2005 Volvo XC90 T6 AWD or 2003 Toyota Highlander AWD

[Qacer]

Two potential vehicles came up on my radar while shopping for an SUV. I can get a 2005 Volvo XC90 T6 AWD for $6500 or a 2003 Toyota Highlander AWD for $10500.

Aside from the engine failure with 2005 Volvo XC90 V6 models, the T6 AWD appears decent. The Volvo though just had its transmission replace, while the Toyota appears to not have any mechanical problems, yet.

Options for the Volvo:
- 145,000 miles
- Automatic
- Dealer-Serviced Only (with book)
- New transmission installed November 2012
- Excellent condition Nokian WRG2-SUV tires (winter/speed rated)
- New Brakes and Bi-Xenon bulbs in last two years
- Volvo integrated navigation system w/ both US & European DVDs
- 3-Row Seating (7 seats)
- Factory Towing Package
- Climate Package w/ Heated Front Seats and IAQS
- Bi-Xenon Headlights

Options for the Toyota:
- Brand new windshield and headlights
- Great all-weather tires
- Engine V6, 3.0 Liter
- Automatic transmission
- 4WD, ABS (4-Wheel)
- Power windows
- Cruise Control
- Power steering/tilt wheel
- 6 Disc in dash CD / JBL
- Power seats
- Heated seats
- Leather interior
- Auto open/close sunroof
- Towing package
- 108,000 miles

What's your pick?

I've looked at the Kelley Blue Book values for both vehicles, and it appears they are within the expected range (Good / Very good condition).

 

[BudAshes]

I'd say, depending on how long you plan on owning these cars, that the difference in price will easily be offset by the difference in maintenance costs. I'm not saying that volvo engine won't run forever, but nothing else on it will be working.

 

[Qacer]

The impression that I get is that Volvos are made like a tank, so I always had a good image of it. I read some reviews on Edmunds, and it appears that there were reported electrical and functional failures for other 2005 models. I have not owned a Volvo before, so I don't have any experience with the brand.

I have owned at least two Toyota cars, and I've had solid experiences with them. My first Toyota had a sun roof that stopped working. Two years ago, I tried sliding it out via the slide button, and it worked! I guess it had self-healing abilities.

 

[Vdubchaos]

The impression that I get is that Volvos are made like a tank, so I always had a good image of it.

You are stuck in the 70s/80s.....not the case for current day.

I would go with Toyota simply based on lower mileage....

And of course I'm assuming that OP made sure whoever is selling it to him has all the service records/history....

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Volvo is not that bad, good grief. It's all about what sort of care was taken. Being that it's high mileage I would probably show up with $5500 cash, offer $5000, up to 5500 and walk if they turned it down. See if you can get the previous owner to drive you around, get a feeling for their driving style. If it appears to have been beat on - walk.

The toyota is a toyota. It will run forever and is cheap to fix but incredibly boring. Just a boring 'ole yota. If it's your style, great, cough up the $5k and buy it, but it's really not going to be a better vehicle. Isn't the highlander based off of the FWD camry? I would google it but it'd probably put me to sleep.

 

[BudAshes]

Volvo is not that bad, good grief. It's all about what sort of care was taken. Being that it's high mileage I would probably show up with $5500 cash, offer $5000, up to 5500 and walk if they turned it down. See if you can get the previous owner to drive you around, get a feeling for their driving style. If it appears to have been beat on - walk.

The toyota is a toyota. It will run forever and is cheap to fix but incredibly boring. Just a boring 'ole yota. If it's your style, great, cough up the $5k and buy it, but it's really not going to be a better vehicle. Isn't the highlander based off of the FWD camry? I would google it but it'd probably put me to sleep.

I think you can assume if he is choosing between a volvo and a toyota that boring is ok.

 

[Meghan54]

Highlander. But you sure it has the towing package? Just a hitch being present isn't enough, those can be added by anyone anytime.

Toyota's towing package on the Highlander included an increased capacity radiator and alternator, big difference than someone just sticking a receiver hitch on the back, even if it's a Toyota hitch.

Still would take the Highlander if no other reason than the parts are going to end up being cheaper.

 

[NutBucket]

Its a CUV. The only non-boring one might be a Cayenne

 

[phucheneh]

The Volvo is not bad because it's a Volvo. It's bad because it's a T6 XC90. At 140k, there's literally no possible way it just had the transmission done for the first time. It was either done at 100k or earlier, or it just had it's SECOND replacement transmission. They tend to last about 70k.

Electrical on those is actually not that bad. They didn't tend to have as many issues as the early S80's (which they share a platform with). Somewhat ironically, even though the truck is based on the known-lemon S80, most of its issues are unique to XC90's...because it's based on the S80. By that, I mean its problems often stem from it being a behemoth of an SUV on a car chassis. Strut mounts and bearings go bad quickly. Wheel hubs are common. Lower control arm bushings are a maintenance item. Ect. It is not a cheap car to own, and I say that while reflecting upon the fact that I rarely, if EVER, worked on ones with well over 100k miles.

 

[Zenmervolt]

The T6 Volvos had glass transmissions. The inline 6 necessitated a very thin transmission to deal with the transverse engine mounting and those transmissions just did not hold up. Other models that used different transmissions did not have the same problems though.

If I were the OP, and I had to choose between those two vehicles, I'd get the Toyota without even having to think about it.

ZV

 

[exar333]

The T6 Volvos had glass transmissions. The inline 6 necessitated a very thin transmission to deal with the transverse engine mounting and those transmissions just did not hold up. Other models that used different transmissions did not have the same problems though.

If I were the OP, and I had to choose between those two vehicles, I'd get the Toyota without even having to think about it.

ZV

This. There are a HUGE number of folks who were going thru 2-3 transmissions in the first 100k on the T6 XC90s. It only got worse from there out. Great cars, but stay away unless you're hood at tranny swaps.

 

[Qacer]

The toyota is a toyota. It will run forever and is cheap to fix but incredibly boring. Just a boring 'ole yota. If it's your style, great, cough up the $5k and buy it, but it's really not going to be a better vehicle. Isn't the highlander based off of the FWD camry? I would google it but it'd probably put me to sleep.

I really don't mind boring. At this point, I prefer more functional than design. Plus, I'm not much into off-roading, but I do prefer a car that can handle steep hills and winter driving. Lots of hills and snow where I currently live.

I've also driven a Toyota on the German autobahn. It performed well at its max of 120 MPH, give or take. But I have seen Audi, BMW, and Mercedes car zoom past me at much faster rates, but around 120 MPH is at the tip of my comfort zone.

 

[Qacer]

Highlander. But you sure it has the towing package? Just a hitch being present isn't enough, those can be added by anyone anytime.

Toyota's towing package on the Highlander included an increased capacity radiator and alternator, big difference than someone just sticking a receiver hitch on the back, even if it's a Toyota hitch.

Still would take the Highlander if no other reason than the parts are going to end up being cheaper.

This is good to know. I saw the Highlander, and the owner did install a hitch himself. I'll use this as part of the negotiation as I believe he virtually appraised the car with the towing package included.

 

[Qacer]

The T6 Volvos had glass transmissions. The inline 6 necessitated a very thin transmission to deal with the transverse engine mounting and those transmissions just did not hold up. Other models that used different transmissions did not have the same problems though.

If I were the OP, and I had to choose between those two vehicles, I'd get the Toyota without even having to think about it.

ZV

Thanks! I'd rather have a car that I can drive for at least 5 years and not have to pay $$$ to maintain it. I had an opportunity to buy a Mercedes R350, but when I talked to the owner, he said that his relative works for the company and can get me part discounts. The impression that I got was that parts would cost more than other brands.

 

[NutBucket]

Yep. And Volvo parts are just as expensive as BMW/Merc/Audi generally speaking.

 

[Demo24]

Having had two highlanders of that generation in the family, that should be the obvious choice if you want reliability. Neither of them have had any significant issues, and seemed to hold up well all over.

However, 10k seems too much for an 03. I'd bet you could get slightly newer for that and there was a model refresh sometime around 05-06. Which didn't exactly add anything overly special, but was a bit nicer.