Are there still Fast and Affordable SUVs?

zeroto60times.com has some questionable times in there, I don’t think there’s a lot of fact checking on that site.

C&D has the Forester XT (2009 model) getting to 60 in 6.7 seconds

media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-subaru-forester-25xt-limited.pdf

The 2014 is also estimated be about as quick as the 2009 model

caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-subaru-forester-25-20xt-turbo-first-drive-review

I believe Hyundai Tucson turbo fits the bill beyond the Forester XT.

Forester XT use to have much better 0-60 time with 5mt in 2005 but different (short) gearing. I believe 0-60 then was 5.3 seconds if that matters.

That 2.7 will probably stroke along to 200k plus miles on 10k oil changes. A stumbling 250 ci Chevy six ? 75 to 100 k with 2500 mile oil changes

Of all the things that get said about “new tech vs old tech,” I find this the most doubtful.

For exapmle, UPS used the 300c.i. Ford inline 6 (old enough to predate the Beatles) in the parcel trucks up to the turn of the millennium…and planned for a useful life of 300k mi. If you look at applications where durability is at a premium, and engines are supposed to run at 70-80% of rated power for hours at a time (like ski lift motors, irrigation pumps, and aux power units): old-school iron. To the best of my knowledge, they have NEVER run a VVT-ish, Al-block engine in such an application.

Those who know haven’t found a better combination of fuel consumption, longevity, durability and dispatch reliablility than old-school, low revving iron. (I’ll grant the oil change thing.)

Now, I can only guess that the reason lies in changes in fuel and oil, not engine technology itself. After all, how long would a modern VTEC last on a steady diet of 30 ND and ethyl lead?

Just my 2 cents but I think that a lot of engine problems in the old days was due to leaded gasoline; usually in the top end with deposits on valve heads and so on. It’s an oil and lead issue as mentioned rather than design or shoddy materials.

Given the choice of low RPM torque or having to drive around with the foot buried to attain boost from a turbocharger I’ll take the former.

At the drag strip here not many years ago on a Test and Tune night a modded Subaru WRX was thrashed by a Ford Kingcab diesel on 2 separate runs.
It was all over by the 300 foot mark on both runs with the pickup having a 7-8 length lead.

Other than a race track, where does anyone normally drive that requires 5000 RPMs unless they’re whaling on the car.

Meanjoe, the uses you cite operate at constant speeds. They only have brief periods of acceleration, and that acceleration doesn’t need to be quick. Variable valve timing would be no advantage in those cases. Aluminum blocks are valued for light weight, but ski lifts and irrigation pumps have stationary engines. The old iron block will certainly last at least as long and costs less to make. Automobiles benefit from light weight and the ability to operate in different modes as demand changes. Carmakers started using aluminum when the durability was adequate (they may have jumped the gun a bit.) There is no point in making a car engine that’s good for a milluon miles and 50 years when the rest of the car will have long since fallen apart. Right now aiming for 250k miles seems realistic. It’s not that hard to achieve and most other parts can last that long (excluding normal wear items replaced as maintenance).

Oh, I agree with you @MarkM…just questioning the “rebuild every other year” attitude about old tech engines. MY point was, of course they are durable or they wouldn’t be specified for all these applications.

And, “optimized engineering” consists of everything breaking at the exact same time!

"At the drag strip here not many years ago on a Test and Tune night a modded Subaru WRX was thrashed by a Ford Kingcab diesel on 2 separate runs.
It was all over by the 300 foot mark on both runs with the pickup having a 7-8 length lead.

Other than a race track, where does anyone normally drive that requires 5000 RPMs unless they’re whaling on the car."

I wish I could have seen that!

Test drove the Forester Turbo. I did a 0-80 run so I could see how it compared to my Rav4.

It seemed as though the initial acceleration is faster in the Rav4, but at about 55-60 mph the Rav4 acceleration decreases whereas in the Turbo Forester the speedometer kept climbing steadily.

So Forester faster on highways, Rav4 faster on roads.

@db,I spect the “bullydog” was turned all the way up-to smoke and destruction(heard a guy round here was getting around 1000hp from a “duramax” in his pulling truck,how long it will last is anyones guess(aluminum melts around 1200 F or less-pistons and heads beware) there will always be someone going faster and spending more money afyer awhile it gets tautomer, cars really need to be only so fast(maybe as fast as the cars in"Farenheit 451"?-Kevin

That was a great movie

Are there still Fast and Affordable SUVs?

Yep, lots of them. But then again it does depend on the very many differing interpretations of “fast” and “affordable”

fast and affordable suv = unreliable used money pit