SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is Volvo more reliable than Land rover/Range rover, or equal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
I'm pretty sure anything besides a Jeep is more reliable than LandRover.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,665 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
yup, there was a blog a while back where a guy fell into some money and had always wanted a range rover and decided to test CarMax's biggest warranty. I don't recall fully but I believe the warranty paid almost 20k in repairs the first year he owned it.

Edit: Here is the follow up editorial... you can dig from there.
http://jalopnik.com/you-cant-get-a-cheap-carmax-range-rover-warranty-anymor-1655587419
He didn't fall into some money, he buys cars and writes about them for a living. Look at my post, 2 above yours(You did go further back than I was willing to dig). He quit his job at Porsche NA to write about cars. He is definitely one of my favorite writers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
So Volvo is more reliable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
So Volvo is more reliable?
Land Rover is basically always unreliable. And expensive to maintain.

Volvo, it depends. You have to be selective about your models, but you have better chances than with a Land Rover. There are also tradeoffs - turbo models with all the luxury options are more fun to drive and more luxurious, but there is also a lot more that can go wrong, and they cost more in gas and insurance. Manual transmissions are almost always less problematic than autos, especially on the front wheel drive cars (850 and later cars).

My picks for best reliability from a reasonably modern, but not new, Volvo:

* 1990-93 Volvo 240 - prefer manual trans, but auto is very good. prefer 1990 and later ideally. 1988-89 Volvo 240 a good second choice.
* 1993-95 Volvo 940 - no manual trans available. prefer base non-turbo model, but the turbo models are fine. 1988-92 Volvo 740 a good second choice.
* 1995-97 Volvo 850 - prefer manual trans + non-turbo, turbo + auto is OK.
* 1998-00 Volvo S70/V70 - prefer 1998 (basically same as an 850) - same notes as 850 above. 1999-00 are OK as a second choice.
* 2001-04 Volvo S60/V70 - manual transmission only, non-turbo, non-R preferred.
* 2005-07 Volvo S60/V70 - auto is OK, no manual trans available on non-R models. non-turbo, non-R preferred.
* 2003-06 Volvo XC90 - only if powered by the 2.5T 5 cyl
* 2007-?? Volvo XC90 - only if powered by the V8
* 1998-06 Volvo S80 only if powered by the 5 cyl or V8, but it wouldn't be highest on my list

My picks for least reliability from a reasonably modern, but not new, Volvo:

* 1970s/1980s - Anything with the B27F or B28F V6 engine (260, 760), or the six-cylinder VW Diesel engine.
* 1980-87 Volvo's - all of them - had the rotting wiring issues, would avoid unless you have no other options (e.g. must have a 2
* 1985-89 Volvo's - all the 4cyl models had skinny connecting rods in the engine blocks.
* 1987-91 Volvo 760 or V6-powered 780 - B280F V6 isn't much better than precursors. Prefer the 4-cyl models.
* 1992-94 Volvo 960 - early year issues with the inline-6 motor. Later years are better. The final S90/V90 cars are pretty solid.
* 1993-94 Volvo 850 - early year issues, etc. Not terrible cars, but the later ones are better
* 1998-00 Volvo's with all-wheel-drive (XC70 and V70R). This early AWD system works great... when it works. Requires knowledge and good maintenance.
* 2001-04 Volvo S60/V70 with automatic transmission. Just easier to avoid that mess.
* 2001 Volvo S60/V70 models in general - just more early year issues.
* 2004-07 S60R / V70R - yeah I said it. Just so much more to go wrong.

Still, even the worst Volvo on that list is going to be better in reliability than a lot of cars from other makes, and for any of those low-reliability models, there's some that have lasted 300,000+ miles. And I'd rather own almost any of those than a Land Rover.

I left off S40/V50 since I don't know much about those models and have never really researched them. But if it's a 5 cylinder with a manual transmission it's probably a good choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Land Rover is basically always unreliable. And expensive to maintain.
* 2007-?? Volvo XC90 - only if powered by the V8
Huh? What's the issue with the 3.2?

As for the OP's question - Having owned both a Series 1 Land Rover Discovery and an '07 XC90, my vote is the XC90. Having said that, the Discovery ran close to 200k with no major issues to speak of when I got rid of it. The body is aluminum, so it doesn't rust, the V8 is an old Buick design that goes back to the 1940s and is bulletproof, and at least on the Series 1, the electronics were relatively simple (the weak point on LRs, along with the air suspensions on later models).

-- DavidV :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
My 3.2 has 199,000 miles still perfect no problems!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
the only land rover I would own is the Series I version..aaaaand that is it. Look at how quick the newer range rovers/land rovers depreciate..its unreal. I have seen 2007 Range rovers for $6k
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top