SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)




We've hauled a 18-foot canoe and a LOT of construction stuff over the years, including plywood for boat reapair projects, and as many as 8 sheets of 1/2" drywall. Regarding the drywall, I would always buy two 2x4s and put them lengthwise across the optional roof carrier bar. That way the drywall would slide right on nicely. It always took at least two people to load a taped pair of 1/2" drywall boards up onto the roof rack. Then I would use 4 cross straps that cinch down tight, and it worked just fine. When I got home I would untape the drywall and remove one board at a time. It is possible, but it is slow work, but it allows you to do those projects by yourself when you must. As far as the 18-foot canoe is concerned, that was a bit much for one guy to hoist up there, maybe someone can do it but that thing is awkward and heavy, but two people didn't have much trouble. It made some pretty strange noises at speed, and we did not drive too fast for fear it might want to take off :)

Regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Well we also once hauled a pair of twenty foot tall cedar trees too. I dug them on our farm and used a tractor to pull them out and haul them up to the hilltop, where we wrapped them in plastic for transport and we used a stiff pine 2x6 or something to give them enough support to keep them from dragging. I'll bet there were some laughs when this rig went down the road, ha .




We also hauled this rare 1966 Sea Skiff around a few times, the 2.5 AWD did an acceptable job on the highway but really struggled on our very steep hill.
We later got an old Bronco to do the hill hauling.


The 2004 2.5 AWD never let us down.



Regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Over the road the 2.5 did fine. It has the same towing limit as the V8 at 5000 pounds. The problem is the motor was never able to even get to the point where peak torque developed, and the turbo couldn't spool up to help either. This is a perfect case where the AWD features of the Volvo XC90 are more car-like than truck-like, and where the Land Rover would be superior with its low range. On the road I think the XC90 is superior because it is tough to be both superior on and off road. The V8 Bronco will haul a heavier boat than this up that hill in low range without breaking a sweat, becuase it is almost a creeping haul at times. We have hairpin cutbacks and you just can't run up that hill fast. The XC90 is not geared for a creep, so when we tried to haul the boat back up to where the photo was taken on the hilltop, it was basically coming off idle and never able to use the torque becuase it basically had none down that low on the rpm band. If Volvo would offer a low range option it would put them into a category where they would really have to reinforce things, etc., becuase once they got that people would be out there in the wilds trying to make the Volvo do things Jeeps, Hummers, Broncos and Land Rovers do, and it would probably be a challenge for Volvo to match some of that at a competitive price, and there would be a lot of recalls too along the way.

In all other applicatins we found the 2.5 to be a wonderful motor, a bit on the harsh side, but very durable. I am driving another one now in a XC70 and I really enjoy that low down push the torque gives me. My wife is enjoying her 3.2 XC90 and although the 2.5 and 3.2 are very similar in cylinder head and injection, etc., the 3.2 is the only Volvo gas motor in production now that does not require a balance shaft, it is silky smooth, and does not (as I understand it) have the variable cam timing it might otherwise use to get the torque way down like the 2.5 did.

Regareds,

P
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top