2004 Volvo XC90 SE D5 diesel from UK and Ireland - Comments

Nothing.

Firstly, I need to say that our last 3 cars have all been Volvo’s (740, 940 & 960) and I thus freely admit to being biased toward the brand.

I think this is the first review of the diesel engine version and I will thus focus my comments in this area. The other reviewers have provided plenty of information on the other areas of interest you may have.

I have driven over 7 thousand miles in this car in mixed conditions, motorway, about town, school runs etc.

Considering its size this car is quite economical. About town we get 27mpg and we have achieved 33+ mpg on a long motorway run. My long term average is 28.5 mpg.

The engine is really suited to long motorway runs and copes easily when fully loaded with people and their luggage. A recent ‘booze-cruise’ to France was equally no problem.

The two weak spots I have found are:

(1) The car struggles to overtake a moving vehicle in the 40/60mph range.

(2) The car struggles to pull away from a ‘standing start’ at junctions etc.

After driving a 960 this came as quite a shock.

Quite simply, I think the car needs a bigger diesel. These engines can be chipped, but I have no first hand information on this process.

I love the car and I can put up with the sluggish performance. However I would recommend all potential buyers to carefully consider how they might feel before parting with their cash.

I also am impressed by my D5 XC90SE. However, moving from a Jag I missed the power. Not anymore. A trip to my local Superchips agent provides around 45 more bhp and a wall of torque that rockets the car in the mid-range. No effect on fuel economy either.

£400 well spent.

Steve Hawkins, UK.

I like mine, but understand the issues about the standing start and the mid range. What is superchip and what does it do to the warranty??

Thanks.

Gilesf@babcockbrown.com.

10 April 2005, Hi, I am the author of the review.

I have read on the Volvospy website that Volvo is preparing to launch an upgraded D5 diesel engine very shortly. If you are interested in buying a diesel XC90 I strongly recommend you hold out for the new D5 engine.

I have only a few issues that really bother me

1. The parking brake is a foot operated, sudden release, similar to Mercedes and proves to be very awkward for hill starts.

2. Reverse parking is difficult due to poor visability - Park Assist is essential.

" (2) The car struggles to pull away from a 'standing start' at junctions etc."

This will be for two reasons: the D5 on has a wee bit of lag that is accentuated in the heavy XC90. Also, the auto switches into neutral when coming to a stop to save wear and tear. Therefore, when you hit the accelerator, you have to wait for the box to switch back into Drive!

Volvo can update the software to stop this (it's an option that is on by default), also tuning the engine gets rid of the lag too. However, tuning has inevitable consquences for insurance..

Most reports say the latest D5 doesn't have this problem..

From the volvospy.com forums.

Hi guys...

If I may clarify this situation...

The delay you speak of isn't turbo lag, but an intentional design by Volvo. Volvo engineers comment that they know the drive-train is a bit "sleepy" but what you are experiencing here is a system design to improve the longevity of the gearbox. After a certain time idling the torque converter is disengaged to reduce load on the engine and reduce fuel consumption at idle (i.e. sitting in town traffic) and also reduce gearbox wear by disengaging the gearbox from the engine. This sounds unusual as most of us are not used to hearing that a auto box has a clutch system, but in effect the auto on the P2 engines does have this. When pressing the throttle, the clutch has to engage again hence the delay you feel. Volvo didn't put this into production by accident and it is not an oversight of the software development or testing programme. It is an intentional effort to increase gearbox longevity. Volvo drive-trains will easily complete 300,000 miles if not more. They are tested to 250,000 miles in testing and development compared to the industry standard of 100- 120,000 miles.

This system takes getting used to, but is for the benefit of the gearbox.

I was doing a comparative road test with a Saab 9-3 diesel and the electronic throttle delay is far far worse. In the case of the Saab it is due to the GM design throttle control software - there is no torque converter clutch in that car hence in the Saab case it is an unnecessary annoyance..

Hope this helps.

Shimon.

http://www.volvospy.com/w-agora4/view.php?bn=volvospy_xc90ubb&key=1153593369&first=1166223450&last=1161626584

3 years on. We still have this car. Even with hindsight I would not change a single word of my original review. The MPG remains the same and the underpowered engine is still my biggest grip.

So what's gone wrong.

1) windscreen washer pump (replaced under warranty.

2) Interior door handles have fallen off (driver and front passenger doors). The door handle fixings are of very poor quality.

What's not so good.

1) Tyre wear is high.

2) That engine.

Safety.

My wife had a accident and walked away with no injuries. The car needed 2 new doors and the other car was a write-off.

Very happy with safety. This is one safe car.

In March 2008, we will have had the car 4 years and we are both very happy customers. It's not a perfect car, but it is very good.

I agree with all your comments about the first-generation engine being underpowered and I thank you for your warning about door handles. I'd like to add one further word of warning. The XC90 is not an off-road vehicle. It copes very well with damp fields and slightly muddy tracks, but don't be fooled into thinking it's a Discovery. We took out 2004 manual diesel through some quite serious mud (up to the bottom of the doors). Initially I was impressed by how it coped. It slid a little but the drivetrain was impressive and the engine managed to pull it up steep slopes (albeit with a heavy throttle). However, back on road and 20 miles later the engine packed up entirely. Water had got into the air intake system and we faced a £7,000 bill for a new engine. I was shocked because we had been extremely careful not to get water near the level of the intake (just above the radiator). It seems there's another way in... and I have the new engine to prove it.

Despite all that (plus tyre wear and rear brake disc problems) we love the car. It's comfortable for all 6 of us, tolerably fast and surprisingly economical (35-38 mpg) BUT: stick to shallow mud, or get a Discovery!

BUT, Discoverys fall apart with comparitive ease, and are hopelessly unreliable. Check out JD Power survey. Had one once. Is now a chicken shed. Nuff said!!