advice on petrol xc90

[ian ferguson]

Hi, I would like to buy a xc90 3.2 petrol. If anybody has any advice on what to look to look out for, i would appreciate it. might consider a 4.4 v8 but think the running costs and maintenance might be too much. The reason for this is because of ULEZ i will have to get rid of my xc90 d5, which i will miss. Thanks, Ian

[Moose Test]

As a V8 owner I can say that real world MPG for the 4.4, for 'local' mileage (5-10 mile trips), is consistently around 20. I don't think that the 3.2 is likely to be much different, real world. Since I don't cover a great deal of miles currently, I've found that acceptable over the past 4 years although prices at the pumps have been rising consistently and of course, the fuel shortages of this week highlight just how quickly you can burn through a full tank of petrol in it.

Maintenance costs aren't likely to be any higher than any other Gen 1 XC90 of the same age, since they are mostly the same vehicle, right down to the transmission (different final drive ratio but same box and AWD system). And as naturally aspirated petrol engines, both the 3.2 and the 4.4 are free from the DPF, turbo leak/failure and swirl flap issues which are common on the diesels. An added bonus for the V8 is that it uses a timing chain, so it also eliminates the possibility of the engine being wrecked through failure of the cam/ancillary belts.

My big gripe for the V8 is with the VED - it's 600GBP this year, for the privilege of having it mostly sit in my driveway. Still, that might be better than emissions charges in London, I wouldn't know (living in deepest, darkest East Anglia)

[ian ferguson]

Thank you for your reply. That makes me feel a bit better about the V8. i looked at a 3.2 yesterday and it sounded quite like the tappets or cam followers were little noisy, i don't know if that's go or bad on that engine, anyway there were a few other things wrong with the car so i didn't buy it. Ian

[Moose Test]

You're welcome. There's one fault which does seem associated with the V8, which is alternator/regulator failure. I've not experienced it myself but came close - when I was first searching I test drove a vehicle which another member of this forum when on to buy, and its alternator let go a few weeks/months later, requiring the vehicle to be recovered.

The wisdom seems to be that the V8 engine produces a lot of heat, and with the alternator shoehorned in, it gets 'cooked'. Can't vouch for that but I can understand why it might be the case - stepping out of the car after any distance, you're hit by a wave of heat coming up at you from underneath the vehicle.

It's also my understanding that it's a complete pain to remove/replace, with at least the Volvo franchises treating it as an engine out of the vehicle procedure.

All that said, at the age of these Gen 1 vehicles now, something is going to fail at some point on any vehicle you do buy, so I personally can't get too hung up on 'what ifs'.

[Tannaton]

The V8 very reliable and apart from the engine, everything else is stock XC90. The V8 was made primarily for the US market where long distances in extreme temperatures are more common, they do produce a lot of heat but disperse it well.

But the alternators are difficult to change, I believe Volvo process is drop the engine on the subframe.

This is said thread, I remember it well : https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showt...ght=alternator

[Moose Test]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

they do produce a lot of heat but disperse it well

Indeed, quickly and with quite a bit of it through the cabin heater, if you ask it to. Which is very convenient come icy winter mornings, especially relative to the D5-based vehicles that I've owned previously.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Moose Test

Indeed, quickly and with quite a bit of it through the cabin heater, if you ask it to. Which is very convenient come icy winter mornings, especially relative to the D5-based vehicles that I've owned previously.

The V8 is probably the best fan heater ever... probably the lowest ratio of coolant and structural weight to cubic capacity of many car engines (i.e. warms up quickly) and certainly much better than the heavier D5 (as diesels are) and much less efficient (much more heat at tickover) than the oil burner...

Lots more CO2 though - Greta disapproves....

[giw12]

Same engine in the Noble isn”t it? Can’t be too bad

[ian ferguson]

Hi, I am going to see one tomorrow. it's a bi fuel one so that should make it more economical. let you know how i get on. Ian

[T5R92011]

Many in the American Volvo forums (whereby the D5 is non-existent over there) will tell you to go for the 2.5T over the 3.2 due the power delivery.

Worth reading their opinions here:
https://www.swedespeed.com/threads/3-2-or-2-5t.253049/

I have owned both a 2.5T and a V8 XC90. Both are great motors: the 2.5T is actually better for around town driving, and the V8 does better on the open road. Both get decent fuel mileage for an AWD car of this size (way better than any other brands I have considered). I would not hesitate to get another 2.5T or V8 again. As for the 3.2, I drove one for a day as a loaner - it seemed under powered and dull. Personally, I think the decision should be 2.5T or V8, but that is just me

The 2.5T has all of it's torque (320nm) available from 1500rpm to just under 5000rpm, so its very well suited pulling a heavy vehicle like the XC90. Whereas the 3.2 has to be revved out to make progress.

Howver, emissions MAY be higher in the 2.5T so worth double checking.