Last post on Jul 29, 2012 at 7:31 PM
You are in the Volvo XC90
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Acura MDX, Lexus RX 330, BMW X5, Cadillac SRX, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, SUV
#1002 of 1084 BMW X-5 4.4 or Volvo XC90 v8?
Nov 20, 2005 (8:00 pm)
Currently have a 2000 TLC and a 2003 540i - wife drives the BMer and now wants something more practical for hauling the baby and the dogs around in. We live in Central Ohio - i.e snow for 4 months of the year, so AWD is the thing she is looking for. Previously looked at the 1st Gen X5 back in 2000, but went with the TLC - have since driven the X5 and the XC90 - both seem nice, but I hear bad things about the XC90 and fuel pump issues (from the other Edmunds boards) - any perspectives?
#1003 of 1084 Re: BMW X-5 4.4 or Volvo XC90 v8? [bullethead]
Nov 21, 2005 (5:15 am)
Do you really need the V8? The 2.5T is very reliable, costs less and uses less fuel. If you're not planning on racing, it's more than fast enough.
Nov 22, 2005 (7:40 am)
Just purchased an X5 3.0 after having both an '01 and '04 MDX for the last 5 years. These are my wifes cars but here are my first impressions of the differences.
The models I'm comparing are an 06 X5 3.0 w/ premium, cold weather, rear climate, xenon, heated rear seats, heated wheel and 04 MDX Touring, Nav & Rear Ent.
Obviously the MDX is the value leader, costing 5k less yet having both Nav and DVD system in the price. We did not get the Nav in the X5 due to its poor ratings and the BMW DVD system seemed poorly executed as well.
I also give the nod to the MDX in the power department. The additional 30-40hp is a difference you can feel in acceleration from a stop and when passing.
Storage capacity is also on the MDX's size, cargo as well as passenger.
The X5 definitely gets the nod on comfort. The seats are softer, and I always felt like I was sitting on top of the MDX seats not in them. Part of the comfort feeling is also in the quality of the materials used. The dash looks much richer in the X5. The MDX's dash materials, while better than most, still are a step down from the plush looking X5. This is expecially true of the faux wood trim on the MDX center consol.
I also prefer the feel of driving the X5. There are two major reasons for this. One is road/engine noise. The X5 is much quieter than the MDX, expecially at highway speeds. The X5 feels like it is going much slower than the MDX at the same speed. The X5 definitely has a more solid feel and the steering has a much better weight to it. The MDX seems very over boosted in comparison. I also like the fact that the rear wheels drive the X5 most of the time compared to the MDX fronts, which leads to torque steer at times. The AWD systems in both are outstanding, working invisibly. The MDX's only issue is when you hit the gas while turning a tight slick corner, causing some initial push before the system catches up. In testing the X5 on the one snow day it's had, it seems unflapable.
The X5 also gets the nod for nice extra power features like power tilt/telescope on the wheel w/memory, power reclining rear seats, all windows are one-touch up & down vs. just the drivers on the MDX, the panorama moon roof and soft-touch rear hatch. Also like that the X5's hatch opens in two parts so that things that have moved around don't come crashing out when you open the door. The keys with fob controls included are nice as well.
In the end, I would not discourage the purchase of either. If your looking for value and utility, go MDX. If your a driver who likes a bit more luxury, go X5, it is worth it.
#1005 of 1084 Re: X5 3.0 vs. MDX [tpjcourtney]
Nov 25, 2005 (6:58 am)
I wonder why the X5 3.0 carries over the old low power 3.0 liter engine. All of the other BMW models get a 255 hp 3.0 liter engine. That 30 hp difference would have been most beneicial to the X5 and would have at least equaled the MDX.
We got an MDX for it's size/versitility. But the X5 3.0 6-speed would have been our first choice had we put the kids up for adoption.
#1006 of 1084 Volvo XC90 2.5T AWD or V8 AWD???
Nov 26, 2005 (6:19 pm)
I'm interested in the 2006 Volvo XC90. However, can't compromise on which engine model. Gas is a big factor to my decision which one would prefer the 2.5T. But how is handling and noise in regards to a 5-cylinder 2.5 liter SUV? I didn't even know SUVs come in 5-cyliner.
#1007 of 1084 Re: Volvo XC90 2.5T AWD or V8 AWD??? [nanner]
Nov 26, 2005 (9:05 pm)
It's a 5 cylinder TURBO engine. Handling is fine, noise level is low. You should go on a test drive and see for yourself.
#1008 of 1084 Re: Volvo XC90 2.5T AWD or V8 AWD??? [nanner]
Nov 28, 2005 (2:05 pm)
We considered the XC90 V8 when it first came out and it was selling at quite a premium over the 2.5T. However, it appears that prices have come down significantly - I've seen ads for $6,000+ off the V8. I was very impressed with the V8, save for the rather busy 6-speed transmission. It clearly would have been my engine choice had my wife not gone for an MDX instead.
If gas is a big factor in buying a $40k-$45k SUV, perhaps you should be looking at a Highlander Hybrid or - heaven forbid - an Odyssey or Sienna minivan. those will give you much better fuel efficiency than either XC90 engine. The fact is the difference of 2-3 mpg would equate to around $200-$300 per year at 12,000 miles a year. That's not chump change, but it's also insignificant compared to the overall price and cost of ownership. Heck, at at a purchase price that's $10k-$15k less, you could drive a Honda Pilot for 5-7 years for free, compared to either XC90.
The XC90 in either form is a very nice vehicle. I recommend you get the engine that suits your needs and preferences.
#1009 of 1084 Cost of Maintenance
Dec 02, 2005 (11:00 am)
Does anyone have any hard and fast numbers relative to the actual costs of regular maintenance (oil changes, regular PMs, etxc.) for the MDX, RX330, and XC90? I've calculated the relative costs of gasoline, gotten insurance quotes for all three, read these boards, etc. Just want to flesh out as complete a picture as possible on these three vehicles.
Perhaps a better question might be "Is the True-Cost-To-Own" which Edmunds provides a good comparative measure?
#1010 of 1084 Re: Cost of Maintenance [dhdan]
Dec 02, 2005 (11:37 am)
No disrespect to Edmunds, but I found their "true cost to own" estimates relative to repairs and maintenance pretty useless.
I suggest you call the service departments of 1-2 dealers for each of the models you are considering and have them quote or fax you the regular maintenance schedules and prices. You might ask them for quotes on 1-2 specific repairs to give you a sense of relative pricing - like brake rotors and water pump.
I have found there can also be fairly significant geographic differences, with smaller town dealerships changing 20-30%+ less than larger metro areas.
#1011 of 1084 Re: Cost of Maintenance [dhdan]
by steve_ HOST
Dec 02, 2005 (2:15 pm)
In addition to the True Cost to Own tool, the Edmunds Maintenance Guide will break down maintenance costs by the manufacturer's schedule. Your dealer may charge more, but the dealer may be doing more than what's recommended in the owner's manual.