Today

Meet the Long Range XC90 that'll do 1,000 miles

Volvo's long-serving SUV soldiers on - and on and on

---

There can’t be many ‘normal’ cars around that have now been on sale longer than Volvo XC90, the first example of the second generation being delivered way back in 2014. But as we discovered recently, it still has a lot to offer as a family hauler, and the latest update is absolutely in keeping with contemporary trends.

Now there’s something called a T8 Long Range plug-in hybrid, which sorta does what it says on the tin: where the old PHEV had less than 50 miles of EV range, this new one has a claimed 101. As new private buyers continue to be unsure about full-on electrification, it’s easy to see why a trusty old Volvo with a significant battery boost might appeal: claimed overall range is now provisionally up to 1,096 miles…

There’s now a 41.2kWh (37.9kWh usable) ‘floor-integrated’ battery pack; allied to the trusty 2.0-litre petrol, there’s 461hp on offer, for 0-62mph in 5.2 seconds. Charging takes four hours, so it’s one for home rather than the local DC rapid. All probably less important numbers than the hearty range claim (and 8g/km), but useful nonetheless. And there’s more than just the battery in this facelift: Google Gemini is now part of the XC90 package (told you it was all up to date now), allowing drivers ‘to interact with the car using natural language’ and which will update over time. Hopefully it still understands what a petrol station is.

The Long Range PHEV sits in the new XC90 lineup alongside the 250hp mild-hybrid B5. That kicks off at £66,270 for a Core, with the plug-in range starting at £75,765 and Plus, Plus Pro, Ultra and Ultra Pro specs offered. There’s a Black Edition at the top, costing £83,765 for the T8. Right in among the all-electric EX90 range, then, only now you wouldn’t bet against the XC proving more popular…

---

• Extra time after the ‘90 | PH Footnote
• 2025 Volvo EX90 | UK Review

[Familymad]

Most bladders can last 250 miles max. Odd range target really?

[_Rodders_]

The fuel tank must be huge, 100 litres?

The last time I looked the XC90 topped the list of most unreliable cars. While not the be all and end all the cost of Volvo parts would make me think twice out of warranty.

[SDK]

Perfect for Lee and his non-stop trips to Italy, although the limited top speed (112mph) might be an issue

[cerb4.5lee]

SDK said:

Perfect for Lee and his non-stop trips to Italy, although the limited top speed (112mph) might be an issue

[cerb4.5lee]

I had a 2019 model of these(the 2.0 petrol only version) once as a loan car, and there were things I liked(and disliked about it). I liked the way it looked, and I liked the space inside and the general interior ambience, but I wasn't fond of the fact that it only had a 4 cylinder 2.0 engine for something of its size and weight though.

Plus as SDK says...the 112mph top speed was always going to upset/annoy me as well!

[POIDH]

SDK said:

Perfect for Lee and his non-stop trips to Italy, although the limited top speed (112mph) might be an issue

Ah, there's also an issue of a detailed discussion of what cams are used in the engine using parts codes and model numbers, while comparing to a Porsche or classic car of some kind...

[mooseracer]

Familymad said:

Most bladders can last 250 miles max. Odd range target really?

Huh

[TGCOTF-dewey]

I don't get the only 112mph criticisms. A WRC car is geared to ~112mph - 125mph depending on the stage. They're hardly slow and boring.

[fflump]

I d happily keep the electric only range but sacrifice a bit of total range for a V6. Maybe it s illogical given the immediate torque of electric assistance and I guess only driving one would truly prove it one way or another.

I guess when cruising a 4pot is perfectly fine and if the system keeps a level of battery power then the full power is always available for the odd overtake or slip road charge.

Edited by fflump on Wednesday 11th November 08:16

[Uncle boshy]

Needs at least 1100 miles

[5lab]

I'm fairly sure someone at PH has done their maths wrong. The xc90 has a 71l (15.6 gallon) tank. It'll do 101 miles on electricity alone, meaning 995 miles on the 15.6 gallon or 64mpg from a turbo petrol 4 with a little bit of hybrid assistance - it doesn't seem likely - the pre-facelift version did approx 1/3 of that https://www.greencarguide.co.uk/car-reviews-and-ro...

it might be the overall (battery included) headline fuel consumption is 64mpge, but that's not measured over a tank - its assuming it'll be plugged in a bunch of times per tank, as per a typical commuter might do overnight

Edited by 5lab on Wednesday 11th November 08:21

[Phateuk]

SDK said:

Perfect for Lee and his non-stop trips to Italy, although the limited top speed (112mph) might be an issue

came here to post similar but beaten to it

[Harry_523]

I had a petrol one of these for a 18 months and whilst it was decently practical, it was aweful to drive. Loud, crashy, rattly, slow.

Swapped it for an EX90 Twin Performance which is bloody brilliant in every way the XC90 is rubbish.

[Bluehorseshoe]

So it jas a big petrol tank.....great

[seabod91]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

I don't get the only 112mph criticisms. A WRC car is geared to ~112mph - 125mph depending on the stage. They're hardly slow and boring.

Are you seriously comparing a plug in hybrid long range tank that weighs the same as a small house to a stripped out, loud, antilagged rocket that does 0-60 in sub 3 seconds on gravel.

[Murph7355]

We bought a T8 2yrs ago to replace a D5 mkII (which replaced a D5 mkI).

They're great family wagons. Comfortable places to be on long trips.

But their main use case is really towing these days. For everything else, the EX90 is the better car.

Ref an earlier poster, I could be asking for trouble but none of our XC90s have caused us material issues. The first two saw the best part of 120k miles in our care and the latest one will do the same. We'll likely only need one more similar type of car after this one. I'll be pushing harder when that time comes for an EX90 or EV9 (both of which were only just coming to market when we bought the current car).

If you need 7 seats and/or space (especially with a new family), these cannot be beat IMO. Of every car I've owned, these have fit their purpose the best.

[user123987]

Why isn't this a diesel?

[leglessAlex]

5lab said:

I'm fairly sure someone at PH has done their maths wrong. The xc90 has a 71l (15.6 gallon) tank. It'll do 101 miles on electricity alone, meaning 995 miles on the 15.6 gallon or 64mpg from a turbo petrol 4 with a little bit of hybrid assistance - it doesn't seem likely - the pre-facelift version did approx 1/3 of that https://www.greencarguide.co.uk/car-reviews-and-ro...

it might be the overall (battery included) headline fuel consumption is 64mpge, but that's not measured over a tank - its assuming it'll be plugged in a bunch of times per tank, as per a typical commuter might do overnight

It's Volvo making the claims rather than PH.

I'd say that it's really poor from PH to not do a basic fact check on the claim and try to dig into how they got it.

The spec sheet on Volvo's website for this car is actually slightly smaller, a 68l tank. Assuming ~35mpg on engine power on the motorway (feels generous for this size of car and the fact it's petrol) and you manage to eek 150 miles out of the battery in low speed town driving, that still only gives a maximum range of about 700 miles, or some 400 short of what's claimed.

And that's being optimistic. Come on PH, let's not let manufacturers get away with claiming complete rubbish.

[NGK210]

Genuinely curious…

Unless it’s a Yank-type leviathan with acres of space aft of the 3rd row, I don’t get these 3-row 7-seat SUVs.

OK, so the 3rd row is an extra cost in some shape or form and, in turn, extra profit for the ever-rapacious OEMs. That I get. But…

Parents buy SUVs, Volvos in particular, because they’re robust and safe family cars, right?
Fine, makes perfect sense.

But then they allow the rearmost occupants to sit in what is actually the car’s rear crumple zone.

Never mind NSL and motorway speeds, an urban 20mph rear impact would ensure third-row kiddy purée.

How do parents reconcile that type of risk-reward ‘benefit’?

[nismo48]

SDK said:

Perfect for Lee and his non-stop trips to Italy, although the limited top speed (112mph) might be an issue

Excellent