Engine Selection

I would suggest you get the 3.2 Liter Engine without the Turbo on it. Simply because the Turbo is just another thing that can go out on the engine and it is not cheap to fix. Also if you want to purchase a warranty it will be more expensive for a car that has Turbo on it and the same goes for any kind of work that needs to be done to the car. you will get charged more if the mechanic has to work on an engine that has turbo on it versus one that does not. All in All its just another thing that can go wrong with the car and the Turbo engines are more delicate because they are tuned different. So keep that in mind when making your decision. And the performance is about the same you wont be able to tell the difference between the two when it comes down to performance and drive.

A Volvo is a good way to go as far as long-lasting. It could go either way. 3.2 would probably cost a little less in maintenance, but you'd get more power out of the 3.0 Turbo. Really depends on your priorities. Repair costs would be about the same, an engine's an engine. Not like you're buying a Lamborghini with a V12. Being a new car, no one could really tell you about reliability. Only from predictions. My cousin has a 1999 Volvo S70 with 193,000 miles on it. It has the 2.3L Turbo 5 cylinder, and it still runs like new.