To buy or not to buy

[Thinkingofaxc90]

Afternoon all!!

I am looking to get rid of my 06 audi a4 avant s line tdi. I have wanted a xc90 for a while. Someone approached me on my advert to offer a swap for a 2004 xc90 D5 auto. It has 180k miles. I am aware of potential gearbox issues this one comes with a receipt for £4580 for a new one 5 years ago. Should I steer clear or could it be a good one? Current owner has only had for couple months. Can anyone tell me what I really need to look at please? Has no proof of cambelt but offered to give me 200 for that. Any advice please?

[Dastardly Diesel]

That'll be one of the original 163 BHP cars. Ideally you want one of the late 2005 onwards 185 BHP models - they have a DPF (which rarely gives trouble) but in pretty much every other regard are much improved, more reliable, and the engine is a lot nicer on the open road.

You won't get belt, pulleys, water pump and auxiliary belts done for 200 sheets unless you go to Fred in a Shed, and you don't want to be taking big, highly complex cars like this to back street grease monkeys.

Unless its astonishingly cheap, so much so you wouldn't be upset to financially write it off if it proved to be a lemon, I'd walk on by. I certainly wouldn't swap a known good car for one.

[gmonag]

That'll be one of the original 163 BHP cars. Ideally you want one of the late 2005 onwards 185 BHP models

I'm not sure what you have against the 163hp D5. It has ample power - I've use mine to tow a 1.8t caravan across Europe (including the alps) for several years with any problems. The engine is more refined and reliable than the 185, due to it's simplicity and does not suffer from issues with the swirl valves or DPF because it does not possess them. The 2005 Euro3 163hp car is at a sweet spot in my opinion.

[Thinkingofaxc90]

Does the 180k flag any alarms or give any thing further to look for? I am just nervous about swapping good for bad.

[Dastardly Diesel]

Originally Posted by gmonag

I'm not sure what you have against the 163hp D5. It has ample power - I've use mine to tow a 1.8t caravan across Europe (including the alps) for several years with any problems. The engine is more refined and reliable than the 185, due to it's simplicity and does not suffer from issues with the swirl valves or DPF because it does not possess them. The 2005 Euro3 163hp car is at a sweet spot in my opinion.

Aside from the swirl flaps i(an easy repair if that strikes,mand it strikes a lot less than injector failure on the 163) it's laughable to suggest the 163 is more reliable than the 185. The injectors and 5 speed gesrtronic box are notorious weak points, so much so that Vovlo changed the design of the former and used a different box entirely when the engine was completely redesigned to become the D5. Indeed, the one the OP's had his eye on has already had a new box, which kind of kicks and reliability claims for the 163 well into the long grass.

As for being more refined, one wonders if the rarefied air in the Alps has not had an effect on you. It uses the same mounting system, yet has more torque at every point in the rev rangeref requiring less revs for any given level of performance, and an extra gear to help that even further. The refinement claim bears no technical scrutiny whatsoever.

It's the least desirable of the 3 diesel options. Period. That's why Volvo binned it off and replaced it with a better one.

I've nothing against the 163. The simple truth is that it's the least refined, mechanically least reliable, least powerful, least economical, highest road tax, and oldest version.

[T5R92011]

The AWD may not be working (test it on patch of wet grass). That's not the end of the world though.

Biggest thing to look out for with any D5 is the timing belt and associated pulleys and aux belt. What often happens is people will have the timing belt + timing pulleys changed, but they forget to change the aux belt and aux pulleys.... then the aux belt or aux pulley fail and the aux belt wraps around the timing belt, thus wrecking the engine.

So you really need to factor in replacing the aux belt and tensioner, and while the belt is off, inspect the pulleys for noise/play.

The D5 if maintained will go on forever, especially the Euro 3 ones.

[Thinkingofaxc90]

Ok thank you. So if it drives good and 4wd works should be fine providing all belts and pulleys are changed? Is there a good way to prove the box is Ok?

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Dastardly Diesel

Aside from the swirl flaps i(an easy repair if that strikes,mand it strikes a lot less than injector failure on the 163) it's laughable to suggest the 163 is more reliable than the 185. The injectors and 5 speed gesrtronic box are notorious weak points, so much so that Vovlo changed the design of the former and used a different box entirely when the engine was completely redesigned to become the D5. Indeed, the one the OP's had his eye on has already had a new box, which kind of kicks and reliability claims for the 163 well into the long grass.

As for being more refined, one wonders if the rarefied air in the Alps has not had an effect on you. It uses the same mounting system, yet has more torque at every point in the rev rangeref requiring less revs for any given level of performance, and an extra gear to help that even further. The refinement claim bears no technical scrutiny whatsoever.

It's the least desirable of the 3 diesel options. Period. That's why Volvo binned it off and replaced it with a better one.

I've nothing against the 163. The simple truth is that it's the least refined, mechanically least reliable, least powerful, least economical, highest road tax, and oldest version.

I can't make any sense of this, I think you've got your engines confused...

- The 163 BHP engine that was fitted to XC90 models from inception in 2003 to MY2006 is the D5, the very first D5 and where it all started. It didn't just become D5 when it went to 185 BHP (which by that way is the same engine, not a total re-design)

- The injectors are not a great weak point, hardly any posts on here, and certainly not specific to the 163. The only very slight weakness on the 163 engine that can occur without warning is the starter ring gear losing teeth.

- The 163 is by some margin the smoothest and most economical of all the D5 engines. The leaner burn characteristics of the E4 and later engines make for a noticeably noisier, harsher experience. The later twin turbo engines (215/220) do come close on economy but as they were never fitted to the same models as a 163 E3 there is no comparison to be made.

- The 5-speed AW55 gearbox fitted to the 163 isn't as reliable as the later TF-80 six speed fitted to the 185 but this is about the 163 engine torque being close to the limit of that gearbox and the XC90 being over 2.2 tons and Volvo not including fluid changes in the service schedule. Equally the splined sleeve is a weak point (which causes AWD to fail) but given the replacement box 5 years ago - none of these will likely be a worry. I would say it was "notorious".


- Did I mention £565 car tax on post Feb 2006 185 BHP models? All 163 BHP E3 XC90's are £330 - they 185's are highest tax (which is down to the government changing policy rather than the engines but it is wrong to say the 163's are the most expensive).

- Volvo binned it when they had to upgrade the engine from Euro 3 to Euro 4 and to overcome the generally lower torque from leaner burn engines they upped the boost to increase power to 185. It was also the time that others were coming to the market (BMW, Audi, Merc, Discovery 3) and the Volvo was under powered by comparison, so they turned the wick up at the expense of refinement when they really needed a 6-cylinder 3 litre diesel.

- The 185 is less reliable due to the increased emissions kit, swirl flaps, DPF's rarely go but the constant regeneration in urban use cars leads to rising oil levels and other problems and in part - poorer built quality. This was the shift from metal to plastic inlet manifolds...

I've owned several of every incarnation of Volvo's D5 engines in numerous models and I still have a 2003 XC90 163 E3 on my drive and a 2015 XC60 215 E5, so I'm very secure in my views.


So back to the OP, if you have found a well maintained XC90 you think is a fair swap for your Audi, I'd go for it but keep some funds aside for any snagging. The only way to test the gearbox is to drive it a long time until it's fully warm (20 miles). Check the AWD by turning the propshaft (search this forum). Check all electrics and the usual used car checks.

[Thinkingofaxc90]

Really appreciate the response guys!!!!! Very helpful. Think I will go take a look and see what it's like. If it drives all good then I will take a punt.

[T5R92011]

Originally Posted by Dastardly Diesel

I've nothing against the 163. The simple truth is that it's the least refined, mechanically least reliable, least powerful, least economical, highest road tax, and oldest version.

The Euro 4 D5 185 is crap on fuel, especially around town.

Old one blows it out of the water for economy, and that matters a lot with a diesel.