SRX reviews in - C&D, Edmunds

[pow]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09...6_awd-road_test

2010 Cadillac SRX 3.0 V6 AWD - Road Test

Downsizing trims the sticker, but there’s another price to pay.

BY JOHN PHILLIPS, PHOTOGRAPHY BY TOM DREW AND THE MANUFACTURERS

July 2009

As GM wobbled toward bankruptcy, the company’s boosters often cited Cadillac as proof that at least one division knew the secret for success. But stroll through a Cadillac showroom. The DTS isn’t even on your Uncle Marvin’s radar. The pretty but aging STS has been nudged onto the berm by at least five luxo-sports sedans, none from America. The angular XLR, a marketing spinoff from the Corvette shop, has been euthanized. There are a couple of embarrassingly immense Escalades. And then there’s the CTS—in truth, the lone vehicle that carries the division’s reputation on its back. And so it was with huge anticipation that we welcomed this all-new SRX, a crossover we’ve loved since the day it was introduced in, uh, wow, 2004.

In the Detroit Three’s universe, new models usually arrive bigger and heavier. Not this time, Cadillac promised. In fact, the SRX has been yanked from the $50K, V-8 luxo-ute niche, where it was nonetheless strong, finishing second to an Acura MDX in a C/D comparo in 2007. Problem is, the SRX now parachutes into the killer $40K-crossover class, where it faces, among other all-stars, Audi’s stunning Q5 3.2 Quattro (the winner of July’s “New Arrivals for Summer” comparo), not to mention the beyond-dominant sales king in the segment, the Lexus RX350, itself recently refurbished unto the zenith of plushness.

This latest SRX is now driven through the front wheels rather than the rears. Length is down by 4.6 inches, height by 2.1 inches, and wheelbase by 5.9 inches. No longer are seven passengers welcome; five’s the limit. In either front- or all-wheel-drive iterations, three trim levels are available: Luxury, Performance, and Premium.

The 320-hp, Northstar V-8 has been broomed; a 265-hp, direct-injection V-6 is the base engine. An optional, 300-horse turbo V-6, built in Australia for Saab and Holden, will arrive this fall. With either engine, a six-speed automatic is attached. Cadillac insists vehemently that this new SRX shares only its powertrain with the Chevy Equinox and the Saturn Vue. Otherwise—Cadillac’s words, here—“It has no commonality with the Theta platform.”

What you instantly notice about the SRX is that its cabin equals or exceeds anything in the class. The materials are superb: “Pearl-nickel chrome” accents that look like silver satin and spears of walnut trim that blend magically into hand-cut-and-sewn leather. The elegant compound curves in the door handles make them look like Georg Jensen jewelry. Nowhere will your elbows strike anything hard. An eight-speaker Bose stereo is standard, and there’s a clever dial on the driver’s door that controls how far the liftgate rises, preventing it from banging into your garage ceiling.

The center stack is easy to learn, and just under the optional pop-up nav screen reside two large rotary controls, one for volume, the other for tuning. Thank you. The front seats are quite firm and bolstered perfectly; they would make a BMW engineer proud. The steering adjusts for reach and rake, and the pedals are also adjustable. The 60/40 rear seatbacks fold flat, although the cushions neither slide nor tumble forward. With the rear seats flat, the cargo bay will swallow nearly the same sheet of plywood that the roomy RX350 can ingest, and the Caddy will carry three bonus cases of beer. If you don’t order the optional spare tire (an electric inflator is the standard roadside fix), there’s a nice-size well under the cargo floor, perfect for hiding purses and briefcases. Rear-seat comfort for two is excellent, but a third rider will have to straddle the center console, which protrudes too far rearward.

Although the stubby backlight and huge C-pillars do damage to the rear three-quarter view, the side mirrors are huge. And when you select reverse, objects astern are televised on the nav screen.

At wide-open throttle and at a 70-mph cruise, the SRX is as quiet as the RX350 and is only one decibel noisier at idle. That is a major achievement.

In the hills, our SRX—riding on the optional 20-inch Michelins and fitted with Sachs continuously variable dampers—proved flat, stable, and composed. Its chassis was informative, reassuringly solid, and expert at controlling body motions. The ride was definitely firm, and big displacements could occasionally cause crash-through at the rear, but the overall ride-and-handling trade-off was to our liking, far more visceral than, say, the RX350’s. We’d have preferred steering that was a little lighter and faster, à la Audi Q5, but at least its sense of straight-ahead was unsurpassed. And with that, sadly, most of the good news concludes.

This “downsized” SRX—no V-8, no third-row seat, no spare tire—weighs 4505 pounds. That’s heavier than any of its leading competitors, namely the aforementioned Lexus and Audi, as well as the Mercedes-Benz GLK350 4MATIC, the BMW X3 xDrive30i, and the Volvo XC60 T6 AWD. The Cadillac’s V-6, as our test numbers reveal, was thus overwhelmed. All five of the SRX’s strongest competitors clear the quarter-mile in the mid-to-very-low 15-second range at 90-some mph. The SRX completes the same task in 16.7 seconds at 85 mph. To 60 mph, in fact, the Audi and the Volvo are both 1.9 seconds quicker than the Cadillac.

Step-off isn’t just leisurely, it’s agonizing. First time we nailed the throttle, we thought the parking brake was on. The “fast five” reach 30 mph in the low two-second range. The SRX requires 3.1 seconds. That extra wait—especially in town, where you’re constantly departing stoplights and trying to squirt into holes in traffic—is irritating. You’ll be equally annoyed on two-lane country roads, where a 50-to-70-mph pass will require 6.4 seconds versus, say, the Audi’s 4.2. That’s a lot of scary hung-out-to-dry time.

If the SRX were merely an accelerative dog, we could forgive it. But the problems continue.

The accelerator felt as if it were connected to a series of sponges that extended from one’s right foot all the way to the injectors. It was so nonlinear, vague, and generally gooey that it became difficult to predict how much thrust any given length of pedal travel might summon. Eventually, we more or less gave up, mashing the pedal flat whether it was an extra 10 horsepower and 5 mph we wanted or an extra 50 horsepower and 30 mph we wanted.

The six-speed transmission was of little help, either. In regular “D” mode, kickdowns were so dilatory that we immediately switched to sport mode and never looked back. Sport proved better about holding onto revs and seemed slightly more receptive about responding to aggressive throttle inputs. But the transmission still spent too much time deliberating, after which it often chose the wrong gear. On our handling loop, there was little choice but to shift gears via the manumatic. Even then, there was so little thrust available as the SRX exited a corner onto a straightaway that we got into the habit of flooring the throttle upon turn-in, managing speed wholly with left-foot braking. Moreover, the manumatic was inconsistent about matching revs on downshifts, sometimes eliciting a head-snapper.

That firm go-git-’em chassis we mentioned earlier? It was camouflaged by mass, a slow-to-react transmission, and consistently inconsistent power delivery.

What can we say to put a brighter face on this? Well, the engine uses regular fuel. The taillights look like fins. The rear wheels are driven through an electronic limited-slip differential capable of apportioning power side to side—that is, if any power ever finds its way back there. And once the SRX is up to speed on the interstate—with the cruise control on—it voraciously gobbles up the miles, leaving its driver to revel in luxury and serenity, which may be all its buyers care about anyway.

The upcoming turbo V-6 will surely help, although we’re not sure an extra 35 horses and 72 pound-feet will save the day. Meanwhile, if it’s a Cadillac with practical pretensions you’re after, sample the base front-drive SRX with 18-inch wheels. At only $34,155, it sharply undercuts most of its rivals, and its amenities are legion. Better still, try a CTS wagon with the optional 3.6-liter V-6.

COUNTERPOINTS——————————————

Eddie Alterman

The original, three-row SRX was a great vehicle. But don’t take our word for it—ask the other 37 owners. The only problem with Cadillac’s crossover was that it competed in a segment owned by one vehicle, the Lexus RX. So you can hardly fault Cadillac for trying to make its own RX. What it lost in the process was the SRX’s bandwidth; its stunning combination of power, poise, and versatility. Put the 3.6-liter DI V-6 in it, and let’s see what happens.

K.C. Colwell

Cadillac has set its sights on the Lexus RX sales giant with its new SRX. Did Cadillac need to add weight and reduce the seating capacity? No, but it did. The SRX was an SUV that behaved like a car and a three-time C/D 5Best Trucks winner. Now it joins a group of up-and-coming small SUVs that target the buyer looking for comfort, convenience, and style. Caddy does deliver, but buyers seeking excitement need to look elsewhere.

[pow]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...topanel..2.*#62

Sexy Cedes to Sensible

By Erin Riches, Senior Editor Email

Date posted: 08-05-2009

STORY TOOLS

Digg this storyDigg this!

del.icio.usdel.icio.us

Driving the 2010 Cadillac SRX reminds us that crossover SUVs are for sane and sensible people.

Don't let the overly Art-and-Scienced front fascia of this Cadillac fool you, because this front-wheel-drive 2010 Cadillac SRX with the Luxury Collection package represents the premium-brand crossover SUV experience distilled to its sane-and-sensible essence. To that end, it has a composed yet compliant ride quality, a well-insulated cabin and a rearward view unobstructed by a third-row seat you'd never use anyway. It sounds so simple, but this is all a crossover SUV really needs to do, no matter what the price.

It's quite a different approach from the original Cadillac SRX, which arrived for 2004, back when no one really knew what a luxury crossover SUV should be. This SRX tried to do everything well. It used General Motors' Sigma rear-drive architecture and offered an optional Northstar V8, so that it would feel sporty like a BMW X5. It had a third-row seat option, so it could move people about in Acura MDX quantities.

But not many of you wanted to pay for all this engineering. A decently equipped 2009 Cadillac SRX with rear-wheel drive and the base V6 engine came in at $44,855. Compare that with the $37,735 price tag on our front-drive 2010 Cadillac SRX Luxury Collection and you're looking at a sensible $7,120 savings.

What Am I Missing?

Seven grand isn't a casual amount of money, so you might think the 2010 Cadillac SRX is a lot less vehicle than its predecessor. In reality, though, the Audi Q5, Lexus RX 350, Mercedes-Benz GLK350 and Volvo XC60 all start out in this price range. However, except for the Volvo, they all break into the $40Ks when you option them up to the level of our 2010 SRX Luxury Collection.

The Luxury Collection is the second tier in the 2010 SRX trim structure, which also includes base, Performance Collection and Premium Collection models. Base SRXs are aimed at fleet customers, while the Performance and Premium are aimed at those of you who want stuff like a sport suspension (with adaptive dampers), 20-inch wheels, adaptive headlights and ventilated seats.

Our SRX Luxury Collection has standard luxury fare like leather upholstery, power-adjustable front seats, real wood trim, dual-zone climate control, and a basic Bose audio system with satellite radio and auxiliary and USB inputs. The only obvious omission here is the slick, hard-drive-based navigation unit shared with the CTS; it's a $2,395 option on the Luxury Collection SRX. If we also wanted the slick Haldex all-wheel-drive system, we'd need to fork over another $2,495.

If you want to know how big the 2010 Cadillac SRX feels, go stand next to your neighbor's RX 350. These five-passenger crossovers have nearly the same footprint, along with just under 101 cubic feet of passenger volume. In addition, the 2010 SRX's total interior volume (129.8 cubic feet) is close to that of last year's SRX (132 cubes).

Climb Inside

Seating is ample for adults of any size up front, and Cadillac even provides a manually extendable seat-bottom cushion for the driver. Legroom remains plentiful in the second row, but headroom is in such short supply that 6-footers refuse to ride back here. The SRX's standard panoramic sunroof shaves a couple inches, but the XC60 and Q5 have big glass roofs, too, and still manage to offer more headroom. Also not helping passenger morale is our test car's weak-sauce air-conditioner, which can't keep the cabin cool on 100-degree-F days.

Cargo bay dimensions are average for this class, but with 29.2 cubic feet, the 2010 SRX has a bit less capacity than the old SRX (32.4 cubic feet) and a lot less than the RX 350 (40 cubes). Cadillac provides an under-floor storage box, but it comes at the expense of a temporary-size spare tire — not a trade we'd be making in an SUV that doesn't come with run-flat tires.

Torque and Transmissions

Our 2010 Cadillac SRX has a normally aspirated, direct-injected 3.0-liter V6, which is the entry-level engine in the 2010 SRX line. Based on the architecture of GM's 3.6-liter V6, the 3.0-liter V6 makes 265 horsepower at 6,950 rpm and 223 pound-feet of torque at 5,100 rpm. Starting in October, Cadillac will offer an optional 2.8-liter turbocharged V6 rated at a cool 300 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque.

There's a stark difference in torque output between the two SRX engines, and torque is never far from mind as we drive our 2010 Cadillac SRX Luxury Collection. Not only does the 3.0-liter V6 have the lowest torque rating of any six-cylinder crossover in this class, those 223 lb-ft hit at a much higher rpm. As such, you need to work the Cadillac's 3.0-liter quite a bit during passing maneuvers, and it's not the freest-revving V6 you'll ever meet.

This problem is compounded by the 6T70 version of GM's Hydra-matic six-speed automatic transmission, which, like the 6T75 version in the Lambda crossovers (Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse and GMC Acadia), is calibrated to conserve fuel at the expense of driver sanity. Its eagerness to settle into 6th gear and reluctance to downshift are particularly bothersome in this SRX with its normally aspirated V6, which often needs to drop down three gears when cutting through city traffic.

Numbers Don't Lie, or Do They?

Under full throttle, though, the transmission does wait until the engine's 7,000-rpm redline to upshift (though the tachometer lags behind reality), so the SRX manages a respectable 8.2-second 0-60-mph time (7.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and a 16.3-second quarter-mile at 86.7 mph.

It's interesting that these numbers are almost identical to those of our rear-wheel-drive 2007 Cadillac SRX V6 long-termer, which of course had a conventionally injected, 255-hp, north-south version of the 3.6-liter V6. But numbers only tell you so much here. Our old SRX was a more drivable vehicle, thanks to its more accessible torque curve (254 lb-ft at 2,800 rpm) and more responsive five-speed automatic transmission.

Most of the 2010 SRX's competitors are much quicker, including the all-wheel-drive 268-hp GLK350, which hits 60 mph in 7.2 seconds (6.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout) and goes through the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds at 90.3 mph, and the all-wheel-drive 270-hp Q5, which takes 6.8 seconds for zero to 60 (6.5 with 1 foot of rollout) and 14.9 seconds at 93.1 mph for the quarter-mile.

Fuel economy is kind of a sore spot, too. During our extensive test-drive we didn't do any better than an average of 17.7 mpg (with a high of 18.6 mpg) against the 2010 Cadillac SRX's 18 mpg city/24 mpg highway rating. For comparison, our long-term 2007 SRX averaged 17 mpg. Our front-drive 2008 Buick Enclave long-termer, which had a 275-hp version of the 3.6-liter V6 and outweighed the 2010 SRX by over 500 pounds, averaged 17.5 mpg.

So we'll hold out for that turbocharged 2.8-liter V6 and its Aisin six-speed automatic, which Cadillac apparently plans to offer only in the Premium Collection trim level, on which all-wheel drive is standard. Cadillac estimates the Premium turbo will come in "around $48-$50K."

Handling, Braking: Better Than You Think

Although our 2010 Cadillac SRX Luxury Collection lacks the overly sporty feel of our long-term 2007 SRX, it actually posts better handling numbers. In fact, our front-drive 2010 test car's 63.2-mph slalom speed and 0.87g on the skid pad are some of the best numbers you'll find in this class. Undoubtedly, the SRX's P235/65R18 104H Michelin Latitude Tour HP all-season tires are a help in these tests — along with a stability control system that you can fully disengage if need be.

On public roads, the 2010 SRX is not the sort of vehicle that inspires rapid cornering. Steering is precise, but you never forget that you're transitioning 4,300 pounds of SRX through each turn and there's a good deal of body roll. Still, the front-drive Cadillac is a far better choice for a back-roads detour than an RX 350.

Braking is also better than you might expect. The SRX's 128-foot 60-mph-to-zero stopping distance is a bit long for a premium crossover SUV, but we like this crossover's firm brake pedal feel.

No New Ground for Cadillac

Although our front-drive 2010 Cadillac SRX Luxury Collection shows unexpected ability in the braking and handling departments, it's not the perfectly packaged entry that a small-time player like Cadillac should be offering in this class.

The 2010 SRX's 3.0-liter DI V6 and six-speed automatic simply aren't in the same league as the refined, torque-rich six-cylinders and responsive transmissions offered by the competition. (The turbocharged 2.8-liter V6 may prove to be a better match, but it's likely to veer into uncomfortable price territory.) In addition, Cadillac's Art-and-Science design language looks dated in a class populated by fresh-out-of-the-box entries.

A smooth, serene ride is certainly a point in the SRX's favor, but the RX 350 and GLK350 are equally compliant. The Lexus and the Benz are also quite a bit more expensive than the 2010 Cadillac SRX, but we'd hate to see Cadillac try to win favor solely on the basis of rock-bottom pricing. In the short-term, such a strategy might draw more sales, but in the long-term, it will do little to improve Cadillac's image and even less to ensure its future.

[Justin Bimmer]

Black looks good!

[Croc]

Yes, this FWD vehicle drives poorly. Anyone surprised?

[Nick]

Yes, this FWD vehicle drives poorly. Anyone surprised?

From what I gathered the vehicle fails in terms of power delivery and transmission tuning, but otherwise it drives fairly well with decent steering, ride, braking, and handling.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Nick

[regfootball]

people don't get it. the srx WAS a great vehicle dynamically.

however, women didn't like it (men didn't either) and it got its ass handed to it on the sales charts.

this vehicle was not intended to be the SRX when it started but then Caddy pulled the plug on the wagon SRX and kept the moniker on this.

the vehicle now has a feature set that will allow it more sales volume and be able to take sales away from competition. Prev SRX could do neither.

Most SRX you see previously of recent vintage is low mile one year olds for cut prices which implies to me that they couldnt move them on the sales floor and they prob became rentals or corporate vehicles.

Caddy could fix the issue with this thing with a SS type suspension job and a twin turbo 3.6.

My vote would have been to develop a rakish new look like this new one, on sigma, and keep the third row, but oh well.

caddy needs to sell to to women and this is the cadillac for women. no one was buying the old SRX.

[dwightlooi]

I am sorry, but I cannot be a cheerleader for bad engineering.

The whole point about unibody crossover SUVs is that they are lighter and in most sense more civil in ride quality than body-on-frame truck derivatives. A vehicle on the SRX's size in unibody construction ought to be LIGHTER than the larger body-on-frame predecessor it is replacing. Being heavier is unconscionable And 4500 lbs is doubly unconscionable.

The RX is as light as 4178 lbs. Being 350 lbs heavier with a smaller and lighter engine cannot be justified -- even if lightweight construction hasn't been GM's forte. And, I believe that isn't really true. The Cruze is around 2800 lbs. That isn't so far off the Civic's 2750 lbs or the Corolla's 2811 lbs.

Edited August 7, 2009 by dwightlooi

[Croc]

The weight and poor power delivery is unacceptable. I don't care how fancy the cabin is--when even sedate Volvo woops your ass in the sprint, you got problems.

[turbo200]

I am sorry, but I cannot be a cheerleader for bad engineering.

The whole point about unibody crossover SUVs is that they are lighter and in most sense more civil in ride quality than body-on-frame truck derivatives. A vehicle on the SRX's size in unibody construction ought to be LIGHTER than the larger body-on-frame predecessor it is replacing. Being heavier is unconscionable And 4500 lbs is doubly unconscionable.

The RX is as light as 4178 lbs. Being 350 lbs heavier with a smaller and lighter engine cannot be justified -- even if lightweight construction hasn't been GM's forte. And, I believe that isn't really true. The Cruze is around 2800 lbs. That isn't so far off the Civic's 2750 lbs or the Corolla's 2811 lbs.

the old SRX was also a unibody construction and also weighed above 4400 lbs in AWD form, and it was barely larger and barely offered 2 cu ft more interior volume. a third row seat can be offered and offer almost exactly the same room as the last SRX.

given the competition, the SRX weight is average. given where demanding enthusiasts would like it to be, it's 400 lbs heavy. we're not car engineers and we're not car companies who have to market to demanding consumers and more demanding enthusiasts. consumers who demand features, structural rigidity, and cars that meet government mandates as well as economic mandates [cheap price].

new gen RX also weighs 4500 lbs. the volvo weighs 4200 lbs. the q5 over 4400. glk 4250. only the outdated x3 weighs significantly less and that's due to be replaced. i'd bet the Cadillac offers more interior space than all of these except the RX.

we may all have reservations about handling due to RWD platform. imo, RWD nor the platform was the problem before, and that's my disappointment with this generation. but i don't let those feelings overcome my feelings towards this new product. it's well sorted, capable, well designed, high quality, and desirable. it also stands apart from the Lexus design and others in this class.

here is the first review of the 2.8t engine in the SRX

SRX 2.8T

altogether, given the design inside and out, this is a more dynamic and engaging vehicle than the last SRX. that is what matters. is it an improvement and will it counterbalance the loss of RWD and third row seat with more desirable qualities. the answer is yea. conceptually, inside and outside, the SRX design is much much more successful than the generic yet classy interior of the last gen and the boxy flat plain surfaced exterior.

Edited August 7, 2009 by turbo200

[CaddyXLR-V]

Other than being a GM fan, why would anyone choose this vehicle over it's competitors?

What will GM's strategy be if this SRX flops like the last SRX did?

[CaddyXLR-V]

the old SRX was also a unibody construction and also weighed above 4400 lbs in AWD form, and it was barely larger and barely offered 2 cu ft more interior volume. a third row seat can be offered and offer almost exactly the same room as the last SRX.

given the competition, the SRX weight is average. given where demanding enthusiasts would like it to be, it's 400 lbs heavy. we're not car engineers and we're not car companies who have to market to demanding consumers and more demanding enthusiasts. consumers who demand features, structural rigidity, and cars that meet government mandates as well as economic mandates [cheap price].

new gen RX also weighs above 4500 lbs. the volvo weighs, i beleive, 4300 lbs. the q5 over 4600. only the outdated x3 weighs significantly less and that's due to be replaced.

we may all have reservations about handling due to RWD platform. imo, RWD nor the platform was the problem before, and that's my disappointment with this generation. but i don't let those feelings overcome my feelings towards this new product. it's well sorted, capable, well designed, high quality, and desirable. it also stands apart from the Lexus design and others in this class.

here is the first review of the 2.8t engine in the SRX

SRX 2.8T

altogether, given the design inside and out, this is a more dynamic and engaging vehicle than the last SRX. that is what matters. is it an improvement and will it counterbalance the loss of RWD and third row seat with more desirable qualities. the answer is yea. conceptually, inside and outside, the SRX design is much much more successful than the generic yet classy interior of the last gen and the boxy flat plain surfaced exterior.

So the old SRX was longer, wider, taller, with a bigger engine, and RWD, yet still weighed less? How is this a step foward?

[Intrepidation]

altogether, given the design inside and out, this is a more dynamic and engaging vehicle than the last SRX. that is what matters.

Not it isn't.

[turbo200]

Not it isn't.

depends on how you look at it. i'm considering strictly design which is a prime motivator for SUV buyers, above sporting driving dynamics. it's not as fun as before, but there won't be many buyers, with real luxury car money, who even noticed the SRX. they chose the others for thier superior presentation. cayenne, x5, touraeg, FX45, RX....all had more enduring shapes and better luxury designs, all were better looking [except RX which like I said had a better shape].

we'll never see eye to eye on many things, and i'm okay with that. if you can't see that the SRX has hit a sweet spot the previous gen did not, then you're not opening your eyes past your own perspective of wanting a good driving experience. the previous gen was one of the ultimate driving experiences for SUVs and that is a big sacrifice. the question is how many people actually got in there to test that driving experience, and why weren't more picking the SRX for that reason alone. the answer is there are other merely acceptable driving vehicles that were also better looking and had better presentation.

[CaddyXLR-V]

depends on how you look at it. i'm considering strictly design which is a prime motivator for SUV buyers, above sporting driving dynamics. it's not as fun as before, but there won't be many buyers, with real luxury car money, who even noticed the SRX. they chose the others for thier superior presentation. cayenne, x5, touraeg, FX45, RX....all had more enduring shapes and better luxury designs, all were better looking [except RX which like I said had a better shape].

we'll never see eye to eye on many things, and i'm okay with that. if you can't see that the SRX has hit a sweet spot the previous gen did not, then you're not opening your eyes past your own perspective of wanting a good driving experience. the previous gen was one of the ultimate driving experiences for SUVs and that is a big sacrifice. the question is how many people actually got in there to test that driving experience, and why weren't more picking the SRX for that reason alone. the answer is there are other merely acceptable driving vehicles that were also better looking and had better presentation.

So now they might test drive the SRX, but one step on the gas and the test drive will be over. 16.3 and 16.7 in the 1/4 mi? Isn't a 4cyl Malibu quicker than than, or at least not far off?

[C.H.U.D.]

How about an update?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09...st_drive_review

[smk4565]

So the old SRX was longer, wider, taller, with a bigger engine, and RWD, yet still weighed less? How is this a step foward?

Agreed. The old SRX did 0-60 in 6.4 seconds, the new one with the turbo does it in 7.5 seconds. They made the right decision to downsize the vehicle to bring it in line with the import SUVs, and change the shape. But it should have stayed on sigma and making it heavier and front drive is not progress.

[turbo200]

Autoblog SRX 2.8T REVIEW

The last review to come in featuring the 2.8T. I suspect the PR push is on full force and GM has invited another round of journalists to test the uplevel engine. the 2.8T will be destined to sell in ~15-20% of SRXs [according to press], and that's pretty good imo. As you can all read, and will read in the future with comparison tests, the 2.8T is the boost needed to show the full capabilities of the SRX. at $45k, it's still competitively priced, and a fun powerful SUV. we will have to wait and see if its performance characteristics and 0-60 times match the old SRX, but as has been often shown blunt performance stats don't translate into the all around character a vehicle possesses. from that standpoint, it is clear the SRX is a winner.

for those that keep throwing in the last gen SRX, I would ask how much actual time has been spent comparing both interior designs of the first gen and second gen, along with quality and overall design. if even after spending seat time in both, you still prefer the look and feel of the old SRX, then you are free to think so, until then I think it's safe to say your opinions are solely based in prejudices.

Edited August 7, 2009 by turbo200

[turbo200]

I lament the loss of a RWD crossover at GM. there are others in the car world for those with the means to consider, and those who consider themselves capable in the future to have the means to do so. still the loss of a RWD SUV is painful....cause SUVs are fun, and so is RWD. soooo...I say we devote considerable energy towards promoting one, say a future Alpha crossover, Zeta crossover, or Sigma crossover. at this time, I am comfortable recognizing GM did the best it could with the cards it was dealt.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Why couldn't they have just made it smaller and lighter on Sigma, removed the 3rd row, gave it the same improvements on the inside, and made it look less like a tall wagon? Then even with the torqueless 3.0L they could probably still have been in the mid 7 range, with even better gas mileage. Are GM's platforms really that unflexible? If Infiniti can make a whole line of vehicles of all different sizes on one platform, why can't GM figure out how to make Sigma as flexible? If it is really that unflexible, then why did it cost them so much to develop it?

Edited August 7, 2009 by CaddyXLR-V

[turbo200]

Why couldn't they have just made it smaller and lighter on Sigma, removed the 3rd row, gave it the same improvements on the inside, and made it look less like a tall wagon? Then even with the torqueless 3.0L they could probably still have been in the mid 7 range, with even better gas mileage. Are GM's platforms really that unflexible? If Infiniti can make a whole line of vehicles off all different sizes, why can't GM figure out how to make Sigma as flexible? If it is really that unflexible, then why did it cost them so much to develop it?

i suspect platform adaptability has nothing to do with it. Vizon was originally a 2 row concept SUV, that if you remember according to insiders here, a 3rd row was added as an answer to MDX's huge success. I believe the Vizon had it been released as a 2 row SUV may have been more popular due to better proportions and thus more market acceptance. this may have helped to relieve the pressure of high costs with Sigma platform. this is the ultimate problem and what is leading to the eventual phase out of Sigma after this gen CTS.

Sigma was originally built on a business case for STS and SRX sales. I think the estimates were in 100-125k volume range for the three models being build at Lansing Grand River, which is now seriously underutilized and costing money for upkeep as well. Sigma the platform is an evolution of Holden's development for Zeta, but with a lot more cost. I think at this point, GM isn't making much money off Sigma, which is why we have the situation where little development money is currently apportioned for Cadillac, and nothing is being done on Sigma.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Autoblog SRX 2.8T REVIEW

for those that keep throwing in the last gen SRX, I would ask how much actual time has been spent comparing both interior designs of the first gen and second gen, along with quality and overall design. if even after spending seat time in both, you still prefer the look and feel of the old SRX, then you are free to think so, until then I think it's safe to say your opinions are solely based in prejudices.

So I guess only Theta is allowed to have better interiors?

[turbo200]

So I guess only Theta is allowed to have better interiors?

you're missing my point. I would LOVE to have Cadillac with RWD Sigma crossovers in two row and three row form, that are executed well, designed extraordinarily, and offering conveniences and comfort for everyone. the thing is that didn't happen. I am trying to offer reasonable explanation for why that didn't happen and also justifying the current product's existence and role in the market.

[CaddyXLR-V]

It was still one step forward, and one step back. No real progress was made. There is no compelling reason to buy the Cadillac over other companies offerings. It's just a Lexus RX, with less performance, more weight, and different style.

[Intrepidation]

depends on how you look at it. i'm considering strictly design which is a prime motivator for SUV buyers, above sporting driving dynamics. it's not as fun as before, but there won't be many buyers, with real luxury car money, who even noticed the SRX. they chose the others for thier superior presentation. cayenne, x5, touraeg, FX45, RX....all had more enduring shapes and better luxury designs, all were better looking [except RX which like I said had a better shape].

we'll never see eye to eye on many things, and i'm okay with that. if you can't see that the SRX has hit a sweet spot the previous gen did not, then you're not opening your eyes past your own perspective of wanting a good driving experience. the previous gen was one of the ultimate driving experiences for SUVs and that is a big sacrifice. the question is how many people actually got in there to test that driving experience, and why weren't more picking the SRX for that reason alone. the answer is there are other merely acceptable driving vehicles that were also better looking and had better presentation.

See when you said "more dynamic and engaging" I thought in terms of handling and performance, because those are the words used to describe handling and performance, not how the interior feels or design. Dynamic could be applied to design, engaging no. Anyway, I agree that the car is designed inside and out better than the one it replaces, but in terms of being the way the car performs being "more dynamic and engaging" it's a step backwards.

[Robert Hall]

See when you said "more dynamic and engaging" I thought in terms of handling and performance, because those are the words used to describe handling and performance, not how the interior feels or design. Dynamic could be applied to design, engaging no. Anyway, I agree that the car is designed inside and out better than the one it replaces, but in terms of being the way the car performs being "more dynamic and engaging" it's a step backwards.

Engaging could be used as far as interiors as far as the ease-of-use, ergonomics, feel of materials the driver/passengers contact, i.e. the 'surprise and delight' features.

Rob

[Intrepidation]

Engaging could be used as far as interiors as far as the ease-of-use, ergonomics, feel of materials the driver/passengers contact, i.e. the 'surprise and delight' features.

Rob

Yes, but when you put it with dynamic it doesn't refer to that sort of thing.

[Robert Hall]

Yes, but when you put it with dynamic it doesn't refer to that sort of thing.

Well, when the interior features are in motion (operating the tilt/telescoping wheel, moving the power seat, then it's dynamic..

Rob

[Intrepidation]

Nice try.

[turbo200]

dynamic is something explosive and interesting. not necessarily the dynamics as in capabilities of a given car suspension.

[Intrepidation]

dynamic is something explosive and interesting. not necessarily the dynamics as in capabilities of a given car suspension.

I'm quite aware of that, however the context yo used the word in conjunction with "engaging" made it seem more like a reference to performance than styling. That's all I'm saying.

[Z-06]

What is stiffling is GM wanted to outdo the competitors and outdid them in almost every department including weight and excluding powertrain. If GM knew that the vehicle was going to be on a St. Louis ribs diet, it should have added 3.6LDI.

That would have served three purposes:

• Separating it from Equinox V6 further.
• Giving an engine worthy to haul that heavy hiney.
• Bragging rights for most powerful engine standard in its class.

The engine would not have had lack of torque like the 3.0DI is.

And if Caddy still wanted the high output version, the twin turbo 2.8 should have been bumped to 340 odd hp (it is already making close to 330hp in the Insignia).

[turbo200]

What is stiffling is GM wanted to outdo the competitors and outdid them in almost every department including weight and excluding powertrain. If GM knew that the vehicle was going to be on a St. Louis ribs diet, it should have added 3.6LDI.

That would have served three purposes:

• Separating it from Equinox V6 further.
• Giving an engine worthy to haul that heavy hiney.
• Bragging rights for most powerful engine standard in its class.

The engine would not have had lack of torque like the 3.0DI is.

And if Caddy still wanted the high output version, the twin turbo 2.8 should have been bumped to 340 odd hp (it is already making close to 330hp in the Insignia).

higher torque levels might also have the advantage of maintaining fuel economy numbers. i wonder if the 3.6 DI will eventually find a place here.

the 3.0L is confusing for it's performance figures.....poor economy relatively speaking, smaller power figures. but given GM's past habit of recycling engines throughout the lineup, it's refreshing to see a new engine here and another one not previously offered in an American brand offered here. also, comparing competitors' lineups, you'll find problems with engines pretty much everywhere. i think the Caddy offers a good combo of qualities....to set off rivals and to build sales, and to help endure throughout the years.

the combination of refinement, promised GM reliability, delivery/character....i think the engine has a lot going for it, the 3.0.

Edited August 7, 2009 by turbo200

[Z-06]

it's refreshing to see a new engine here and another one not previously offered in an American brand offered here.

Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain have the 3.0 DI.

[turbo200]

Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain have the 3.0 DI.

the 2.8T has not been offered anywhere else in the lineup...

[CaddyXLR-V]

the 2.8T has not been offered anywhere else in the lineup...

Wasn't it offered in Saabs, just with 260hp instead?

[pow]

Wasn't it offered in Saabs, just with 260hp instead?

The Turbo X, which is pretty much the car in turbo200's sig, had one with 280 hp.

[Z-06]

The Turbo X, which is pretty much the car in turbo200's sig, had one with 280 hp.

+2.

[regfootball]

jalopniks 2.8t review is up now too and they like it

[regfootball]

Why couldn't they have just made it smaller and lighter on Sigma, removed the 3rd row, gave it the same improvements on the inside, and made it look less like a tall wagon? Then even with the torqueless 3.0L they could probably still have been in the mid 7 range, with even better gas mileage. Are GM's platforms really that unflexible? If Infiniti can make a whole line of vehicles of all different sizes on one platform, why can't GM figure out how to make Sigma as flexible? If it is really that unflexible, then why did it cost them so much to develop it?

cts wagon

[regfootball]

It was still one step forward, and one step back. No real progress was made. There is no compelling reason to buy the Cadillac over other companies offerings. It's just a Lexus RX, with less performance, more weight, and different style.

if you want the sigma buy the cts wagon.

the lexus rx was the segment sales leader and the new srx is more appealing than that.

the old SRX did not sell so they killed it. this new SRX is enters Caddy in the much morelucrative RX segment, but they decided to take the old name back

if they would have cancelled the SRX, no one would have missed it.

by entering the new one, cadillac gets stronger in this segment.

enthusaists can buy the cts wagon and its even better in every way than the SRX.

women and crossover buyers can buy the new one and it will sell more vs the RX.

i for one tend to think this approach will pay off for GM.

[regfootball]

What is stiffling is GM wanted to outdo the competitors and outdid them in almost every department including weight and excluding powertrain. If GM knew that the vehicle was going to be on a St. Louis ribs diet, it should have added 3.6LDI.

That would have served three purposes:

• Separating it from Equinox V6 further.
• Giving an engine worthy to haul that heavy hiney.
• Bragging rights for most powerful engine standard in its class.

The engine would not have had lack of torque like the 3.0DI is.

And if Caddy still wanted the high output version, the twin turbo 2.8 should have been bumped to 340 odd hp (it is already making close to 330hp in the Insignia).

my gut tells me lutz will have the 3.6 in the lineup for this vehicle sooner rather than later.

[CaddyXLR-V]

if you want the sigma buy the cts wagon.

the lexus rx was the segment sales leader and the new srx is more appealing than that.

the old SRX did not sell so they killed it. this new SRX is enters Caddy in the much morelucrative RX segment, but they decided to take the old name back

if they would have cancelled the SRX, no one would have missed it.

by entering the new one, cadillac gets stronger in this segment.

enthusaists can buy the cts wagon and its even better in every way than the SRX.

women and crossover buyers can buy the new one and it will sell more vs the RX.

i for one tend to think this approach will pay off for GM.

wagons don't sell. Maybe BMW should have cancelled the X3 and X5 and made a 3 series wagon and 5 series wagon. My wife would never let me buy a wagon anyway.

[Oracle of Delphi]

My wife would never let me buy a wagon anyway.

Are you a man or a mouse?

[CaddyXLR-V]

Are you a man or a mouse?

I don't like wagons anyway, so I never pushed the issue. She wants a CTS or Corvette, so it's not like she's not into cars, she's just not into wagons.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I don't like wagons anyway, so I never pushed the issue. She wants a CTS or Corvette, so it's not like she's not into cars, she's just not into wagons.

Rightttt ...

[Blake Noble]

*hears a whip cracking*

[cletus8269]

here are the wagons i am interested in:

and to save more time

http://www.flickr.com/groups/562044@N24/pool/page2/

[enzl]

SRX will be a marketplace success, simply because it is cheaper to build than the SRX before it---the prior SRX is an excellent vehicle, but the market it entered didn't want a 7 pass SportscarUV. (at close to 50k properly equipped).

The X5 now covers that limited ground along with other, more specialized brands. I don't like the weight (theta-plus, ahem) but the new SRX be successful, to the frustration of enthusiasts.

[regfootball]

wagons don't sell. Maybe BMW should have cancelled the X3 and X5 and made a 3 series wagon and 5 series wagon. My wife would never let me buy a wagon anyway.

the CTS wagon is attractive enough that i think it will challenge that view. the SRX wagon so ass ugly....ok. not ass ugly like my aztek. but it clearly did not resonate with the public on styling.

[turbo200]

the latest 2.8t review reads like a GM press release. this is seriously glowing....but many sections of it seem like they were written by a sycophant. weird. money?