Cadillac Announces 3.6L DI V6 For The 2012 SRX (Finally)

[William Maley]

Cadillac Announces 3.6L DI V6 For The 2012 SRX (Finally!)

William Maley - Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

April 12, 2011

If there is an Achilles's Heel for the Cadillac SRX, it would be the engine lineup. Either the engine didn't have enough power (3.0L V6) or problems with the type fuel put in and abysmal fuel economy (2.8T V6). Now, Cadillac is rectifying that by offering a 3.6L DI V6 for the 2012 SRX. The 3.6 is projected to produce 300 HP and 260 lb-ft of torque and will be able to run on E85.

Other changes for the 2012 SRX include Bluetooth becoming standard on all models, door lock switches on the driver and passenger doors, and heated steering wheel on the luxury, performance and premium trim levels. The SRX with the 3.6 arrives onto dealer lots in the summer.

Press Release Is Below

2012 Cadillac SRX Offers More Powerful 3.6L Engine

New engine delivers improved acceleration, E85 ethanol FlexFuel capability

2011-04-12

* Bluetooth becomes standard on all models

* Heated steering wheel for luxury, performance and premium versions

* New 20-inch machined-face wheel finish

DETROIT – Cadillac will offer a new, more powerful engine for the 2012 SRX, providing buyers of the luxury crossover with improved acceleration both from a standstill and when passing.

The SRX will receive a 3.6L direct-injected V-6 engine projected to deliver 300 horsepower (224 kW) and 260 lb.-ft. (353 Nm) of torque, according to preliminary tests by Cadillac. The SRX’s current 3.0L direct-injected V-6 engine provides 265 horsepower (198 kW) and 223 lb.-ft (302 Nm) of torque. SRX models with the new engine are expected to arrive at dealerships in late summer. Pricing will be announced closer to the start of production.

Dramatically redesigned for the 2010 model year, the SRX has quickly climbed the luxury crossover ranks. SRX total U.S. sales rose 153 percent last year to 51,094, outselling the Acura MDX, Audi Q5 and Mercedes-Benz GLK350, and second only to the Lexus RX350 in sales among midsize luxury crossovers.

With the new engine, the SRX is projected to top the Lexus RX350 in horsepower and torque. Lexus rates the RX350’s 3.5L V-6 engine at 275 horsepower (205 kW) and 257 lb.-ft. (348 Nm) of torque.

“SRX is resonating with luxury buyers by offering the function of a crossover and the distinctive style of a Cadillac,” said Don Butler, vice president of Cadillac marketing. “Now, we’re raising the standards even higher by providing the SRX with enhanced performance. The new engine will make the SRX more responsive for passing on the highway, entering freeways from on-ramps and climbing hills.”

In addition to more horsepower and torque, the new engine has a wider rpm range for its maximum torque, which gives the driver more power across a wider range of speeds and driving conditions.

The new engine also is FlexFuel capable, meaning it can use either gasoline, E85 ethanol or any combination of the two. EPA fuel economy ratings have not been finalized, but Cadillac expects the SRX to provide customers with comparable real-world fuel efficiency. The current engine has an EPA rating of 18 city/25 highway mpg.

Other enhancements on the 2012 SRX include standard Bluetooth phone connectivity on all models, a heated steering wheel on the luxury, performance and premium trim levels and door lock switches on the driver and passenger door panels. The new model will continue to have door lock switches on the center console. Also for 2012, SRX will offer a new machined-face finish on the 20-inch wheels, which are standard on performance and premium trim levels.

“Every detail counts,” Butler said. “The SRX has been a phenomenal success, but at Cadillac, we’re always looking for ways to make our automobiles better.”

Popular features already offered on the SRX include a moveable cargo fence and large under-floor storage space in the rear, a liftgate that can be programmed to stop at different heights and an UltraView sunroof that covers 70 percent of the vehicle roof.

The SRX also is available in an all-wheel-drive version that incorporates an electronic limited slip rear differential. This system not only improves traction in slippery road conditions but provides side-to-side torque transfer along the rear axle to enhance control during hard cornering.

[smk4565]

Good move, should have had the 3.6 liter from the start. The old SRX had the 3.6 and a V8, they really downgraded engines for the redesign.

[William Maley]

Good move, should have had the 3.6 liter from the start. The old SRX had the 3.6 and a V8, they really downgraded engines for the redesign.

Agreed. Had the chance to take the SRX with the 3.0, now I understand why that engine gets a lot crap. It's not powerful enough.

[Paolino]

I'm sorry, but bluetooth should be standard on all trims of every Cadillac. Hello, LUXURY brand.

[smk4565]

I'm sorry, but bluetooth should be standard on all trims of every Cadillac. Hello, LUXURY brand.

Agreed, the Hyundai Elantra has bluetooth. I was surprised that wasn't already standard on the SRX.

[FAPTurbo]

Well at least all trims get Bluetooth now. I'm surprised it wasn't standard before.

This is likely the next vehicle that'll be added to the family stable, and I'm pleased that it'll have the 3.6. The 3.0 was not befitting of the vehicle.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Dodgefap

[Drew Dowdell]

I would have liked to see an e-Assist version of this car on the 3.0.

[Croc]

Um, where were the door lock switches before?

[Drew Dowdell]

Um, where were the door lock switches before?

Center stack directly under the clock.

[Intrepidation]

Worthwhile changes. 3.6 DI should have been there from the start, but at least they are rectifying it.

[Croc]

Um, where were the door lock switches before?

Center stack directly under the clock.

Well THAT'S unintuitive!! So, the big question now is whether or not there are 3 sets of door locks, or if the ones on the center stack have been removed. Very strange...

EDIT: So after checking, another relevant question is if this change is coming to the Equinox, Terrain and/or SAAB 9-4x.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Croc

[ZL-1]

Good news.

[Drew Dowdell]

Um, where were the door lock switches before?

Center stack directly under the clock.

Well THAT'S unintuitive!! So, the big question now is whether or not there are 3 sets of door locks, or if the ones on the center stack have been removed. Very strange...

EDIT: So after checking, another relevant question is if this change is coming to the Equinox, Terrain and/or SAAB 9-4x.

Almost all of GM's new new cars have the power door lock in the center.

On the Regal it's just to the left of the Hazard Signal button.

Same for Lacrosse

Camaro....

almost anything that has been redesigned lately.

[Justin Bimmer]

They are trying to prevent a situation where a child gets their head stuck in the window by pressing the button when/if they stick their head out the window.

[Satty]

I shut my sisters head in the window of a Ford Tempo rental we had in Atlanta in 1994.

[William Maley]

Well THAT'S unintuitive!! So, the big question now is whether or not there are 3 sets of door locks, or if the ones on the center stack have been removed. Very strange...

From the press release:

..door lock switches on the driver and passenger door panels. The new model will continue to have door lock switches on the center console.

[z28luvr01]

Honestly, are door lock switches even that big a deal anymore, with RKE fobs with RF transmitters that have the capability to unlock the car when you approach it?

I think they're better off just on the dash, but NBD. I'm not gonna be a drama queen about it and make *this* the thing that keeps me from buying an SRX.

Back on the 3.6L DI - that's good news for it. It's a shame the 2.8L and 3.0L V6s turned out to be duds in a sense.

[Croc]

They are trying to prevent a situation where a child gets their head stuck in the window by pressing the button when/if they stick their head out the window.

Door lock switches don't do anything to power windows. The window switch thing was years ago, where all manufacturers had to switch to a "pull up" hooked switch design for powered upward motion.

From the press release:

..door lock switches on the driver and passenger door panels. The new model will continue to have door lock switches on the center console.

I swear I read that like five times and didn't see that sentence.

Almost all of GM's new new cars have the power door lock in the center.

On the Regal it's just to the left of the Hazard Signal button.

Same for Lacrosse

Camaro....

almost anything that has been redesigned lately.

Interesting. I really, REALLY don't like that. Reminds me of my awful ML320 with all the window and lock controls crammed on the center console in a sea of identical buttons.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Croc

[Z-06]

Honestly - it is cost cutting. By having the lock button in the center you do not need two on the either passenger door. Any of the front passengers can reach them.

[Robert Hall]

Honestly - it is cost cutting. By having the lock button in the center you do not need two on the either passenger door. Any of the front passengers can reach them.

Yes, it's a standardization thing...can use the same mechanism across multiple models, and it simplifies LHD or RHD usage..

[67impss]

Honestly - it is cost cutting. By having the lock button in the center you do not need two on the either passenger door. Any of the front passengers can reach them.

Yes, it's a standardization thing...can use the same mechanism across multiple models, and it simplifies LHD or RHD usage..

As opposed to being on the doors

[Robert Hall]

Honestly - it is cost cutting. By having the lock button in the center you do not need two on the either passenger door. Any of the front passengers can reach them.

Yes, it's a standardization thing...can use the same mechanism across multiple models, and it simplifies LHD or RHD usage..

As opposed to being on the doors

Yes, since door lock controls are usually different for the driver and passenger (driver's side unlocks all doors, and might have an additional passenger lockout button), and passenger door unlocks only the passenger door..

[Paolino]

I almost never use the lock so I really don't see the problem. I get in, the car locks the door when I drive, unlocks when I shift into park. I rarely have to hit the lock button to let someone in/out, and if I did, again, I don't see a problem if it's on the door or the center console.

If you can reach for the radio just fine or an HVAC control, then why the big deal hitting it on the console?

[dwightlooi]

Should have had the 3.6 from day one. Fuel economy would have been better or no different from the 3.0 (based on experiences with both on the CTS).

But, I guess its better late than never...

[CanadianBacon94]

Should have had the 3.6 from day one. Fuel economy would have been better or no different from the 3.0 (based on experiences with both on the CTS).

But, I guess its better late than never...

dwight what is the highest capacity transaxle gm has?, im just wondering about the Twin turbo idea

[SAmadei]

Interesting. I really, REALLY don't like that. Reminds me of my awful ML320 with all the window and lock controls crammed on the center console in a sea of identical buttons.

Neither do I. Dashboard already has enough crap on it.

[SAmadei]

I almost never use the lock so I really don't see the problem. I get in, the car locks the door when I drive, unlocks when I shift into park. I rarely have to hit the lock button to let someone in/out, and if I did, again, I don't see a problem if it's on the door or the center console.

Well, I don't like autolocking doors, either.

I've done delivery where I never shift out of drive as the passenger hops in and out... it means "fixing" the locks or pressing the button constantly.

Also, in my Bonne, it does NOT unlock until the car is turned off. Makes it a real PITA for me to open the gate into the yard... I nearly break the door latch before I remember to unlock the door manually. The GP unlocks in park, but I then to be faster on the draw to the door latch than the car can unlock.

If you can reach for the radio just fine or an HVAC control, then why the big deal hitting it on the console?

Big deal is that I'm already unfolded and half out of the car, I have to refold myself to reach the locks/trunk release. Worse, if I am outside the car, without the fob, and I want to lock the doors or open the trunk, I have to crawl into the car to reach that part of the dash.

I'm still annoyed that I can't start the GP while outside the car... I can't reach around the steering wheel because the key is lower on the dash... the locks/trunk would be even farther in.

[caddycruiser]

I'm sorry, but bluetooth should be standard on all trims of every Cadillac. Hello, LUXURY brand.

Powertrain aside, the wackiest part of the SRX is how they've had equipment packaged. Same for the CTS in some ways. Bluetooth should never be an option. Keyless access "half way" depending on which model you get is also weird. Just strange. Everything is a HUGE package additional, but just weirdly done. Hopefully that gets revised too.

[dwightlooi]

Should have had the 3.6 from day one. Fuel economy would have been better or no different from the 3.0 (based on experiences with both on the CTS).

But, I guess its better late than never...

dwight what is the highest capacity transaxle gm has?, im just wondering about the Twin turbo idea

The SRX is a Transverse FWD platform (with the option of AWD). GM has four transverse six speed automatics. These and their torque ratings are:-

• Hydramatic 6T40 -- 177 lb-ft
  
• Hydramatic 6T45 -- 232 lb-ft
  
• Hydramatic 6T70 -- 280 lb-ft
  
• Hydramatic 6T75 -- 301 lb-ft
  

Now, an interesting fact few people pay attention to is that the 6T70 (Malibu V6, Lacrosse, etc) is the same transmission as the Ford 6F-50 (Fusion V6, Taurus V6, etc.) GM builds theirs at Warren Michigan, Ford puts theirs together in Sharonsville, Ohio. But, the transmissions are jointly developed by GM and Ford, and are both rated for 280 lb-ft.

GM did some minor tuning and produced the 6T75 which is uprated to 301 lb-ft.

Ford did some more substantial work and produced the 6F-55 which is rated at 350 lb-ft (this is the Ecoboost tranny).

Basically, GM should have no problems producing a 350 lb-ft capable 6Txx if they want to without changing the architecture. But they haven't done that. And they may not bother, given that the LF3 engine under development is a 3.0 bi-turbo. You can tune that engine to about 320 hp @ 5600 rpm and stick to a modest but extremely broad 300 lb-ft @ 1600~5600 rpm. It won't be bad. Such an engine will come on boost before you even realize there's a pair of turbos at work and it'll still make more power than a BMW 335, which is decent enough.

[G. David Felt]

An SRX with the DI 3.6 AWD with Twin Turbo would be a killer V version.

[dwightlooi]

An SRX with the DI 3.6 AWD with Twin Turbo would be a killer V version.

More likely...

If they don't do a new 6T transmission variant it'll be a 3.0 TT with 300~330 hp / 300 lb-ft

If they do a new 6T transmission variant it'll probably be about 360 hp / 360 lb-ft

Not bad. Good enough to get the SRX's 0-60 time into the sixes, but not exactly wow inspiring by "V" Standards. Hpwevver, it is a transverse FWD platform, so they can't drop the LSA into it. Even if they could the 6T family wouldn't be able to be beefed up enough to pull 551 lb-ft duty. So my guess is that there won't be an "SRX-V". Instead the 300hp 3.6 will become the "standard engine" replacing both the 3.0 and 2.8T. At some point they may bring on a 3.0TT as an upgrade option making 320~360 hp, very much like the 2.8T was, but no V for the RX350 wanna be.

Edited April 15, 2011 by dwightlooi

[William Maley]

An SRX with the DI 3.6 AWD with Twin Turbo would be a killer V version.

If they build it, I will come..

[smk4565]

Can't build an SRX-V with a transverse mounted engine. Much like they can't do an XTS-V. Should have made all these rear wheel drive, then 550 hp is fair game on all of them.

[Robert Hall]

Can't build an SRX-V with a transverse mounted engine. Much like they can't do an XTS-V. Should have made all these rear wheel drive, then 550 hp is fair game on all of them.

Well, the main competitors for these two (Lexus RX and ES), Lincoln MKX and MKS) don't have performance versions either. Since they are just FWD/AWD models, they can't compete w/ the RWD/AWD big league models.

[FAPTurbo]

An SRX-V would be would just about as successful as the R63 AMG. It's not the drivetrain or what wheels are driven that is the problem, it is that nobody in the market craves a powerful crossover. Look to the 2.8T's low sales and discontinuation.

People who want a performance family hauler would be better suited to a CTS-V wagon.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Dodgefap

[Paolino]

An SRX with the DI 3.6 AWD with Twin Turbo would be a killer V version.

If they build it, I will come..

I think you misspelled a word there

[smk4565]

Well, the main competitors for these two (Lexus RX and ES), Lincoln MKX and MKS) don't have performance versions either. Since they are just FWD/AWD models, they can't compete w/ the RWD/AWD big league models.

Exactly, Cadillac has chosen to compete with Lincoln and the bottom of the Lexus lineup, and wishes not to compete with the big league models. Sad. For all the great stuff the United States has engineered, we can't build a car that competes in the big leagues. And we had Duesenberg and Pierce Arrow, Cadillacs of the 1920s and 30s. We (and Rolls-Royce) were the big leagues long ago, it would be nice to see that once again.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, the main competitors for these two (Lexus RX and ES), Lincoln MKX and MKS) don't have performance versions either. Since they are just FWD/AWD models, they can't compete w/ the RWD/AWD big league models.

Exactly, Cadillac has chosen to compete with Lincoln and the bottom of the Lexus lineup, and wishes not to compete with the big league models. Sad. For all the great stuff the United States has engineered, we can't build a car that competes in the big leagues. And we had Duesenberg and Pierce Arrow, Cadillacs of the 1920s and 30s. We (and Rolls-Royce) were the big leagues long ago, it would be nice to see that once again.

You are SOOOO right. There is no way that a 300 HP SRX will EVER compete with a BMW X3-M..... I mean... if BMW actually bothered to produce one.... but really... it couldn't even compete with the GLK - AMG 630..... if Mercedes would just get off their butts and build it. Unfortunately, I hear the Audi SQ5 has been shelved.

The SRX most certainly can compete with the RWD based models. It kicked the X3's and GLK's and Q5's combined asses all last year. Those three combined sold 50,539 compared to the SRX's 51,094. In fact, assuming Cadillac's claim of only a 10% take rate of the 2.8T SRX is correct, the turbo SRX alone came within 900 units of outselling the X3 for all of 2010. The SRX Turbo posted some pretty high transaction prices as well, you couldn't get one until you were ready to step up to a $49k base price... so you can't even use transaction prices as a point of escape here.

[smk4565]

SRX is sized more like an X5 or ML-class. SRX and the RX sell because they appeal to the lowest common denominator of the luxury market. Sales does not necessarily equal prestige or profit. The Camry lights up every car on the sales chart, no one thinks the Camry is the best sedan in the USA. SRX may also sell because it is new, I am curious to see how it sells in year 3 or 4.

[Drew Dowdell]

SRX is sized more like an X5 or ML-class. SRX and the RX sell because they appeal to the lowest common denominator of the luxury market. Sales does not necessarily equal prestige or profit. The Camry lights up every car on the sales chart, no one thinks the Camry is the best sedan in the USA. SRX may also sell because it is new, I am curious to see how it sells in year 3 or 4.

SRX is sized like an X5 or ML only in exterior. In interior space, it is clearly up against the X3 and GLK.

Your trouble is you realize when you are rhetorically trapped and you then change the target of "what Cadillac must do to win the market" First it was sales.. they have to outsell Mercedes in each market they compete in. When Cadillac actually does that, you change the target.. now by outselling Mercedes and BMW and Audi combined... they are suddenly "lowest common denominator".

On top of that, Cadillac also has to be superior in the eye of mythical "people"... those people who are soooo in the know, but for some reason never actually purchase the damned cars. The X3 sold 6,000 units in the U.S. last year at roughly similar transaction prices to the SRX. I think Cadillac would happily piss off those "people" you speak of if that's the measure of success you want them to stand up to.

Really... what is the excuse of the X3. How is 6,000 units in sales ANYTHING for Cadillac to look up to?

[balthazar]

Your trouble is you realize when you are rhetorically trapped and you then change the target of "what Cadillac must do to win the market" First it was sales.. they have to outsell Mercedes in each market they compete in. When Cadillac actually does that, you change the target.. now by outselling Mercedes and BMW and Audi combined... they are suddenly "lowest common denominator".

Damn; pinned down!

[FAPTurbo]

SRX is sized more like an X5 or ML-class. SRX and the RX sell because they appeal to the lowest common denominator of the luxury market.

Sales does not necessarily equal prestige or profit.

The Camry lights up every car on the sales chart, no one thinks the Camry is the best sedan in the USA.

SRX may also sell because it is new, I am curious to see how it sells in year 3 or 4.

[smk4565]

SRX is sized like an X5 or ML only in exterior. In interior space, it is clearly up against the X3 and GLK.

Your trouble is you realize when you are rhetorically trapped and you then change the target of "what Cadillac must do to win the market" First it was sales.. they have to outsell Mercedes in each market they compete in. When Cadillac actually does that, you change the target.. now by outselling Mercedes and BMW and Audi combined... they are suddenly "lowest common denominator".

Poor interior packaging by Cadillac, likely do to the FWD chassis. Although the CTS also has a small interior for its exterior dimensions. I always thought you wanted the most interior space for an exterior dimension.

Cadillac could also make the CTS front drive, price it at $29k, and sell 100,000 units a year, but that isn't exactly winning. All they did with the SRX is cheap it out and drop the price down to get sales. Cadillac gave up on the rear drive crossover SUV market, they gave up trying to match BMW and Mercedes in the mid-size (and mid-price) market.

I don't think Cadillac needs to outsell Mercedes everywhere, but I do think Cadillac needs sales in all parts of the globe. I'd like to see high end and profitable sales too. Cadillac should be a car people aspire to own. I don't see what is so hard about Cadillac making small-medium-large sedans priced $35k-$50k-$80k. BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Audi all do this, Infiniti covers the lower two, Jaguar does the top two. I'd like to see Cadillac build a lineup that matches the imports on size and price, and have some sales success. Even 3rd place in USA, 5th globally would be pretty good.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, if Cadillac wanted to match BMW in the crossover market, they should have dropped the 3.0 and kept the 2.8t. Sales for them would be right in line with the X3 then.

[Satty]

Why does the X3 exist?

[Z-06]

Why does the X3 exist?

It does?