General: Land Rover...

[ltec]

Originally Posted by Familyman 90

Sorry, I have owned all 3 flavours simultaneously and my first hand experience over more than 150,000 miles in each of them would suggest that, is simply incorrect. The economy improves with each generation, and the 200 is markedly better than the 163, which one would expect from an engine with greater volumetric efficiency and an extra cog in the box.

27 is not good. Either you have an issue, or you're driving it about town all the time. My 185 returns 34 to 36 average in mixed motoring, and at legal speeds on a long journey easily gives 42. The 200 was a fraction better still, but the 163 managed 32-33 under my supervision, driven over exactly the same journeys on the same roads.

Of course, as I mentioned previously, it's all relative. If economy is of great concern then a 2.2 tonne SUV is not an appropriate type of vehicle to select in the first place. In any event, I have previously owned an X5 3.0 and a Lexus RX300h and the XC's drink less than both of those, so we can't really grumble.

And finally, the 200 only came with the auto box.

The parking brake is an interesting point. None of mine suffered, and all would hold the car properly on any incline. However, all have been serviced properly over the years, and all regularly have the parking brake used so they do not start to seize up and lose efficiency. When my Dad had his Mk1 he never used the brake, only ever left the car in P, and he too started to have problems later in his cars life.

Subframe rotting seems confined to the 163, and with a budget like the OPs hes not be going there - he'll get the nicest, newest, lowest mileage example he can find, and he'll be well into 200 territory.

Something to consider...the chaps above mentioned towing. If thats important to you then stay away from the R Design model, as the 'sporty'exhaust arrangement makes fitting a towbar impossible, as I discovered to my cost after I'd bought mine! That is how I ended up with multiple XC's as instead of selling on the 163 I ended up having to keep it to tow the horse box. In the end my Daughter sold her car and started using the 163 as her own so we didn't have a surplus car knocking about. 13 years later and she's still driving it, and neither of us are sure what it should be replaced with.

Well take a look at this thread then. You are correct in saying 27 is not good.

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=244022
You are getting way above average. This thread indeed says that the 165 is way better mpg than the 185 and 185 owners can only dream of 165 mpg figures.
It also suggests my figures are accurate and is normal.
You are the only person I've heard can get better mpg out of the 185.
Yes the car is heavy but as previously said the 185 is less mpg than the 165 which shouldn't be the case.
Unless you have endless supply of money I dont see why you wouldn't want better mpg regardless of whether its for towing or not.
And its towing capacity is comparable to some cars with nearly double the mpg.
His budget could potentially be in to a decent low miles 185 with a budget left for repairs.
And if the subframes are now starting to rot in 165 xc90s then in 4 to 5 years will be further up the line so is definitely something he should be thinking about and looking at before buying and definitely getting it waxed etc for longevity.
As regards the parking brake can you show me the efficiency of the park brake of your last mot?
All xc90s is a major toe breaking exercise to try to scrape through the efficiency required. The best method is actually using your right foot crossed over to use your big toe to get more force rather than your wee toe on your left. I see it everyday.

[Moose Test]

Originally Posted by ltec

All xc90s is a major toe breaking exercise to try to scrape through the efficiency required. The best method is actually using your right foot crossed over to use your big toe to get more force rather than your wee toe on your left. I see it everyday.

I've owned two XC90s and whilst I'd agree all day long that the handbrake isn't the best of any car I've ever owned, they've both been adequate and no trouble to use. 2-3 clicks and secure. At your suggestion I checked the MOT history of my current vehicle. 13 MOTs and only once was handbrake efficiency citied as an advisory.

As with real world fuel consumption, I suspect that many different experiences exist, all based on different usage, care, maintenance and expectation patterns.

[Tineca]

I've just done my handbrake. It wasn't hard. Mercs have the same pedal set up. I quite like it😬 , I got a XC90 r design 61 plate . It's a cracking motor. I have had it serviced well and the oil in the haldex changed. I get 28 round town and 34 at 70mph. It's a great 7 seater 4 wheel drive Swiss army knife and perfect for my varied needs. Im a fan of classic land rovers.but not modern ones. My sister had a disco 3 and daughter has a 15 plate range rover sport and they have both had quite a bit of trouble with electrics and dpfs,. It's a shame as they are nice cars. As with most cars, good maintenance is key.

[ltec]

Originally Posted by Moose Test

I've owned two XC90s and whilst I'd agree all day long that the handbrake isn't the best of any car I've ever owned, they've both been adequate and no trouble to use. 2-3 clicks and secure. At your suggestion I checked the MOT history of my current vehicle. 13 MOTs and only once was handbrake efficiency citied as an advisory.

As with real world fuel consumption, I suspect that many different experiences exist, all based on different usage, care, maintenance and expectation patterns.

Does your mot state the efficiency of the park brake as a percentage

[Dibble]

Originally Posted by jed dunne

I've just done my handbrake. It wasn't hard. Mercs have the same pedal set up. I quite like it😬 , I got a XC90 r design 61 plate . It's a cracking motor. I have had it serviced well and the oil in the haldex changed. I get 28 round town and 34 at 70mph. It's a great 7 seater 4 wheel drive Swiss army knife and perfect for my varied needs. Im a fan of classic land rovers.but not modern ones. My sister had a disco 3 and daughter has a 15 plate range rover sport and they have both had quite a bit of trouble with electrics and dpfs,. It's a shame as they are nice cars. As with most cars, good maintenance is key.

Daughter had an XC90 to tow the horse box. Handbrake required some attention and when I spoke to the mechanic he said the biggest problem was that drivers/owners put the gear lever into 'P' and don't use the handbrake. If it was used more often, as it should be, then there wouldn't be any problem with it and make sure it is properly maintained.
One other point to consider, so far as I am aware, no person has ever been killed in an XC90 worldwide! Quite a record!

[ltec]

Originally Posted by jed dunne

I've just done my handbrake. It wasn't hard. Mercs have the same pedal set up. I quite like it😬 , I got a XC90 r design 61 plate . It's a cracking motor. I have had it serviced well and the oil in the haldex changed. I get 28 round town and 34 at 70mph. It's a great 7 seater 4 wheel drive Swiss army knife and perfect for my varied needs. Im a fan of classic land rovers.but not modern ones. My sister had a disco 3 and daughter has a 15 plate range rover sport and they have both had quite a bit of trouble with electrics and dpfs,. It's a shame as they are nice cars. As with most cars, good maintenance is key.

Mercs has a similar park brake and usually auto as well but they don't fail test all the time like xc90s. If you see an xc90 in for retest you could nearly bet it was on park brake. The only other car that actually does give trouble for handbrake in testing for mots is a discovery. Its not that it has poor performance but it locks on and requires customers pulling an emergency release to let it off.

[ltec]

Originally Posted by Dibble

Daughter had an XC90 to tow the horse box. Handbrake required some attention and when I spoke to the mechanic he said the biggest problem was that drivers/owners put the gear lever into 'P' and don't use the handbrake. If it was used more often, as it should be, then there wouldn't be any problem with it and make sure it is properly maintained.
One other point to consider, so far as I am aware, no person has ever been killed in an XC90 worldwide! Quite a record!

I think mechanics use that as an excuse. For example a merc is usually auto and is left in park instead of using park brake and it doesn't matter.
Xc90 is the only car I've ever heard of that needs a genuine shoe to pass the test. This is due to a bad volvo design. Not that all non genuine is crap. I could put any brand of shoes on a Toyota for eg and it will pass easily.

And yes i think xc90 is a very safe car in an accident.

[Spacemonkey]

My old Chrysler 300 had same Merc brake and yes, it'd seize up the cables and fittings etc as I never used it. Very common problem on them, so I'm with you on that one potentially. My old XC 185 model didn;t have problems with it though, but I only had it a few months. Did 34mpg though on average. My computer pretty much matched my calcs.

[Moose Test]

Originally Posted by ltec

Does your mot state the efficiency of the park brake as a percentage

No. The DVLA documentation presented post-test doesn't include any braking efficiency data, just the information given in the advisories section (which is the same as that given by the online checker). The only quantitative test data returned is that for the emissions test.

"Handbrake efficiency only just met requirements"

It must meet or exceed 16% as that's the Pass/Fail threshold for private light goods vehicles.