|
|
|
Hello,
I saw a 2012 XC-90 at a wholesaler in Teterboro, NJ the other day.
It has 124,500 mi. and has an $11K asking price. The vehicle is in grand shape.
I considered buying it.
I read a few reviews and have, for the moment, decided not to.
I don't really care that the 3.2 is "underpowered" for the car. The same has been said of my 3 non-turbo V70's. That it drinks gas more than I'd like is key.
The reviewers say the GPS and pop-up screen is outdated and clumsy. I tend to eschew that modern junk as outdated and problematic the moment is comes from the factory.
What I like is that it has an improved AWD system and is heavy and safe. I live in fear of video game playing drivers plowing into me at stop lights.
I don't know what to do.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Underpowered? I have the 2.5 D5 diesel 185 and that moves ok, so I can't see the problem with the larger motor you've considered. It's not a tidal wave like the V8, but it's more than enough to keep up and overtake. Hell, look at the Toyotas and Kias and the like, most of which are slower, and no one seems to be suffering.
No occupant of an XC90 has ever been killed im am accident here in the UK, which is mighty impressive. Comparing the crash testing stats to more modern tin it also compares very favourably in that regard.
My 2009 R Design has the seat nav in the screen that rises out of the dash. In 10 years and 134,000 miles its proved faultless - I'm unsure why you would think they're problematic, as most users have found them very robust and reliable. Sure, it is outdated now, but that can be said of virtually anything a decade old. Nevertheless, it's still effective and works reliably.
None of your ckncerns really bear scrutiny. If it drives well and you like it, then buy it.
--
2009 XC90 R Design 2.4D
|
|
-
|
|
|
Many thanks for all the replies.
Re "underpowered", I was mock-quoting some experts who had said the 3.2 was underpowered. I'm on my 3rd non-turbo V70 and have no problem dealing with modest engine output.
Re "modern junk", I'm not against safety tech. You'll never hear me employ the words "nanny tech" as many writers do. I just live in fear of complex stuff being rushed to market which will break as I own cars longer than average. I also believe many of the beeping gadgets in todays cars serve to dull the driver's awareness and thus, his skills.
Plus, cheap sensors mounted in plastic bumper skins don't instill confidence. My '07's backup beepers don't work after a sputtering death.
Screens which pop-up out of dashboards is needless complexity. We expect the ejection pawls in cassette + CD players to fail, don't we? I resent holding my breath waiting for some toy to work or break in the up position. Ask me how I feel about the ridiculously high costs associated with repairing this stuff.
Now the good news, sorta. The former owner of a service station near me is selling his wife's 2004 XC-90 w/104K. I mentioned it and people here have responded. The owner is still out of town so it's on hold
Now what might be better news. Whilst taking a walk with my wife we spotted a 2005 Ford Ranger FX4 w89K. I'm awaiting his return call.
Thanks for answering. Being this is a 3rd car purchase decision (for 2 people) I suppose it should be difficult.
|
|
-
|
|
|
If the pop up set nav is needless complexity and prone to failing then why are they proving extremely reliable?
They have proven extremely robust and reliable, and no matter how many times you claim otherwise that remains the case. It is complexity, it probably is needless, but claims of unreliability or fragility are utterly without basis in truth. Failures of these units in the 90 are all but unheard of.
--
2009 XC90 R Design 2.4D
|
|
-
|
|
|
It's like the key needing a motor to engage it in the dash. Or the button to open the glovebox. Or the automatic wipers and the automatic high/low headlight beam.
As for the new models with the large infotainment screens: Why do I need to pull over and park in order to change a radio station, turn on the seat heaters, change the climate control settings, change the engine control settings to 'race' a bit, etc????
|
|
-
|
|
|
We currently have a 2008 XC90 3.2. I do not think it is under-powered. It has "good" power, just not a "bat out of Hell" (V8).
We get 19.5 MPG overall, which is just fine for the safety, etc.
With phones now days I did not find the Navigation on our Highlander of much use anyway.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Looking is always more fun than buying for keeps. I found this on Autotrader, 2014 with 100K, one owner, $13K, probably an easy buy for $12.
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=520068455&zip=10918&referrer=%2Fcars-for-sale%2Fsearchresults.xhtml%3Fzip%3D10918%26listingTypes%3DUSED%26startYear%3D2012%26sortBy%3DderivedpriceASC%26incremental%3Dall%26firstRecord%3D0%26marketExtension%3Don%26endYear%3D2016%26modelCodeList%3DXC90%26makeCodeList%3DVOLVO%26searchRadius%3D200&listingTypes=USED&startYear=2012&numRecords=25&firstRecord=0&endYear=2016&modelCodeList=XC90&makeCodeList=VOLVO&searchRadius=200&clickType=spotlight
Of course the GPS is old school, they all are. Who knows why car companies don't just go directly to Google or Apple for their telematics - something to do with cost???
--
Keeping it running is better than buying new
|
|
-
|
|
|
Know what you mean about the modern gadgets. Although GPS has become a necessity for safety and convenience, but not sure how best to integrate / converge into the control panels for both optimum use and aesthetics.
The 3.2 is known to have oil consumption issues; not sure which year(s). It's something about defective piston ring installation during engine factory manufacture. Neighbor's 2011 XC-90 3.2 had this oil consumption issue and it became a problem. Volvo finally covered the entire repair (new rings) just last year. Probably worth researching.
|
|
-
|
|
|
In my opinion, Volvos get great mileage for vehicles that are - heavy and safe.
Have you taken the miles you travel divided by the mileage you now get, multiplied by the price of your fuel and compared that to the figures for the XC90?
You can then see what this vehicle will cost you to enjoy the benefits you see in the car.
I usually get better mileage than most testers get. Do you?
In 2012 we traded our '96 855R for a '12 XC70 to get the extra entry height.
The 855R was a hoot to drive, but was getting hard to enter for our old bones.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Know what you mean about eschewing the modern gadgets. Although GPS has become a necessity but not sure how best to integrate / converge into the control panels for both optimum use and aesthetics.
The 3.2 is known to have oil consumption issues; not sure which year(s). It's something about defective piston ring installation during engine manufacture. Neighbor's 2011 XC-90 3.2 had this oil consumption issue. Volvo finally covered the entire repair (new rings) just last year. Probably worth researching. (sorry about dupe post)
|
|
-
|
|
|
The XC90 never received an update during it's entire long production run. So what you see in a 2014 model is largely the same as that in a 2003. So yes, the interior and infotainment system you saw in the 2012 XC90 would be "old-school" compared to a 2012 XC60 or XC70. But even the more modern Volvo systems are panned as outdated compared to other vehicles in the market segment.
If fuel economy is paramount, then an XC60 or 70 will offer the same AWD and power with a little better efficiency. If safety and size are more important, then the 90 is tough to beat.
As for eschewing the "modern junk", that's a losing battle and contrary to the goal of safety, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
