Detroit Preview: 2010 Cadillac SRX reborn

[Intrepidation]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/04/detroit...lac-srx-reborn/

Almost exactly a year after revealing the Provoq Concept, Cadillac is debuting the redesigned 2010 SRX wearing essentially the same suit of clothes. At that time, the Provoq was thought to be a preview of a new smaller crossover called the BRX, but Cadillac informed us last summer that the "BRX" was actually the all-new SRX.

We'll be seeing the new SRX in production form at the Detroit Auto Show, and while automakers often throw the term "all-new" around, in this case it really seems to apply. There is almost nothing carried over to this version of the SRX compared to the old one, although many of the greasy bits are shared with other GM vehicles. The biggest difference going from the Provoq concept to the production SRX is the powertrain. The Provoq used a Volt based E-Flex powertrain with a fuel cell range extender. The SRX is a far more conventional though fully modern luxury crossover. Read all about the details after the jump.

[Intrepidation]

I have to say, that it looks much better in live photos, and as usual, GM's photography is crap. I still don't like it being based on a FWD architecture, but at least it looks better now. Also that interior is slick.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Dodgefan

[Z-06]

And they did it. They added the FWD model just as I had feared. .

Good vehicle which will be blemished by this. Do not be surprised when the rags start hitting on the Luxury brand.

[Croc]

That interior is a definite downgrade. GM just does not get it.

[Intrepidation]

That interior is a definite downgrade. GM just does not get it.

Out of curiosity, how is it a downgrade in your eyes?

Based on looks I think it looks more sophisticated than the current SRX interior.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Dodgefan

[bobo]

I hope there's a big price drop.

[ZL-1]

1. Very good looking IRL (check the Autoblog video), and very well differentiated from the SAAB!

2. I don't get it why Croc feels the interior is a downgrade. To me it looks way ahead of the current SRX in terms of design and very close to what the CTS offers.

3. Interesting choice of the 2.8L turbo V6 as the top of the line engine. Too bad that engne wasn't updated with DI yet as it could give a little extra help in the fuel economy department.

4. The only thing I'd do different is the availability of FWD variants. I'd sell this as AWD only and leave FWD variants of TE to the 9-4X, but that's just me...

[Intrepidation]

The only thing I'd do different is the availability of FWD variants. I'd sell this as AWD only and leave FWD variants of TE to the 9-4X, but that's just me...

I agree completely, however I suspect it's offered for the sake of fuel economy.

[ZL-1]

I agree completely, however I suspect it's offered for the sake of fuel economy.

A question I have... Is CAFE calculated using production data, sales data, or is it calculated in a more detached-from-reality way? If it is production data, then having a load of 2WD SRXs in lots helps the fleet average; if it is sales, then I suspect offering a 2WD SRX will have very little effect.

Edited January 4, 2009 by ZL-1

[Croc]

Interior downgrades:

1) Seating

2) Comfort (major drop in width)

3) Storage (loses handy dash cubby)

4) Ambiance (not enough wood)

5) Questionable plastics (live photos make the plastics look cheap. I want to judge it in person, but the outgoing model has a very nice interior, though the design could be more cohesive. Materials are very nice.)

Basically, new models should offer more than outgoing models. The only "upgrade" I see to this interior is the dash design--not necessarily dash materials or "things" available on the dash.

Maybe I'd be more inclined to like it if it were called something other than SRX, but this would be akin to Cadillac bringing out a really nice Delta compact and calling it DTS. It just doesn't work.

[PurdueGuy]

Interior downgrades:

1) Seating

You can judge this from a picture?

2) Comfort (major drop in width)

Not sure you can really judge that without sitting in it either

3) Storage (loses handy dash cubby)

Probably is some lost storage, gotta give you that one.

4) Ambiance (not enough wood)

That's a preference issue - was the previous one using real wood anyway?

5) Questionable plastics (live photos make the plastics look cheap. I want to judge it in person, but the outgoing model has a very nice interior, though the design could be more cohesive. Materials are very nice.)

Another item where judgement should probably be held until seeing/feeling it in person.

Edited January 4, 2009 by PurdueGuy

[CSpec]

Huge wheel-body gap.

[Intrepidation]

I love how people can judge plastics from a picture, a low quality, poorly lit picture at that. It cracks me up.

[2chevs]

According to the article, this new SRX is aimed towards the MDX as well as the RX, but going by size, wouldn't the new SRX be up against the RDX, EX, X3, Q5, GLK, LR3, and MKX?

[turbo200]

aesthetically, the new interior uses a more pleasing mix of materials and has more design flair, yes it is better looking. it should be. i think the first gen interior pictured above looks richer because of more abundant wood and the screen's presence, which is there on the newer one but it's a pop up so there appears to be a pretty vast expanse of plastic there. the outgoing SRX has great materials quality, but I don't think this one will have a problem at least equaling it there as well. discerning the quality of the plastics is plausible because the center stack, steering wheel, and controls surround gearshift are all CTS parts bins. the center stack that has a brittle plasticy feel inside the current CTS' center stack is present here minus the painted-alluminum color in that car. the design of the interior is not lackluster at all, but it's not certifiably top-tier luxury either....Subaru has a flashier and more dynamic interior design in the tribeca.

[turbo200]

with all that i've said, I still think a $40k plus price tag sounds reasonable, so long as it's as technologically packed as the opening lines of that press release want to lead me to believe. i hate that this is taking a complete dive into a different market and going after a completely different demographic, i hate how blatant it's being about it, and how much it's trying so hard to appease that crowd [women] in terms of design. but, cadillac figured it could not compete in the sport segment of the SUV after one failed try. kudos GM marketers, you try once and don't try again! on the bright side, it does have a better interior look than the RX, and should have an easy time selling just on the idea that its a crossover with a cute Cadillac look. so disgusting that last line is it makes me wanna puke.

on a side note, after all the comments about the video, I checked that out, it does look good in motion. BUT, I submit caution to onlookers, the video seems edited to focus on good attributes of the design, whereas straight on side profile and direct front view is one we get sitting in traffic a lot of the time. I'm not crazy about this car, but it will bring in some bacon.

[cire]

My person preference would have been that the vehicle continue to use the RWD Sigma platform to help keep Cadillac somewhat exclusive (although the target demographic for this vehicle could probably care less that the vehicle sits on a FWD platform), but I do think the vehicle looks good and probably won't hurt Cadillac's image at all. The use of a FWD platform is probably only really disappointing to enthusiasts.

[Croc]

Interior downgrades:

1) Seating

You can judge this from a picture?

2) Comfort (major drop in width)

Not sure you can really judge that without sitting in it either

3) Storage (loses handy dash cubby)

Probably is some lost storage, gotta give you that one.

4) Ambiance (not enough wood)

That's a preference issue - was the previous one using real wood anyway?

5) Questionable plastics (live photos make the plastics look cheap. I want to judge it in person, but the outgoing model has a very nice interior, though the design could be more cohesive. Materials are very nice.)

Another item where judgement should probably be held until seeing/feeling it in person.

1) I don't need a picture to judge a downgrade in seating. 5<7. Simple math.

2) I don't need a picture to judge a downgrade in comfort. A markedly narrower vehicle will have a deficit in hip & shoulder room. Simple physics.

4) I believe it did, but even wood trim would suffice for me here. The dash is too monochromatic for a Cadillac. Just a small strip of wood along that plane dividing the dash upper and lower on the passenger's side would do wonders for this interior.

5) I said I'd like to judge it in person, but the live photos posted make the plastics look cheap to me. Given the Equinox underpinnings, instead of CTS foundations, I'm fretting over GM half-assing a Cadillac. Prove me wrong, GM; I dare you.

[regfootball]

lambda escalade will be caddy's 7 seater.

[Drew Dowdell]

lambda escalade will be caddy's 7 seater.

Mmmmmm turbo DI 3.6

[Croc]

lambda escalade will be caddy's 7 seater.

GMT-900 Escalade is Caddy's 8-seater.

[Intrepidation]

2) I don't need a picture to judge a downgrade in comfort. A markedly narrower vehicle will have a deficit in hip & shoulder room. Simple physics.

4) I believe it did, but even wood trim would suffice for me here. The dash is too monochromatic for a Cadillac. Just a small strip of wood along that plane dividing the dash upper and lower on the passenger's side would do wonders for this interior.

I'm not sure I understand how the new one is "markedly" more narrow. Most of the decreases are around an inch, with the exception being rear legroom. So aside from leg room out back, I don't think an inch is going to make a world of difference.

2008 Front Head Room: 40.3 in.

2010 Front Head Room: 39.7 in.

2008 Front Hip Room: 56.3 in.

2010 Front Hip Room: 55.4 in.

2008 Front Shoulder Room: 58.7 in.

2010 Front Shoulder Room: 58.3 in.

2008 Rear Head Room: 38.4 in.

2010 Rear Head Room: 38.4 in.

2008 Rear Shoulder Room: 57.6 in.

2010 Rear Shoulder Room: 56.2 in.

2008 Rear Hip Room: 56.3 in.

2010 Rear Hip Room: 54.7 in.

2008 Front Leg Room: 42.1 in.

2010 Front Leg Room: 41.2 in.

2008 Rear Leg Room: 41 in.

2010 Rear Leg Room: 36.3 in.

Also, the wood thing is a matter of taste. I like the restrained use of wood.

[Croc]

I'm glad you posted those measurements, as the Rear Shoulder Room and Rear Hip Room decreased by 1.4 and 1.6 inches, respectively. That's a marked decrease.

[Intrepidation]

I'm glad you posted those measurements, as the Rear Shoulder Room and Rear Hip Room decreased by 1.4 and 1.6 inches, respectively. That's a marked decrease.

Perhaps, but that's a problem if you're stuck in back. If you own and drive the car not so much.

Besides, the dimensions are in the ballpark of competitors still, like the RX. This is the current one since I can't find specs on the new model.

Front Head Room: 39.3 in.

Front Hip Room: 55.6 in.

Front Shoulder Room: 57.9 in.

Rear Head Room: 38.6 in.

Rear Shoulder Room: 57.1 in.

Rear Hip Room: 55.1 in.

Front Leg Room: 42.5 in.

Rear Leg Room: 36.4 in.