I may be off topic here, but turbochargers are not that exotic anymore, especially with modern materials that can handle the hot exhaust gasses.If you’re concerned on complexity, you should be concerned more on cylinder deactivation coming with the non-turbo 2.5L. Personally I prefer not to get the turbo either. But between the turbo and cylinder deactivation, I definitely will choose turbo as turbo has been improved so much on reliability, but not the CD. All the issues we’ve seen in the history of CD from every car manufacture who has been using it should raise the flag to us. And the design theory with deactivated cylinders running passively and compressing the air uselessly which simply just don’t add up the efficiency.
Use the Mazda SkyActive-G 2.5L and 2.5T as the example. 2.5T has been out since 2016 and there’s almost nothing on serious issues and TSBs reported. But from the 2.5L with CD since 2018, we’ve seen at least 3 TSBs or Service Alerts, and one major safety recall for falling rocker arms.
AWD gives us more safety protection during bad road conditions. And I would want the AWD feature on an SUV otherwise it doesn’t feel like a one to me. The complexity is minimum and it’s useful at a necessary time.
But to each their own, and that’s why you love the P-51 and I like the P-38 ⋯
Now in WWII when the P51 and P38 were flying, they used two stage superchargers for the Packard (Rolls Royce Merlin) engined P51 and a complex turbo supercharger on the Allison engined P-38s, way more complex and exotic (well maybe not the two stage superchargers, which were much more reliable than the turbo supercharger equivalent).