I recently learned the issues with owning a Volvo AWD Cross Country. I purchased a brand new 2001 Cross Country 5 weeks ago. This past week I ran over a big piece of metal on the highway. This piece of metal puntured the rear tire. The car only had 2500 miles on it. Ironically, I received a link to this web site the day of the incindent. I read some of the issues with riding on the donut with the AWD. I made sure to maintain the 50 mph all the way home and to the dealer the next day. Upon arriving at the dealer, the service manager met me and explained that I would have to buy all new tires for my brand new car. He also explained that this was ultimately my choice, but the warrenty could be voided if all four tires did not have the same tread. I had not even made the first payment and had to spend $650 on new tires. While waiting at the dealer, I did give a new cross country owner the bad news. I also instructed the sales person(who said he had never heard of that). I wished I would have known this prior and I would have just bought the regular wagon. I now have 3 good Pirelli tires with only 2500 miles on them. What a hard first lesson to learn. Add me to the list of upset Cross Country owners.

Volvo only requires that all tread depth be within 1/16". I think he just wanted to sell you new tires! 2002 AWD models won't be so specific. Volvo is using a new module to providepower to the rear wheels. BTW, front wheel drive owners should put their spare on the rear wheel, even if it's the front that's flat. The difference in diameter can cause the differential to fail. That's not just a volvo thing, it goes for all FWD cars.

You say: "Volvo only requires that all tread depth be within 1/16."

I'm curious as to where this number comes from. A similar discussion a year ago placed the critical difference in tire diameter at 2 to 4 mm (according to unofficial advice by Volvo techs). This is somewhat more than 1/16" (1.6 mm).

If the wear can, indeed, be only 1/16" (about 2500 miles) without damage to the driveline, that begs a couple of questions:

1) Variations in inflation and load can change the effective tire diameter significantly. The static diameter (tire under load) can be up to 45 mm (1.75 inches) less than the diameter under no load. The Volvo tire pressure recommendations aren't much help because they cover only two of many possibilities (note also that they specify more pressure in the rear tires than the front but my dealer always sets them the same). How can I possibly know exactly how a given load affects tire diameter? Do I have to change pressure every time I pack for a trip, pick up passengers or tow a trailer? I'm only partially kidding because 300 pounds in the rear figures to change rear tire diameter more than 1/16". Volvo offers no guidance.

2) The spare is a T125/80R17 (for my 2000 XC) which I have measured to be 24.8 inches diameter compared to the stock tire's 25.5 inches. Is this difference (0.7 inch or 18 mm) too much for even temporary use since as little as 2 mm can cause damage?

3) How do all the other many cars that use viscous coupling deal with this?

This is really confusing. I've been carrying a195/65R15 snow tire for a spare because I need a real tire out in the boonies. In any case, its diameter is closer to the stock 205/65R15 than the temporary spare!

Actually Volvo says 2/32 but I always reduce fractions. I am taking this out of the Pocket Data booklet for s60 01-, v70 01-, s80 99-. We recently replaced a differential and coupling because a tire shop replaced one tire. The 98-99 AWD models had an Audi viscous coupling, which was more sensative to vaiations in wheel speed. The 00-01 have a volvo coupling, which is slightly better, but provides better torque transfer. The 2002 models are phasing out the coupling in favor of an elctronic unit. The electronic torque coupling and electronic diff in the 02 models allow for a much greater variation in tread deapth, I forget what it is, but it's a lot more than the current version. I don't think that 2500 miles would cause 2/32" of treadwear, unless someone was driving like my mother.

What's a Pocket Data booklet? I've never heard of it before. The only reference to tread depth I've seen is to replace tires when the wear bars show at 1/16" (1.6 mm).

In rechecking the Owner's Manual and the Jan. 2001 AWD Supplement, Volvo does not specify any specific thread difference between tires. They say only:

* Drive on identical tires (brand, size, construction, tread pattern, rating).

* Keep cold tire pressure as shown on fuel filler door.

* "Strongly recommends" replacing all four tires at the same time.

* "If only one or two tires are replaced, the new tire(s) must be identical to the tires with which the car was built, and must be mounted on the FRONT AXLE ONLY! Failure to do this may damage the transmission and all wheel drive system." [Direct quote.]

* "The tires with the least wear and largest circumference must always be on the front." [Direct quote.]

* Rotate every 7500 miles, front-to-back only.

* Do not rotate if front tires are newer (have less wear) until front tires wear to the same circumference as the rear tires.

Although Volvo strongly recommends replacing all tires, they clearly allow you to replace one or two. The trouble is that they don't give any guidance about what difference is acceptable. It's curious that they talk about tire circumference rather than diameter. Does anyone ever measure circumference?

For what it is worth, my 95 Jeep Grand cherokee ($30K) needs a new viscous coupling. Now i'm wondering why? I did have a flat last year and simply put on one new tire. I'm trading it in in two days but my wife has a 2001 XC hence the concern.

For future reference, what are the symptoms of impending AWD problems? What breaks, exactly? The discussion here mentions viscous coupling and bevel gears. Do these fail together or separately?

The 93 - 95 Grand Cherokees with Quadratrac have had problems with the VCs. Not having a matched set of tires could accelerate the failure of this part. This system was replaced with a new system for 96 and up that has no problems.

Bull! 2500 mi. is not enough wear to make a difference. You probably will have to buy two tires but, if it were me, I would take a shot with one and rotate regurly at 4K intervals. After 15-20K or so they all should be about the same.

Martha,

sorry to hear about your trouble but I am wondering why you had to change all 4 tires. AT 2,500 miles you should not have had any significant wear on the rest of the tires unless you were driving them severely deflated which I am sure you did not do. You should have just bought one new tire, move it to the front and that would be it.

Please stay away from advice such as "find a speed shop to mill the other tires around" (questionable practice, at best, if possible) or " these cars are worthless other than in paper", etc.

Perhaps you should go back to your Service Manager and ask them why they recommended FOUR tires on a 2,500-mile car.

Yannis

Listen to Yannis, even though road hazards do not fall under Pirelli

Tire's warranty, there is no reason for your service manager to sell

you 4 new tires when all you need is just one.

Hi Martha,

With 2,500 miles on the Car all you need is one new tire that is the exact same tire that is on the car now. Volvo parts department should be able to sell you a new tire. And make sure you install the tire on the front right (passenger side). This is the wheel that does most of the work.

Good Luck,

Steven---

There was a post on this board previously that stated than you can have a tire milled down at a speed shop. I hope this helps if this issue arises again

Good Luck

I guess one option would be to contact Volvo's emergency road side

assistance to have them change the tire on the spot, that is if you

don't mind waiting. Unfortunately, it is a blatent flaw in what

other wise is a pretty good warranty program. Correct me if I'm

wrong, but I think these tires were specifically designed for the

XC. If not, is it possible to purchase them elsewhere?

The XC can use any brand of tire. The issue is that if one tire

has a slightly different diameter then the other three then you can

have driveline damage that is very expensive to fix. So, when

replacing one tire on a XC you really have to somewhat careful.

This only applies to the XC and AWD models.

Replacing a blown tire could/will cause if the existing three

tires were much smaller then the new one (but that should not be

the case here when the existing 3 only had 2500 miles on them).

If there were, say 10K miles, then yes, you probably should replace

all four or at least put two new ones on the front (after measuring

them all carefully to make sure diameter sizes are not too different).

I doubt Volvo would cover the tire since the car's warranty states

the tires are covered by the tire manufacturer.

Ask your service manager to refer to tech net notes and or service bulletins regarding this issue. If the differenc in tire diameter is within a minimum spec, you do not have to replace all 4. At 2500 miles, I would bet you could get by with 1 tire, but I would get 2 to be safe. Just install the new tires on the FRONT axle, and make sure they are the EXACT same tire size and manufacturer. There can be a slight difference, but as long as the LARGER diameter tire is on the front, you will NOT damage the AWD system. P.S. Most service managers are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Ask a technician.

I wonder if the new tire could be milled down in size. I know some tire places snipe tires for off-roading. It just seems that the new tire could be made the same dia. as the existing tires somehow.

I feel your pain!!All I can say is "sorry"! It goes to show you these cars sound good on paper but in the real world they just are'nt worth it unless your filthy rich,(money to burn!)Most of us bricksters are cheap,man I'll never buy any new car!! My 89 740 turbo has 275k on it and looks and runs excellent!! Good luck to you!

Brent,

if you do not want to buy a new car, that is your prerogative but I think you are overreacting a bit, here. The problem she encountered, had nothing to do with the car's setup.

Yannis

Yannis, with all due respect, the problem she encountered had everything to do with the car's flawed, impractical AWD design. AWD suggests ruggedness and toughness, but the current design of Volvo's AWD system makes them a liability and a money pit. I realize that in this particular case the customer was taken advantage of by the service manager, but had she had 10K on those tires, she really WOULD have to buy all 4 tires because of one damaged tire. This is very impractical. Also, it seems the system can't handle more than 50 miles on the spare tire (per incidence or cumulative?), but there is no way to fit a full-size spare into the well. This is again impractical and is an example of bad design. If you market the AWD system as a tough, go-anywhere system, then there should be no issues of fragility such as the ones existing on the current AWD design.

One thing that I forgot...you CAN install a full-size tire as long as you do not have the 3rd seat. We have done it quite a few times, here.

Yannis

I'm interested in knowing how would you replace the donut for a

full sized spare even without the 3rd seat?

I don't know if it's a differnce in the markets (I'm in Australia) or it's just because you all have the 3rd row of seats but my new '01 XC has a full size spare tyre (I've got the 7" x 16" "Tellus" rims). I'm bloody glad I've got it with this weakness in the AWD system.

Vladimir,

I appreciate your response but allow me to make a couple of observations:

First of all, AWD is not 4x4. Therefore, AWD is not marketed (and should not) as a "tough, go anywhere" system. AWD means FLEXIBILITY and MORE SECURITY in daily driving. Which means AWD is not an appropriate system to take the car off-road. It is a system that WILL ENHANCE your driving under CERTAIN adverse conditions. That is ALL!

Now, as far as "the flaw of the AWD system" is concerned, why all the huffing and puffing? Every system has its own limitations and that is the major drawback of the viscous coupling AWD system. It is not Volvo's flaw. You do not see Subaru owners complaining about that! I just think people are too picky. This system is not perfect but it is a darn neat system for a car meant to be driven on the road. People who buy a ca with this system must not do so under impulse or because their neighbor has it. They must understand that it is a system that needs extra care and precautions and understand its limitations. It is not for everyone. It is not a fragile system but it requires extra steps to prevent mishaps.

Sorry for the rant!

Yannis

Yannis, let me just make a few remarks here.

Yannis Alatzas wrote:

> First of all, AWD is not 4x4. Therefore, AWD is not marketed (and

> should not) as a "tough, go anywhere" system.

Allow me to disagree here. Why is the XC so high off the ground? Why is it made to look so aggressive with all that extra plastic cladding? Why does it have a handle between the front seats? All that subliminally suggest you can take this thing where you'll need to hang on to that handle and you'll need the plastic cladding from all those rocks flying all over the place when you go in the rough. I agree with you, that the AWD system on the Volvo is for on-road use only. Also, it seems like it is for on-very-smooth-without-anything-that-can-puncture-your-tire roads to boot. But Volvo does not mind selling this system to people who don't really understand that and Volvo also creates the image (especially with the MY01) of extra-toughness.

> AWD means

> FLEXIBILITY and MORE SECURITY in daily driving. Which means AWD is

> not an appropriate system to take the car off-road. It is a system

> that WILL ENHANCE your driving under CERTAIN adverse conditions. That

> is ALL!

My definition of flexibility is "bend instead of breaking", clearly by this definition XC is anything but flexible. My S70 is quite flexible. I can load it for a 2-week family trip and the trunk still has a little space left, I can park just about anywhere with awesome turning radius, the car is great in snow, mud and sleet (snow and sleet with winter tires), I do not need to be constantly paranoid of how my tires are wearing lest I should blow a $4,000 part.

Let's take a look at the security issue. My S70 catches a nail in the middle of nowhere (more than 50 miles to the nearest repair station), I pop on the donut and drive to the nearest tire shop. Same scenario with the XC. If the middle of nowhere happens to be more than 50 miles away (and in this here great USofA we have plenty of that), I either have to stay on the side of the road waiting for the tow (not very secure is it) or say "oh, the heck with $4,000", it's cold here and put on the donut and ruin the bevel gear. So, Yannis, where are the flexibility and security Volvo promises with the XC? Seems like the major flaw of the AWD design only has trouble in store for their owners, not flexibility and security. A system is only as strong as its weakest link and this AWD system has a weak link in the fragility department.

> Now, as far as "the flaw of the AWD system" is concerned,

> why all the huffing and puffing? Every system has its own limitations

> and that is the major drawback of the viscous coupling AWD system. It

> is not Volvo's flaw. You do not see Subaru owners complaining about

> that! I just think people are too picky. This system is not perfect

> but it is a darn neat system for a car meant to be driven on the

> road. People who buy a ca with this system must not do so under

> impulse or because their neighbor has it. They must understand that

> it is a system that needs extra care and precautions and understand

> its limitations. It is not for everyone. It is not a fragile system

> but it requires extra steps to prevent mishaps.

Again, I agree that most people get it 'cause it's cool, not because they need it, but would you, as a salesman talk someone out of a car that is $10,000 more and the customer REALLY wants it? Or at least present the issues with owning one of these high-maintenance beasts? No, you wouldn't and Volvo wouldn't and they don't, instead they push these things like EVERYONE needs one. They do it through ads and their design.

I have never heard of a Subie blowing a bevel gear because its tires were 0.5" apart in diameter, have you?

> Sorry for the rant!

Oh, no problem, gave me a chance to do the same, really.

Thanks.

Your message rings true. I'll just point out that the comparison of 4WD and AWD is a bit flawed. There are many capable AWD off-road vehicles, including some with viscous coupling. What makes a "tough, go anywhere" vehicle is heavy-duty design and special features like low-range and clearance.

But even sturdy off-road vehicles like Jeeps need lots of maintenance. I've dealt with a broken axle, cracked frame, engine mounts, radiator and many other failed parts on Jeeps. The Volvo seems quite reliable by comparison, and I regularly use it on poorly maintained forest roads.

Hi Big,

I agree with you. My 91 Jeep cost me $20K at the time and yes it caused me some trouble. However, my expectation for spending $40K is to purchase a vehicle that is a lot more trouble free than a Jeep.

I traded my 91 Jeep in for my 99 XC and I had 1,000th the problems with my 91 Jeep as compare to my 99 XC.

Steven---

I might agree with you but when your transmission fails at 62,000 miles and you have had all the recommended service at the dealer, something is wrong. Then we can start talking about everything else that breaks.

The problem is Volvo is coasting on its reputation for reliability with flawed designs, poor manufacturing, and indifferent service.

I would never buy one again.

Neil:

I agree with you. I will note that the 62,000 miles you got on your transmission is 54,000 miles more than I got on my new 2001 XC before it needed a new transmission. My basically new car has now been in the shop for 12 days with no end in sight...

I do believe my first volvo may be my last.

Greg

I feel almost the same way as you Yannis....I think these AWD models are a very good idea, but for people who NEED it ONLY...!

If you have to drive snowy roads 10 months out of the year(or all year long)....yes they are better than FWD, the extra costs are warrented, but if you live in a area where it snows 10 days out of the year, then I think you are just stupid or misinformed.

I cant see the extra cost added to the price of the car, and then the extra cost and CARE that has to be taken to keep the system working correctly, when you could just buy a set of

dedicated snow tires/wheels, and be just fine 95% of the time.

95% of the time that is if you dont live in a area like the ones Volvo uses in their ad’s for these models.

Hi Yannis,

For $40,000 I would expect my 99XC to last for 10/100,000 trouble free. Not 1/15,000!

No more Volvos for me. I can not handle the all that Great Quality!

Steven---