XC90 V8 questions

I'm looking at an XC90 V8 to replace my 5 year old Odyssey. It would be my fourth Volvo, although I haven't owned one for a number of years.

I can't *quite* find out a few things about the V8 model - hoping someone in here knows the info.

1) The V8 was widely announced as a 2006 model, then appeared (it appears) as a 2005. Which is it? Are there any changes planned for the 2006 model year?

2) What are the options and parts needed for a trailer hitch on the XC90? I can't find any specific information, and there are references in the pricing list to a "hitch base" and separate hitches. I want a basic, low- profile, Class-III square-tube hitch... what options do I need?

3) Does anyone have reliable real-world fuel economy figures for the V8?

4) My impression is that the reliability problems of the XC90 were worked out over the last couple of model years. Does the V8 bring any new/known reliability problems to the game?

Ad(thanks)vance...

Reply to
James Gifford
Loading thread data ...

I drove one, and it really performs better than the 6's. However, I understand that the v8 is a brand new engine, so I assume it will have some initial problems as do all new items. I won't buy the 6 because it's under-powered (someday they'll figure out that they need a high-pressure turbo, not a low pressure turbo, for their 6's (same issue as the S80)), and I'm just not sure about the new V8. In addition, the B-pillar pretty effectively blocks any over-the-shoulder left view visibility. I've been a

25-year loyal Volvo owner; however, with Ford in the picture now, I doubt I'll buy another (amd the XC90 is the only one that will meet my current needs)..

I'm looking at a Chrysler Pacifica.

Reply to
mdrawson

But where would that leave my '68 Mustang? :)

Reply to
James Gifford

You forgot the trunk mounted jump seats, to match the XC90 in passenger space ;-)

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Ready for a blown 351C.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Heston

You mean... I'd have to throw away a 430-horse 347?

Reply to
James Gifford

hey--be smart buy and old 740 in good shape, drop a mustang 5.0 in it and have Midas put a trailer hitch on it :)

Reply to
Steve

S80's do have high-pressure turbos as well as low-pressure ones. They're twin-turbos.

I don't consider a turbo S80 underpowered with its 268-hp engine. Not racer, but not underpowered.

Reply to
nobody

My understanding was that the T6 is essentially a low-pressure turbo with twin gates. Whatever it is, I didn't feel the "surge" in the S80, and it certainly doesn't do it for me on the even heavier XC90.

Reply to
mdrawson

I repeat, the S80 has twin turbos, do a little research.

Reply to
nobody

Is the S88 T-6 not a high pressure turbo? It's nearly 300HP, is it really so heavy that it's underpowered?

Reply to
James Sweet

The whole point of a twin turbo setup is to eliminate the surge and provide smooth power delivery throughout the range. I prefer the kick in the pants of the old style bigger turbo but they're dogs when coupled to a slushbox.

Reply to
James Sweet

Does it have the standard 170 CI straight six, the high power 200 CI six, or the 289? Perrhaps a 351...but gee there were two of them and then there is a big block version too.

Makes a difference, Jimmie!

Reply to
Steve

None of those quite fit - Pilot and Pathfinder are a little too trucky, Trailblazer and Durango way too much. I wouldn't be driving a large passenger/cargo vehicle at all if I didn't have to, and I if I have to, I want something that's a car scaled up rather than a truck converted or scaled down. That's why I like my Odyssey - it's a big fat Acura TL underneath, and still drives and rides more like a big sports sedan than a truck.

The MDX was a candidate, but the last piece I want is more than average power, and the 311 HP of the '90 is very attractive.

Nothing in a sedan or station wagon has enough cargo space for my daily needs - the difference between using my Odyssey for a big Costco run vs. using the E500 is about 20 minutes of loading and unloading time! And unless I've missed something, none of the new "station wagons" seat more than 5, like damned near everything these days. (3 in the front seat is not an option - it usually means crappy seats and crowding of the driver.)

So the choices really dwindled to the XC90, the MDX, or another Odyssey or Sienna. And I really don't want to drive a minivan any more, even a very nice one. :)

Reply to
James Gifford

Started with a 289. Still says 289 on the fenders and air cleaner. Still looks just like a FoMoCo 289.

You'd have to dismantle it to discover that it's a heavily built, half- aluminum, girdled 347 with forged guts. You'd have to weigh it to see that it's 125 pounds lighter. And you'd have to try to catch me to discover that it's got 430HP, 435FPT and a 6k redline. :)

Reply to
James Gifford

Best alternative I've been able to find is the Chrysler Pacifica It's more than a wagon, but less than a van and drives like a car. Seats

6 or 7, depend>>> My needs are for 6/7 seats, reasonable cargo capacity, and neither
Reply to
mdrawson

Still way behind the Duesenberg which ran all the way up to 8,500 rpm. Not bad for a straight 8 engine. It was also much smoother than a V8 and had roller bearings for the crankshaft. A similar engine is the Rolls-Royce B81. Remember straight 8s became V16s.

Cheers, Peter.

Reply to
Peter K L Milnes

I think it shares much with the forthcoming Mercedes R-class - a stretched version of the new M-class. I was waiting on the R, but took one look at the sucker and gagged. Ugly sucker.

I'm not thrilled with the Pacifica, but I'll take another look.

The other problem is that I got out of cars that depreciate like a rock several generations ago and don't really want to go back. Hence my focus on the Volvo, Acura, Merc, etc.

Reply to
James Gifford

I agree about depreciation --- that is a concern with American cars. However, I need to get the right car for my purposes regardless of depreciation, and figure if I pay less for the car, the depreciation bite won't hurt quite as much.....

Mt major c>> Best alternative I've been able to find is the Chrysler Pacifica

Reply to
mdrawson

Yes, I consider that. However, I've looked at the Pacifica and it just won't do for my needs. (Underpowered for its size and weight, for one thing.) The whopping depreciation it's sure to take is another.

I don't think "American" (in fact or in name) is a bad thing. Most of the quality issues come from cars trying to compete outside their range. I'm sorry, but a $25k Buick does NOT compare with a $50k Acura or Mercedes, no matter how much leather and faux wood you stuff into it. If the makers would build and sell cars to compete realistically, the quality issues wouldn't be of note.

The Mercedes M-class is a good example of the inverse: MB tried to keep that car too cheap, and the corners they cut to keep it from being a $50-

60k vehicle show. Mercedes also has the problem of a divided image: to the rest of the world, they're a "General Motors," selling everything from econoboxes to vans to trucks and every niche in between. In the US, they're a flat-out luxury seller, and the juggling they have to do with their lineup here sometimes slips.

But nah, I looked at the Pacifica, and again at the MDX, and tried a full-range search again... and I'm back at the XC90 V8. I'm doing some dealer research now to see if I have to battle against markups and option overloading, or if I can get what I want at something reasonable over invoice.

Does anyone have a really good picture of an XC90 in Lava Sand? I can't find one, and can't quite tell if I like the color from the XC70 pics I've found.

Reply to
James Gifford

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.