Just came across this article... check out the 0-60 times, AMAZING!!! And look at who got honorable mention....

http://wot.motortrend.com/6376570/mi...ted/index.html

It's one thing to turn a two-seat sports car into a 13-second quarter miler, but quite another to pull off the same feat with a two-ton-plus aerodynamic brick of an SUV. That doesn't mean it hasn't been done, of course. The horsepower-crazed engineers at Mercedes' AMG tuning house are especially adept at it. So when you're living life a quarter mile at a time getting the kids to the soccer game or making it to Home Depot, there are some options out there, most with fire-breathing V-8s. Yeah, we know, big, hulking, gas guzzling utes aren't in vogue, but we just couldn't resist writing up this list. Behold, the top ten fastest SUVs we've ever tested at Motor Trend:

2007 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG. 0-60: 4.5 sec. 1/4 mile: 13.0 sec @ 108.1 mph. The AMG-tuned version of Benz's second-smallest SUV runs in a dead heat with the Cadillac XLR-V and Pontiac G8 GXP and comes out ahead of the twin-turbocharged BMW 135i and HEMI-equipped Dodge Challenger SRT8, among others. The facelifted 2009 model will likely be just as fast -- if not more so. Keep bringing The Hammer, AMG.

2005 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG. 0-60: 4.7 sec. 1/4 mile: 13.2 sec @ 103.2 mph. The laws of physics don't really apply to the G55 due to its supercharged 5.4L V-8. In 2005, the powerplant was good for 469 hp and 516 lb-ft of torque and in 2007, AMG threw in an extra 24 ponies to bring it up to 493 hp. Disclaimer: The G55 is not the best choice for chasing highly trained assassins driving beaten up Volga cabs around the streets of Moscow. That Jason Bourne sure can drive.

2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8. 0-60: 4.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 13.5 sec @ 101.6 mph. Whoever said Jeeps were slow never got behind the wheel of this Street Racing and Technology Frankenstein. The Grand Cherokee STR8 is only a half-second slower in the quarter than a 2003 Mustang SVT Cobra and only a tenth behind the Audi S8 and Jaguar XF Supercharged.

2005 Porsche Cayenne Turbo. 0-60: 5.1 sec. 1/4 mile: 13.6 sec @ 101.8 mph. The second-fastest version of the world's most practical Porsche may only be three-tenths of a second slower than a Cayman S in the quarter mile, but for the price of one Cayenne Turbo you can get a matching his and hers Boxsters with enough change left over for a Carribean vacation. Decisions, decisions.

2009 Infiniti FX50 S. 0-60: 5.2 sec. 1/4 mile: 13.7 sec @ 102.1 mph. BMW-chasing Infiniti is the only representative from the Land of the Rising Sun to crack the top five, first with the 390-hp FX50 S, which bests both variants of the Mitusbishi Lancer Evolution X and the Ford Shelby GT Convertible by one-tenth.

2007 Chevrolet TrailBlazer SS. 0-60: 5.6 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.1 sec @ 97.5 mph. GM went with its tried-and-true "when in doubt, put a small block in it" philosophy and shoved the LS2 under the hood of the not-long-for-this-world TrailBlazer. The result: it beats the much smaller Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart by two-tenths.

2008 Infiniti EX35 RWD. 0-60: 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.3 sec @ 96.9 mph. Some say the EX barely qualifies as an SUV. Those people are probably driving 2006 Volkswagen R32s, losing to the EX by a tenth. The EX slows down substantially when equipped with the optional AWD system, to the point that it would drop off this list, clocking in at 6.5 seconds for the 0 to 60 mph run along with a 14.9 second quarter mile at a trap speed of 94.5 mph.

2005 BMW X5 4.8is. 0-60: 5.9 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.3 sec @ 95.8 mph. The 4.8is was the top of the line model of the previous-generation X5. The redesigned version launched in 2008 is larger and heavier -- and likely to be slightly slower.

2009 BMW X6 xDrive35i. 0-60: 5.9 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.5 sec @ 95.2 mph. The X6 weighs in at just a hair away from 5000 lbs, making it one of the heaviest utes on this list. That BMW's 300-hp 3.0L twin-turbo I-6 is potent enough for a 14-second car with all that heft to contend with makes it that much more impressive. In case you're wondering why the V-8-powered X6 xDrive50 is missing, the answer is simple: we haven't been able to get our hands on one. Given the performance of the smaller X6, the 400 hp version of BMW's "Sports Activity Coupe" would surely end up near the FX50.

2009 Infiniti FX35 AWD/2008 Porsche Cayenne GTS Tiptronic. 0-60: 6.1 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.5 mph @ 96.4 mph (Infiniti)/95.7 mph (Porsche). Japan and Germany share tenth place honors but these two SUVs are separated by 1000 lbs, 102 hp, and $30,000. The slightly cheaper Cayenne GTS manual should also be slightly faster

An honorable mention goes to the 2008 Toyota Sequoia, a three ton behemoth with a 6.2 sec 0 to 60 mph time that runs a 14.7 sec quarter mile at a trap speed of 93.7 with "only" 381 horsepower and 401 lb-ft of torque coming from its 5.7L V-8.

 

So I guess this is also the top ten list of vehicles with the worst fuel economy. SUVs should not go fast.

 

Sequoia snaps off 0-60 in 6.2? WTF?! That's insane!

 

Easy. Look at all of the lightweight, flimsy parts on the new Sequoia (I reviewed one last winter), especially in interior and exterior trim/hardware, and there's your answer, or at least a good part of it............weight reduction.

 

We had an X5 4.8 show up at my track once in Mexico (that's at 7411 feet elevation) and it clocked 15.7 and another time the ML63 AMG which clocked 14.8. By comparison, my fastest was 17.931.

 

1) The new interior is not that bad, and if anything, is a pretty considerable upgrade over the old hardware. I remember you yourself noting that it was better than the Tundra somewhere.

2) Your answer about the interior seems somewhat shortsighted considering the fact that the truck grew significantly in every dimension and is much faster than any of the other full size SUVs with similar power. Yeah, it gained an additional 140HP over the old version, but no other Expedition or Tahoe can come close to these performance numbers.

The thing is FAST regardless of it's interior

 

Your points are noted about the speed and HP/torque increase, and yes, what I said comparing the Sequoia and Tundra, at that time, is true, but though the Sequoia had a few improvements inside, it still had a lot of cost-cutting in trim/hardware quality that kept weight down enough to give the powertrain a little boost, as the 0-60 time shows. Toyota is not alone, either.........a number of auto manufacturers are cutting weight by skimping on trim materials. part of the problem is they are being forced, both by the government and by consumer pressure, to add more and more standard features all the time. The latest, so far, is standard tire-pressure-monitoring systems, and stability systems will be mandated in a couple of years.

 

If by weight reduction you mean increasing the curb weight by 700 lbs versus the previous generation, then yes, weight reduction.

 

Yes, in a relative sense not an absolute sense....thanks for verifying that. What I meant was that if Toyota had used the same quality of interior and hardware materials on the new Sequoia that it did in, say, its superb mid-90's vehicles, the new Sequoia would have wound up significantly heavier than it was, even with the weight increase.

But, don't forget, fuel economy is affected, too. It is not just a matter of speed. Engine and computer-management technology has allowed engines, also, in the meantime, to run with more power and more MPG at the same time.

And one thing we can all agree on, regardless of the cause.....a 6.2 second 0-60 time for a dinosaur like this is not bad.

 

I know it is older, but how could they not put the 1992-1993 GMC Typhoon on the list? It has a 0-60 time in the four second range and a thirteen second quarter mile time, a very fast SUV, powered by a v6 turbo and very rare to see. truly ahead of it's time.

 

o great.. the grandma next to me drives a ML63, I know now that she can smoke me...

 

EX is not a SUV, it cannot tow or go off road.

This is like saying "worlds fastest whales" or "worlds fastest grizzly bears"

Kudos to the Jeep, especially considering the price.

 

Many of them cannot go off road in any real terms.

I start to think that calling many of them SUV's is out of line.

 

That is a good point some of them are FUV? Fast Useless Vehicle?

 

Saying a Sequoia interior is better than a Tundra's is not a giant compliment.