Is it true XC90 was rushed out the door and mechanically not as sound as other Volvos?

[GreenMagicMan]

I read ('somewhere' admittedly not best cited reference)
in likely MotorTrend or Car and Driver or AutoBlog or some sort of authority on cars that the Volvo XC90 model specifically was very rushed into production to fill and profit from the hugely expanding larger SUV American market.

This same article supposed that this may have compromised the mechanical design to some degree and cost it some reliability.

Anyone heard / read / think this?
I've also read specifically in Consumer Reports the reliability ratings on the XC90 which they are always several models years behind on collating reader feedback etc... That the XC90 doesn't represent well for mechanic reliability
It got black marks (much worse than average problems and repair history as rated by reader feedback) for:
-Transmission, Major
-Drive System
-Supsension
-Brakes
High score went to 'Exhaust'.
And Consumer Reports overall verdict for XC90 6 cyl was 'Black' for 2002 and 2003 model years and half black for 2004 model year.
2006 and 2007 was neutral overall recommendation.
For some reason there is no model data for the V8 version.

The XC70 rates neutral to good to very good for all categories in comparison except '02-'03 models for 'Suspension'.

S60 rates pretty well overall too. So does the C70 except Body integrity and Power Equip catergories.

S40 / V40 / V50 (non turbo) was a mixed bag of ratings but most of the big categories were good to very good (Trans Minor and Major, Engine minor and major, engine cooling and drive system).

[oragex]

I haven't read that article, but perhaps they were referring at the 4 speed GM automatic transmission that was put on the twin turbo T6 engine. A bad choice indeed as Volvo couldn't get a small enough transmission that would take the torque from the powerful T6. The 2.5T engine was fine, only early production 3.2 and V8 had some costly issues - R.E.A.D. for the 3.2 and balance shaft bearing for the V8 . My take with these Auto blog sites is these are for the better world... mostly business sites. They don't really gather correct and complete information, it's more about publishing on Internet or TV car shows, to make money. It's a business more than anything, same with the Review and Rating sites such as Edmunds and company.

Speaking about overall quality, the XC90 was (and still is) a complex machine that certainly needs more attention than the smaller S60. In other words, is more expensive to own. But all in all it has been a great car very well designed and I think with much less problems than their German equivalents - but still being an European cars it has its flaws.

[MoVolvos]

I haven't read that article, but perhaps they were referring at the 4 speed GM automatic transmission that was put on the twin turbo T6

According to June those were pretty good and so far it has been great after installing the Transgo Shift Kit over a year ago. Perhaps the lower mileage of 130K helps also. The weight of the XC90 could be a factor with the 4 speed but it's been good so far in the 03 S80 T6.

Kind of going back and forth on the T6 vs V8 on the XC due to problems you've mentioned with each. I've read more on the Read and Balance Shaft problems than the GM trans on the XC. Already have a T6 so want to experience the V8 and will probably purchase an XC90 with a V8.

*

[GreenMagicMan]

I'll say the V8 we have here has plenty of power - very capable power for sure.
I've been wondering and steering suggestions over here for this family to consider the XC70 wagons seriously.

[oragex]

That is right about the 4 speed GM in the S80, very few complains. Perhaps the weight on the XC90 is what was going over the transmission specs. I've read Volvo really needed a top of the line powerful engine when the XC90 was launched, because the 2.5T (and the D5 in other markets) were pretty weak for such big SUV, and by then I guess the V8 Yamaha wasn't ready yet. So they got the T6 from the S80 but the GM transmission was not spec'ed for the XC90 weight. I'm pretty sure Volvo engineers knew in advance what the outcome will be. As for the XC70 I'm under the impression it was a very loved wagon. It's not much different than the S60, besides the AWD and more ground clearance along with the 'all terrain' body plastic trims. Sitting higher also means easier entry. Interior wise, the black leather seats were very plushy, some came with those great rear child seat boosters, and the V70 and XC70 also had more rear leg room than the S60. Weak points would be the AWD failures and the occasional breaking springs (I would actually replace all springs for peace of mind)

[June]

That is right about the 4 speed GM in the S80, very few complains. Perhaps the weight on the XC90 is what was going over the transmission specs. I've read Volvo really needed a top of the line powerful engine when the XC90 was launched, because the 2.5T (and the D5 in other markets) were pretty weak for such big SUV, and by then I guess the V8 Yamaha wasn't ready yet. So they got the T6 from the S80 but the GM transmission was not spec'ed for the XC90 weight. I'm pretty sure Volvo engineers knew in advance what the outcome will be. As for the XC70 I'm under the impression it was a very loved wagon. It's not much different than the S60, besides the AWD and more ground clearance along with the 'all terrain' body plastic trims. Sitting higher also means easier entry. Interior wise, the black leather seats were very plushy, some came with those great rear child seat boosters, and the V70 and XC70 also had more rear leg room than the S60. Weak points would be the AWD failures and the occasional breaking springs (I would actually replace all springs for peace of mind)

I think you are right about the extra weight. I also think the added stress of AWD and possibly extra wind resistance (at higher speeds) plus the extra weight of the XC kills these transmissions early.

Also GM Buick had a 3 year 36K mileage fluid and filter change interval on the original design named the thm-440T4 which carried into the 90's even after changing the name of the unit. So really the fluid should have been given a change interval in the maintenance schedule. Also GM made a 4T80 for the Cadillac V8. For the extra stress Volvo should have gone with the 4T80 in my opinion and required fluid changes.

One other problem is the adaptive shift software even on the S80. If you drive like granny it will shift soft and early which has to be hard on the clutch packs. I wot my S80 T6 regularly which keeps the computer controlled aspect into a sportier shift pattern. I think that has helped my transmission last. June

[jimmy57]

The adaptive shift programs don't care how you drive. The program looks at how long it is from solenoid operated until the speed sensors data shows completed shift. When it is too long the solenoid operating current is increased for more oil flow and thus pressure. Then the look up table for solenoid control is adjusted the whole table. Some early adaptive control of fuel systems did block adjustments and that left some operating loads and speeds with no adjustment and ripe for irregular performance so that method was abandoned. The MAF sensor provides a signal that the ECM uses to compute a load factor that is a biggy for use by TCM to determine shift control. A MAF low in the acceptable OK range can have big effects on trans shifts and lifespan. That signal is not affected much, if at all, by the ECM correctiions for a low MAF input. I have changed a few MAF sensors that changed the transmission behavior noticeably. On those I did some research and the load signal to TCM was much lower with old part than with new one. The signal at idle (only consistent engine load I could use without using a chassis dyno and repeatable controls) was much higher with new part vs old part. Same issue if the hose between MAF and throttle or turbo inlet on turbo models gets hole or other leak that reduces air through MAF and thus reduces signal. The thrust surface in RH end of trans case where a planetary does side loading was a common failure in XC90 GM 4T65 gearboxes and that is an issue of maybe too much mass for the gearbox to pull and not related to TCM control of transmission.

Most of the items mentioned on that list are not related to the listed cause. Wheel bearings and short brake life could be blamed on the platform shared parts not being up to the task. Something that affects earlier generations of almost all of the car platform share SUV/CUV lines.

[abscate]

It’s important to remember that the difference between US EU and Asian makes has severely compressed inthe last two decades. The difference between ratings of reliability can be a few percentage points now.

Ok, British cars still suck.

It’s funny when people post that Volvo transmissions suck and Toyota’s are great.

[pgill]

Ok, British cars still suck.

It’s funny when people post that Volvo transmissions suck and Toyota’s are great.

I resemble that remark!!!!

I bought my LR2 in 2008 because it was based on the Volvo Powertrain and Volvo Chassis (crash safety)

As for your comment about the AISIN transmissions being used in Toyotas Volvos, VWs etc., I completely agree.

But I counter that argument with the fact that the Volvo Engine Si6 (3.0T and 3.2) was built at the FORD factory in the UK.


And comparing my S80 3.2 to my LR2 3.2 they have had almost exactly the same problems.

And I really like them both.

[pgill]

Volvo SI6 engine designed by the Volvo Cars subsidiary. Production began in May 2006, used in Volvo and Land Rover products.[11][12] Volvo badged production moved to Sweden and China in March 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Brid ... gine_Plant