Offical Photographs of the 2010 Cadillac SRX...

[Intrepidation]

I disagree. There's an element of cheapness in the new SRX's exterior that brings the chintzy BLS to mind. The RX looks more upscale and substantial, IMO. It doesn't reek of the impression that it's based on something cheaper.

If you don't look at the front and if you get one in red apparently. The white or silver one in the background looks cheap and more bloated, as did the white one at the Autoshow I took pictures of. However it does not look more upscale than the SRX.

If photos like this can make this thing look decent I'd like to see the same type of photography on the SRX.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Dodgefan

[ZL-1]

Plus I was told today the vehicle is a knock out in person and to drive also.

It does look much better in real world pictures and on the video at Autoblog, than it does in GM's official photos. Can't wait to see it next time I go to the US!

[gm4life]

The new RX is just ugly. Going on spewing your crap. The lines on the SRX are very good and like Olds said look at it target demographic. This Cadillac will have no problem selling in the 35-45K range. (The current one starts at under 40K!) The new SRX is classic Cadillac with the new corperate front and rear tail-lights, if it isn't a Cadillac what is? Only a '59 Eldorado eh? I see very little new Equinox in it, and if I did I would be mad. The new RX actually looks more like a Highlander and that is not a good thing.

Edited January 8, 2009 by gm4life

[turbo200]

The new RX is just ugly. Going on spewing you crap. The lines on the SRX are very good and like Olds said look at it target demographic. This Cadillac will have no problem selling in the 35-45K range. (The current one starts at under 40K!) The new SRX is classic Cadillac with the new corperate front and rear tail-lights, if it isn't a Cadillac what is? Only a '59 Eldorado eh? I see very little new Equinox in it, and if I did I would be mad. The new RX actually looks more like a Highlander and that is not a good thing.

it's calling something ugly when it's a toyota and something beautiful when it's a GM model that gets you no credibility. don't explain yourself and back up your opinion? no one will listen.

the RX has great surface details, the sheetmetal is bent the same as the LS, and it works phenomonally on that car. the only thing that's different from that car to the RX is that with RX Lexus decided to incorporate facias that'll remind us all that this is from the family of best selling luxury SUVs that has been dominant for a decade. and then there's the rake of the windshield and the C-pillar kick forward and the sloped rear window. the RX continues to balance a good sporty look with plenty of elegance, since the first gen it has been a style that endures. from pictures, SRX does not look as upscale as the RX, but that's not that bad a thing; BMW X3 doesn't look upscale in the same way the RX does, it derives its upscale aura from a sophisticated look.

[Intrepidation]

The RX has a few problems. One of them is lighting. If the light isn't hitting the side of it righ the lower character line (which I like) becomes invisible and makes the RX look very thick and ungainly. I didn't even notice it at the auto show. The red one is the first one to show it off.

The other issues with it are by design. The front end is not good at all. Like the Camry and to a lesser extent the ES, the headlights slope sharply downwards to a point near the grill. Combine that with the sloping grill and it makes the front end look droopy. Then you've got the plastic fascia pulling away from the headlights to make them look recessed but make it look bulgy. The lower fascia looks like it has a tumor with the bulging roundness. This bugling also goes on, as with all new Toyotas as of late, with the lights, and I hate that. It looks horribly cheap and destroys the lines of whatever vehicle they are on.

The rest of it, in red at least, looks ok. However those design elements make it look cheap, and not luxurious or sophisticated.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Dodgefan

[Croc]

Oldsmoboi: The reason the current SRX hasn't sold well is threefold:

1) The original offering had a $h!teous interior

2) The refreshed interior, which is fantastic materials-wise and certainly at or near the top of its class, came with no exterior freshening. No one knew anything changed, and GM hasn't marketed it. The only real marketing it has received are the numerous accolades in the enthusiast press and Edmunds.

3) The SUV market tanked around the time of the refresh release...yet sales improved post-2007.

[gm4life]

it's calling something ugly when it's a toyota and something beautiful when it's a GM model that gets you no credibility. don't explain yourself and back up your opinion? no one will listen.

the RX has great surface details, the sheetmetal is bent the same as the LS, and it works phenomonally on that car. the only thing that's different from that car to the RX is that with RX Lexus decided to incorporate facias that'll remind us all that this is from the family of best selling luxury SUVs that has been dominant for a decade. and then there's the rake of the windshield and the C-pillar kick forward and the sloped rear window. the RX continues to balance a good sporty look with plenty of elegance, since the first gen it has been a style that endures. from pictures, SRX does not look as upscale as the RX, but that's not that bad a thing; BMW X3 doesn't look upscale in the same way the RX does, it derives its upscale aura from a sophisticated look.

I have called GM vehicles ugly too. I do like GM no doubt but the new RX is ugly, and I really did like the first two generations. I also do like the current LS but in no way does the LS styling work on an RX. It is still odd looking, silly interior just like most (NOT ALL) new Toyota products sorry. The new SRX is a far more attractive vehicle than the 2010 RX now pair it against the current 2009 RX and I would call that closer to a draw seriously. I can like a company like GM and still have a subjective view and opinion on a GM car or one from any other brand.

Edited January 8, 2009 by gm4life

[The O.C.]

Oldsmoboi: The reason the current SRX hasn't sold well is threefold:

1) The original offering had a $h!teous interior

2) The refreshed interior, which is fantastic materials-wise and certainly at or near the top of its class, came with no exterior freshening. No one knew anything changed, and GM hasn't marketed it. The only real marketing it has received are the numerous accolades in the enthusiast press and Edmunds.

3) The SUV market tanked around the time of the refresh release...yet sales improved post-2007.

I'll tell you another thing.....what I hear all the time is "it looks like a wagon, not a proper SUV."

Plus, consumers' expectations are simply out of line with GM's pricing. People do not see the SRX as worthy of a $40K pricetag. On the flip side, we'll sell pre-owned ones (2005, 2006) at $18K - $22K all day long.

It's been my big bitch with Cadillac since coming to work here. People simply do not see any value (at current prices) in new Cadillacs such as the STS, SRX, XLR, and to a lesser extent, DTS. Even enormous incentives on STS and SRX don't help their case much at all.

On the flip side, CTS sells with minimal incentives......many of them in the upper-$40K range as well......because the car is executed to an extremely high level and Cadillac has developed a thoroughly competitive car that demands respect, and conveys HUGE value for it's money.

Sadly it will be a LONG time (if at all) before we get competitive, world-class STS, DTS, and XLR models. Will the SRX change consumers' minds like the CTS has? We'll just have to see. However, I'm really afraid that it may not be big enough, or roomy enough, or substantial enough.

[regfootball]

Oldsmoboi: The reason the current SRX hasn't sold well is threefold:

1) The original offering had a $h!teous interior

2) The refreshed interior, which is fantastic materials-wise and certainly at or near the top of its class, came with no exterior freshening. No one knew anything changed, and GM hasn't marketed it. The only real marketing it has received are the numerous accolades in the enthusiast press and Edmunds.

3) The SUV market tanked around the time of the refresh release...yet sales improved post-2007.

all correct. add point 4 "looks like a WAGON'.

if C/D said this the was the best SUV and yet it still had the cheap interior and wagon looks, i gotta think its a good crossover.

tell ya this though. why not find a magnum srt-8 and drive that?

[regfootball]

I disagree. There's an element of cheapness in the new SRX's exterior that brings the chintzy BLS to mind. The RX looks more upscale and substantial, IMO. It doesn't reek of the impression that it's based on something cheaper.

the new lexus RX is nothign short of a PIECE OF SHT. there is no other description for it. anyone who buys a new Lexus RX is a PURE LOSER.

[regfootball]

The new SRX doesn't look like a $40,000 SUV, which wont appeal to buyers of $40,000 SUVs. It also looks like a cheap toy compared to the first gen SRX, which will alienate first gen SRX buyers.

all 3 of them. the new srx will appeal huge to women, who drive the market.

[regfootball]

the new SRX will appeal to chicks. which is why most of you don't 'get it'

as for evok, well, who knows what he's thinking!!!

(for what it is, I like it too. but, personally, I'd prefer the current model)

just like the original RX appealed to 'chicks'. WOMEN DRIVE CAR SALES. the new SRX is much more women freindly.

[regfootball]

I disagree. There's an element of cheapness in the new SRX's exterior that brings the chintzy BLS to mind. The RX looks more upscale and substantial, IMO. It doesn't reek of the impression that it's based on something cheaper.

get a HYUNDAI veracruz

[regfootball]

I disagree. There's an element of cheapness in the new SRX's exterior that brings the chintzy BLS to mind. The RX looks more upscale and substantial, IMO. It doesn't reek of the impression that it's based on something cheaper.

rx=upscale?

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING???????????????????

[pow]

rx=upscale?

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING???????????????????

Looks pretty good to me. The second-gen model was very recognizable as a "Lexus RX"; this new model incorporates the L-finesse design cues that started with the IS. The second beltline below the windows helps lower the car visually.

I'm not a fan of the interior, though.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'll go a different route. Lets go back a couple years, now lets say GM decides to import the BLS as the CTS replacement, calls it CTS and holds the price. How would you have responded?

CTS has rep and cred. SRX does not.

[Drew Dowdell]

I disagree. There's an element of cheapness in the new SRX's exterior that brings the chintzy BLS to mind. The RX looks more upscale and substantial, IMO. It doesn't reek of the impression that it's based on something cheaper.

The RX is the first result of Toyota's purchase of controlling interest in Subaru. I looks like they borrowed the Impreza designer for a week.

[gm4life]

I agree Oldsmoboi it looks like they did borrow a Subie designer for the week. What a mistake.

[ZL-1]

The RX is the first result of Toyota's purchase of controlling interest in Subaru. I looks like they borrowed the Impreza designer for a week.