XC90 V8 questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter James Gifford
  • Start date Start date
J

James Gifford

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...
 
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.
 
mdrawson said:
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.
Click to expand...

My needs are for 6/7 seats, reasonable cargo capacity, and neither
enormous nor a truck. I also want a reasonable amount of power and snap.
That leaves about four vehicles, three of which are minivans. I've driven
a van for seven years; I really want something else for a while.

I drove a station wagon for years, too, and while I kind of like some of
the new-gen station wagons, I wouldn't want to drive one. Abysmal mileage
for the capacity, for one thing.

I don't believe the XC90's V8 is all that new; Yamaha has been making
variants of it for at least a decade. Granted, there are new tweaks and
it's in a new home, which might lead to some issues, but it's not fresh
off the blueprints.

It really pisses me off that so many vehicles, of a vast range of types
and sizes, don't go past 4+1 seating. Including most of the XC90's
competitors.
 
Steve said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

But where would that leave my '68 Mustang? :)
 
You forgot the trunk mounted jump seats, to match the XC90 in passenger
space ;-)

Steve said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
 
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 :)
 
... (S80's) need a high-pressure
turbo, not a low pressure turbo, for their 6's (same issue as the S80)), and
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I repeat, the S80 has twin turbos, do a little research.
 
mdrawson said:
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)),
Click to expand...
and


Is the S88 T-6 not a high pressure turbo? It's nearly 300HP, is it really so
heavy that it's underpowered?
 
mdrawson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
James Gifford said:
But where would that leave my '68 Mustang? :)
Click to expand...

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!
 
James Gifford said:
My needs are for 6/7 seats, reasonable cargo capacity, and neither
enormous nor a truck. I also want a reasonable amount of power and snap.
That leaves about four vehicles, three of which are minivans. I've driven
a van for seven years; I really want something else for a while.

I drove a station wagon for years, too, and while I kind of like some of
the new-gen station wagons, I wouldn't want to drive one. Abysmal mileage
for the capacity, for one thing.

I don't believe the XC90's V8 is all that new; Yamaha has been making
variants of it for at least a decade. Granted, there are new tweaks and
it's in a new home, which might lead to some issues, but it's not fresh
off the blueprints.

It really pisses me off that so many vehicles, of a vast range of types
and sizes, don't go past 4+1 seating. Including most of the XC90's
competitors.
Click to expand...

Well. you got the Hinda Pilot/Acura MDX, and the Nissan Pathfinder, the
chevy trailblazer ext, and the much better then I ever thought it would be
Dodge Durango...its not fancy or sexy at all but there is a lot of room in a
Ford 500...Another good option in my mind, perhaps the best of this sorry
list is a used MB E class wagon...

Best luck Jimbo!
 
Well. you got the Hinda Pilot/Acura MDX, and the Nissan Pathfinder,
the chevy trailblazer ext, and the much better then I ever thought it
would be Dodge Durango...its not fancy or sexy at all but there is a
lot of room in a Ford 500...Another good option in my mind, perhaps
the best of this sorry list is a used MB E class wagon...
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Does it have the standard 170 CI straight six, the high power 200 CI
six, or the 289?
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
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, depending on your seat array. Has good rollover and collision
ratings, and has been around al,ost 2 yrs. Respectable power for a 5800 lb
unit, so-so gas mileage (around 25 hwy I think). Runs anywhere from $25000
to $38000 MSRP depending on version and options, and dealers seem to deal on
it. It sits at street level -- you don't have to climb into it, but you do
sit up in it. All seats fold down flat for hauling.
 
James Gifford said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
mdrawson said:
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, depending on your seat array. Has good rollover and collision
ratings, and has been around al,ost 2 yrs. Respectable power for a
5800 lb unit, so-so gas mileage (around 25 hwy I think). Runs
anywhere from $25000 to $38000 MSRP depending on version and options,
and dealers seem to deal on it. It sits at street level -- you don't
have to climb into it, but you do sit up in it. All seats fold down
flat for hauling.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top