-I have a 05 XC90 V8 and am thinking about trading for a new one-I have had problems with getting key out off ignition, steering noises that can't be solved, the W does not work, my gas tank had to be replaced due to rust-but covered by warranty. I have 114K miles on it but I love it-current Volvo deals make it very tempting to turn it in for new model-particularly because I am concerned about the old problems and any new ones bankrupting me? Love to hear your experience-my dealer seems to think I am an isolated case.

It does look like this car is an isolated case, my boyfriends owns a 1999 Volvo C70 coupe and my parents friends have 1990's volvo's and I've never hear them about any complaints, they all say it's a good reliable car, not much issue except wear and tear. So if you are getting these issues, you might want to consider trading it in for a new one, at least you don't have to pay extra to fix these issues that don't seem to be common. :)

Just my 2 cents~

I'm a mechanic who specializes in European cars, however, my only XC90 experience is with a customer. They have an '05 that they purchased last year, and so far, I've done some maintenance work on it, but I've also had to replace the alternator (for a bad bearing) and now, with 50,000 miles, a sway bar link is failing. The car seems to have been pretty well maintained prior to their purchasing it with 39,000 miles, but if this is going to be the rate of problems... it'll end up being excessive. However, my Volvo experience suggests that it should be okay. Before they bought this one, they brought over a 2003 XC90 T6 with 60,000 miles for me to inspect- I ended up warning them away from it after I (1) researched the car and found out about the common transmission problems, and (2) seeing incredibly dirty, grit- filled transmission fluid that suggested it would need a transmission before 90,000 miles. My point? Don't consider a T6!

Family friend owns an 02 or 03 XC90 with over 200k. Loves it. Wish I knew the trim..... sorry!

Im kinda scouting on surpluses but im x'ing out T6. Thanks for posting your experience sir.