SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

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


Hi guys, here is the new ride, 33,000 miles listed for $26,000 and loaded, 3.2 AWD.
The transformation from our 2004 2.5 to the turbine smooth 3.2 is pronounced, from snappy sport utility to luxury sport utility. That smile says it all.

My wife put the better part of 135,000 miles on our 2.5, which we absolutely loved. It recently got $3,500 worth of hail damage in a very bad storm, every panel was dinged, so we traded at that time, the car was so clean inside the dealer said he would not sell it wholesale but would have it repainted. Naturally we had all the papers, and he gave us $6400 in trade, which all said and done was fair. (edit comment: thankfully we had insurance that covered the hail damage after the first $500).

I still love the 2.5, it would pull this boat on the highways and I manually shifted on the inclines, but it really worked too hard on our very steep driveway so we got an old Bronco to do the towing.



In additiion, my 740 16-v popped a belt way prematurely for some reason, and I got a 2005 XC 70 AWD with the 2.5 with 63,000 miles.

Great cars, great values.

Regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Just a bit of follow up..........when we first got our 2.5 my wife was not happy with it and referred to it as a bus, then
two weeks later you would have to fight her for the car. After 135,000 miles she is obviously happy to be in another one!

The 2008 3.2 AWD was listed at $26,000 which I considered a deal for a loaded AWD with 33,000 miles so we jumped on it abot 15 minutes before someone else came in to look at it. It is almost a $20,000 depreciation factor. I asked my wife if she would rather have the 2008 with 33,000 miles and a $20,000 stack of greenbacks, or a new one
with 0 miles, the higher payment note. You know the answer. With 33,000 miles she will be able to put another 100,000 on the car with ease, these are GREAT vehicles. We absolutely love em.




Due to the great service we received from our 5 cylinder 850 turbo, and the 2.5 XC90 turbo, I did not hesitate to pick up a XC70 when the old airport beater died. Guys, those are pretty awesome cars too, with basically the same drivetrain as our XC90s. Although they'll do it, we will not be towing anything with these, unless it is just 100 yards from our lake house to the boat ramp sort of thing. The old Bronco will be doing the tow duty from now on.

Regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Congrats. Looks just like ours! What year?
The willow green one is a 2008 3.2 AWD, and the older one in champagne is a 2004 2.5 AWD. I have now had 7 or 8 volvos and I always felt good driving them. I admit I got a little tired driving the old 740 16-v, as they say the good thing about a Volvo is they last forever, and the bad thing about a Volvo is they last forever, and the 740 was a torqueless wonder, nice leather, sunroof, and unfortunately some sort of malfunction caused the belt to break and we have no idea why because it was pretty new. It worked out for the better, however.

regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
953 Posts
The willow green one is a 2008 3.2 AWD, and the older one in champagne is a 2004 2.5 AWD. I have now had 7 or 8 volvos and I always felt good driving them. I admit I got a little tired driving the old 740 16-v, as they say the good thing about a Volvo is they last forever, and the bad thing about a Volvo is they last forever, and the 740 was a torqueless wonder, nice leather, sunroof, and unfortunately some sort of malfunction caused the belt to break and we have no idea why because it was pretty new. It worked out for the better, however.

regards,

P
how is the stable dealing with a non-turbo joining the ranks :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I am a big fan of the 2.5 turbo. The 3.2 normally aspirated motor is a good one, uses a chain instead of the belt, very smooth inherently due to the six cylinders, plenty of power and does not need a turbo for the way we use the car. Interesting thing, I had been running a pretty expensive aftermarket stainless steel exhaust (just muffler) from REMUS, and when we traded the vehicle in I had the old muffler re-installed. I noticed a performance difference, as the stock muffler does seem to throttle things down a bit. It was always a bit of a buzz, and I could hear my wife coming up the hill :) Personally I liked it but I think she got tired of it.

regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,959 Posts
Have enjoyed your posts here and on other Volvo blogs. A couple of your posts, I think, settled the issue on whether the 2.5T XC90 is underpowered. You showed clearly, that by any objective standard, it is not underpowered. I've always thought my 2.5T XC90 was actually kinda peppy off the line, and I usually out-accelerate the cars around me when not penned in by traffic. (Who are the expert reviewers talking to when they say this SUV is underpowered anyway???? F-22 pilots?). The 2.5T has 236 lbs of torque all the down at 1500RPM, and the 3.2 also has 236 lbs of torque, but way up at 3200 rpm, which makes the 3.2 look a little sluggish off the line. Now that you have a 3.2, what do you think? Which one has the better acceleration?

And congrats on your purchase. Looks like you found a great deal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Have enjoyed your posts here and on other Volvo blogs. A couple of your posts, I think, settled the issue on whether the 2.5T XC90 is underpowered. You showed clearly, that by any objective standard, it is not underpowered. I've always thought my 2.5T XC90 was actually kinda peppy off the line, and I usually out-accelerate the cars around me when not penned in by traffic. (Who are the expert reviewers talking to when they say this SUV is underpowered anyway???? F-22 pilots?). The 2.5T has 236 lbs of torque all the down at 1500RPM, and the 3.2 also has 236 lbs of torque, but way up at 3200 rpm, which makes the 3.2 look a little sluggish off the line. Now that you have a 3.2, what do you think? Which one has the better acceleration?

And congrats on your purchase. Looks like you found a great deal!
It comes down to our personal experiences - if I want "peppy" I have a 400hp Subaru that weighs more than 1000lb less in the garage. By comparison, my V8 XC90 is "slow" :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Well thanks for the kind words to begin with. When we drove the 2.5 turbo and the twin-turbo 4-speed alternative in 2004, the 5-speed transmission with the 2.5 really performed best. The variable valve timing and the 5-speed just put it all together for Volvo, and the torque was down low right where you needed it for take off in traffic real world driving situations. The 4-speed was not one of their better ideas.

The 3.2 has a six speed transmission so the acceleration seems just fine, but I have not been able to do any sort of real testing so far because my wife has had the car every single day so far, but hey the week-end is coming up so there is some hope. During the test drive at the dealership I did put a few miles on the car and it took off just fine, the sound level and vibration is a little different, with the 3.2 having the benefit of a few years of knowledge on how to add better isolation I think, and also the six is inherently better balanced than the 5 in the first place. I liked the 5 so well I got a XC70 with one so I still am driving one today :)

The 2.5 turbo does use its torque with an amazing effectiveness down low, and that makes it such a joy to drive in traffic like you mentioned. I found once you learn the car and don't try to make it do things it was not intended to do, the car likes you and you like the car.

The 2.5 could maintain just about any speed you wanted within reason, all you had to do was stab the gas pedal very lightly with your toe and wait until it gained momentum. I never had any problem in any kind of traffic with that vehicle.

The 2.5 turbo was (is) a unique vehicle, with a motor that seems as small as a econo-box from Japan, but the turbocharging and gearing allowed it to be a great driver (and weigh something like 800 or 900 pounds less than a Cayenne). The lighter weight than the Cayenne allowed the Volvo to perform without the need for some of that power, and it has to be a lot easier on the rubber too.

One interesting thing about our 2.5 XC90 experience...........we never changed the rotors. The dealership tried numereous times to get us to spend a lot of money to change them, but I never did. I kept looking and checking the pads, changing them when I needed to, but I never changed those rotors. I am now wondering if there are some agressive pads that really eat up rotors, some of the ceramic stuff might grab well but it may also be like sandpaper on those rotors. in any case we look back on our 2.5 now with nothing but good feelings, and I really felt sad when we went over and patted it to say goodbye. What a great car.

regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
One other thing about the XC90........last summer I lost my entire boating season due to the fact that I bit off more than I could handle on any kind of a schedule doing a rather large remodeling project myself, which included two new bathrooms starting after complete demolition down to the subfloor and then rebuilding everythign from floor to the new spruce ceiling. Virtually everything for that remodeling except the washer, dryer, and the two large granite topped vanitys, was transported by XC90. You may have noticed the roof cross bars in the previous photos.....well I would buy two 2x4's every time I went in for drywall, the 2x4's go on first front to back, then the drywall goes on top two sheets at a time of course with help from the Lowes or Home Depot. I hauled 8 sheets at a time and when I got home (actually to the cottage) I would peel the tape on the drywall and slide off one sheet at a time. I think it took something like 40 sheets total. In additiion, virtually all the crown and base molding, and all the doors, along with all of the T&G spruce ceiling was hauled by XC90 (and with ease). We would load up the car.........arrive after dark.........unload quietly and get all the stuff inside, and the neighbors didn't even know we were remodeling, ha ha. I wish I had taken some photos of the drywall hauling and the spruce lumber hauling, for the spruce we put down the front seat and stacked up a rack of lumber that hung out over the tailgate, with hatch held down with bungie cords. All you have to do is just drive slow and take your time......amazing utility. Plywood was also hauled in similar manner to the drywall, up on the top. I used 4 snug straps to be sure everything was really snugged down tight, and then I closed the loose ends of the straps into the door and shut it. The guys at Lowes really were wondering about me first time, but after that they knew the drill.

regards,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,959 Posts
It comes down to our personal experiences - if I want "peppy" I have a 400hp Subaru that weighs more than 1000lb less in the garage. By comparison, my V8 XC90 is "slow" :p
True, It's all relative, but seeing as how I accelerate faster than 98% of the people on the road, and my 2.5T is good for me, I wonder which audience these expert reviewers are talking to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,959 Posts
Well thanks for the kind words to begin with. When we drove the 2.5 turbo and the twin-turbo 4-speed alternative in 2004, the 5-speed transmission with the 2.5 really performed best. The variable valve timing and the 5-speed just put it all together for Volvo, and the torque was down low right where you needed it for take off in traffic real world driving situations. The 4-speed was not one of their better ideas.

The 3.2 has a six speed transmission so the acceleration seems just fine, but I have not been able to do any sort of real testing so far because my wife has had the car every single day so far, but hey the week-end is coming up so there is some hope. During the test drive at the dealership I did put a few miles on the car and it took off just fine, the sound level and vibration is a little different, with the 3.2 having the benefit of a few years of knowledge on how to add better isolation I think, and also the six is inherently better balanced than the 5 in the first place. I liked the 5 so well I got a XC70 with one so I still am driving one today :)

The 2.5 turbo does use its torque with an amazing effectiveness down low, and that makes it such a joy to drive in traffic like you mentioned. I found once you learn the car and don't try to make it do things it was not intended to do, the car likes you and you like the car.

The 2.5 could maintain just about any speed you wanted within reason, all you had to do was stab the gas pedal very lightly with your toe and wait until it gained momentum. I never had any problem in any kind of traffic with that vehicle.

The 2.5 turbo was (is) a unique vehicle, with a motor that seems as small as a econo-box from Japan, but the turbocharging and gearing allowed it to be a great driver (and weigh something like 800 or 900 pounds less than a Cayenne). The lighter weight than the Cayenne allowed the Volvo to perform without the need for some of that power, and it has to be a lot easier on the rubber too.

One interesting thing about our 2.5 XC90 experience...........we never changed the rotors. The dealership tried numereous times to get us to spend a lot of money to change them, but I never did. I kept looking and checking the pads, changing them when I needed to, but I never changed those rotors. I am now wondering if there are some agressive pads that really eat up rotors, some of the ceramic stuff might grab well but it may also be like sandpaper on those rotors. in any case we look back on our 2.5 now with nothing but good feelings, and I really felt sad when we went over and patted it to say goodbye. What a great car.

regards,

P
Thanks for the reply. I'll be looking forward to how you feel about the 3.2--once you get the chance to drive it more. I guess I'm trying to get myself to accept that one day I won't have my 2.5T. Sigh. Right now my '06 XC90 only has 72,000 miles though. But the 3.2s are starting to get some miles on them, and it seems like they're turning out to be good engines too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,959 Posts
Funny story about the remodel. XC90's are great haulers, especially if you're creative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,959 Posts
Guess I'd rather my engine was made at the Volvo foundry in Skovde, Sweden than the Ford foundry in the UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
The willow green one is a 2008 3.2 AWD, and the older one in champagne is a 2004 2.5 AWD. I have now had 7 or 8 volvos and I always felt good driving them. I admit I got a little tired driving the old 740 16-v, as they say the good thing about a Volvo is they last forever, and the bad thing about a Volvo is they last forever, and the 740 was a torqueless wonder, nice leather, sunroof, and unfortunately some sort of malfunction caused the belt to break and we have no idea why because it was pretty new. It worked out for the better, however.
...and your new one looks just like ours because it is just like ours, a 2008 with 46k for which we paid $23,000 last November. Good to hear that you were so pleased with the 2.5T that you replaced it with a 2008 3.2, that's confidence inspiring for those of us who're newish (see below) Volvo folk. We certainly would not have replaced the MB R-class we traded in for the XC90 with another one of those pigs. For the price we paid for that thing we could have (and should have) bought both our nearly new XC90 and yours and still had about $10k leftover. There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, but it's probably in Tennessee - that says: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... but can't get fooled again!"

I hear you on the old, old Volvos though. My sister finally sold her 240 wagon last summer, and despite my "handle" my first car was actually a hand-me-down 760GLE Turbodiesel that I bought form my father in when I was in college twenty-some odd years ago. It was decent enough, but I sold it in fairly short order and bought a slightly older but more luxurious and more intact MB diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
My first volvo was (a pair of) 1963 544 Sports. I asked the guy how many miles it had and he said he thought about 300,000. At that point I removed the cylinder head, had it milled for double springs, totally polished and ported, installed an IPD cam (you know those cars don't have a belt or a chain, they are gear driven), headers, and a pair of big SU carbs that came off a Jaguar. I had Pirelli CN36 tires just like the turbo Porsches, and with the 411 rear end in that thing was faster than a turbo Porsche up to, well, maybe 10 miles per hour, ha, but no kidding it ate a lot of unsuspecting BMWs and just about anything up to 75 or 80 and then it started to become rpm starved and aerodynamically challenged. Not the most stable platform out there but not bad for a $500 purchase for two of them. I later sold it for $1500 as a down payment on the farm I now own, umpteen years later.

Then I moved on to Triumphs, TVR, Porsche(s), and many more Volvos. I presently still have the TVR and 3 Porsches, but I'm driving the Volvos mostly (now a XC70 personally). Guess I need to sell something. Anyone interested in a mechanically good 1983 928-S 5-speed? :) It was my daily driver until I got the XC70 a month ago.

I'll give you all an update on the XC90 3.2 once I get the chance to do some driving on my own. First impression was very good.

best,

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
...We certainly would not have replaced the MB R-class we traded in for the XC90 with another one of those pigs. For the price we paid for that thing we could have (and should have) bought both our nearly new XC90 and yours and still had about $10k leftover.
I hear you loud and clear and totally agree. In fact, the XC90 is really the car Porsche should have built instead of the Cayenne. They would have sold a lot more of them and made better profits too. The Cayenne weighs 5300 pounds so you wanna real pig....get one of those, ha. The XC90 actually followed the Porsche philosophy in part, designing a lighter weight body, with smaller motor, etc., but it departed from their obsessive focus on speed, which is just fine for me because I've received so many tickets in my life already I really don't need any more......and I can drive a XC90 through a speed zone faster than I ever could drive a Porsche....without getting a ticket.....because you just look more respectable in a XC, ha.

best,

P
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top