Reliability - Petrol vs Diesel Engined XC90
 

Having spent several hours paging through this forum, most of the really major issues seem to arise on the diesel variants of the XC90. Is that really the case? - leaving aside the 6 cylinder versions are the 2.5 and 4.4. Litre petrol versions less prone to (e.g.) expensive transmission failures etc than their diesel siblings?

Looking at Mk1 XC90 on e-bay right now - there are 243 for sale of which 11 are petrol models (excluding T6's) and of those 7 are Jap imports.

That's the answer to your question I think.... they are very rare, and generally lower mileage use.

Nearly 80,000 XC90 mk1's were sold in the UK.

Look how few of those 80,000 end up being discussed here, and how old and leggy they tend to be by the time they start to cause problems. Perspective is key.

Taking all that into consideration I'd be more than happy with a diesel '90. And have done 3 times, none of which has given me the slightest reason to regret it. And a V70 with the same engine for good measure.

The petrol units aren't without their problems, some of them quite nasty, but you need to have a browse on the likes of Swedespeed to read about them because so few were sold here.

Of the petrol ones the 2.5 is likely to be the more robust if cared for properly. The later 2.5 and the V8 all use the same TF80SC transmission as fitted to the diesels from late 2005 onwards, although I don't think many - if any - 6 speed 2.5s were sold here as the version as killed off at facelift time.

Considering that it was more or less the only transmission option available from that point onwards and failures will inevitably be of that box. Overall, failures are no more common than any other decent unit. 18 different manufacturers/groups used the TF80-SC, and over 2 million were produced and we are not knee deep in knacked boxes. Think of it this way - a standard manual box will meed a clutch and DMF at least once in its lifetime, and thats a thick end grand right there. DSG boxes have 2 clutches, and the pain on the wallet is accordingly higher. Neither the failure rate or the cost of mending them is at all unsusual on the TF80-SC.

There is also the 3.2 normally aspirated (very rare) which had the TF80 box. Not very powerful but ultra smooth.

Indeed. The 3.2 found its way into the Freelander II. That model is highly sought after by those in the know who are looking for a NedFlander and overlook the thirst because of its reliability over the Ford units.

However, it's only 320NM so works hard moving the bulk of the 90 around altough it is, as you say, very smooth.

A thought occurs. The last of the mark 1 cars are now 8 years old, the oldest nearly 20. On such old cars reliability is going to come down to how the car has been treated and maintained rather than any notional differences between versions.

I had the option of getting the 3.2 but had I known then what I know now I would have gotten it instead of a 2.5 because the natural aspiration, one less point of failure.