2012 Cadillac SRX gains the LFX

[Drew Dowdell]

2012 Cadillac SRX gains the LFX

July 26th, 2011

Drew Dowdell - CheersandGears.com

For 2012 Cadillac is dumping the smooth but overwhelmed 3.0 liter V6 and replacing it with the new LFX 308 horsepower V6 giving it a jump of 43 horsepower over the 2011 model. While the 308 horsepower is a good marketing bump, where consumers will feel the biggest change is in the torque rating. The outgoing 3.0 V6 produced just 223 lb-ft of torque at a lofty 5,100rpm. This meant that the driver would have to keep the engine rev higher even just for regular city driving. Indeed, the lack of torque was noted in our earlier review of the 2011 Cadillac SRX 3.0 and 2.8 Turbo. Cadillac remedies this deficiency by increasing torque output to 265 lb-ft and making that torque peak available at just 2,400 rpm. In city driving, this should make the SRX feel substantially faster than the 3.0 model.

In fact, this new torque rating pushes the SRX above the base engines of the BMW X3, Lexus RX350, Audi Q5 and Mercedes Benz GLK. The only luxury crossovers on the radar that offer more torque (Lincoln MKX and Acura MDX) make you rev the engine much higher to get it.

Along with the new engine, Cadillac is including a revised 6-speed automatic transmission with an Eco mode that lowers the rpm for each shift point, there by increasing fuel efficiency. With all of this increased power, fuel economy does get dinged by 1mpg in each rating to 17/24 cty/hwy for the front wheel drive model and 16/23 cty/hwy for the all wheel drive one. However, my guess is that with the availability of more torque at lower rpm, achiving those numbers will be more realistic.... something that couldn't be said for last year's model.

Cadillac claims that 71% of SRX buyers come from other brands. This has helped the SRX to take number 2 spot in the entry luxury crossover segment. With the above changes plus some other baubles and bright work, Cadillac is clear that they are not standing still.

[Camino LS6]

Nice improvement, but it is still ugly.

[hyperv6]

Someone likes it as it is doing well in sales.

[ocnblu]

I've grown to like it from the back and rear 3/4 view... but that giant, overhanging nose is just too much. It always looks like it is about to tip up onto its chin. I do see quite a few out there, so I guess Cadillac doesn't give two hoots what I think.

Cannot say a single bad word about the powertrain improvements, however.

[smk4565]

That is the engine that should have been in the SRX from day one. Better late than never though.

On a related note, the X3 xDrive35i gets 19/26 mpg in AWD trim, 3 better than the SRX. Luckily for Cadillac most buyers in this segment don't care about power and fuel economy, but I still think the SRX is on the wrong platform which limits them on powertrain.

[Drew Dowdell]

The SRX out powers both the Mercedes and BMW.... how is it limited?

[Camino LS6]

Someone likes it as it is doing well in sales.

Can't deny that - lots of ugly stuff seems to sell well these days.

[smk4565]

The SRX out powers both the Mercedes and BMW.... how is it limited?

8 more HP than the BMW but the SRX gives up 35 lb-ft and the BMW hits it's peak torque at 1300 rpm. But more importantly the X3 gets 3 mpg higher in city and highway. If the SRX were on the correct platform, not only would handling be improved, but it would open it up to better engines and transmissions.

The SRX, MKZ and RX350 all offer basically the same drivetrain, but they get by with it because drivetrain and handling aren't important to most consumers in this segment. Fuel economy may be however. But all 3 of those SUVs can easily hit $45,000 and they offer about the same horsepower and fuel economy of a $29k Kia Sorrento. Over long term, I just don't see those 3 offering enough to differentiate themselves from mass volume SUVs. It is the same reason the Acura TL and Lincoln MKZ don't sell as well as a CTS, C-class or 3-series. At the end of the day, the MKZ is still a Fusion, just like the MKZ/SRX/RX350 have a lot of mass produced generic FWD underneath the sheet metal.

[riviera74]

smk4565, it is true that the current SRX is a generic FWD crossover. But this generation sells a LOT better than the previous one, which was more like a tall CTS wagon. The Lexus RX350/400H lead this segment, and it has done so ever since the original RX300 was released about 15 years ago. Sure, FWD is lame compared to RWD. But the sales figures do not lie. New customers ditching other brands for the new SRX is a good thing because it is what they want. The new LFX engine going into the SRX should have gone in the engine bay in the first place because lack of torque in the 3L V6 made this porky crossover feel slow. Ideally, the X3 and the X5 would be the market leaders and the 1st generation SRX would have been upgraded. That did not happen. Since women seem to lead in this segment, let her have what she wants: a comfortable ride in a useful vehicle that is not too big for her.

As for the TL/MKZ vs. CTS/3/C class, point taken and QFT.

[thedriver]

Not too shabby for a reskinned Saturn Vue. . .

[dwightlooi]

That is the engine that should have been in the SRX from day one. Better late than never though.

On a related note, the X3 xDrive35i gets 19/26 mpg in AWD trim, 3 better than the SRX. Luckily for Cadillac most buyers in this segment don't care about power and fuel economy, but I still think the SRX is on the wrong platform which limits them on powertrain.

X3 28i is 19/26

X3 35i is 16/23

Why? Gear Ratios, gear ratios, gear ratios. The BMW's ZF 8-speed tranny simply has a taller top gear.

Edited July 27, 2011 by dwightlooi

[G. David Felt]

Cadillac needs to also stop listening to the sport jocks and drop the reflective chrome on the dash and offer their products in a monochromatic package. I love the caddies I currently have but hate the new ones due to all the overkill Chrome. Plus how do you expect me to replace my 2006 Platinum Escalade ESV when you have less seat room. I cannot sit up in the new Esclades as they took away room that I have in my older one.

Edited July 27, 2011 by dfelt

[smk4565]

That is the engine that should have been in the SRX from day one. Better late than never though.

On a related note, the X3 xDrive35i gets 19/26 mpg in AWD trim, 3 better than the SRX. Luckily for Cadillac most buyers in this segment don't care about power and fuel economy, but I still think the SRX is on the wrong platform which limits them on powertrain.

X3 28i is 19/26

X3 35i is 16/23

Why? Gear Ratios, gear ratios, gear ratios. The BMW's ZF 8-speed tranny simply has a taller top gear.

According to Fueleconomy.gov which lists official EPA rating,s the X3 35i gets 19/26 mpg.

And yes the BMW/ZF 8-speed gives it an advantage, but that is what makes them BMW. They constantly work to offer the best engines and transmissions. Cadillac digs up the 6-speed out of a Malibu/Equinox, and puts in a gutless 3 liter V6 (again from the Equinox) and calls it a day. Until now when they realized the error and put the correct engine into the SRX. Cadillac can put an 8-speed in their cars, not one is stopping them. Then they can have advantageous gear ratios also.

[smk4565]

smk4565, it is true that the current SRX is a generic FWD crossover. But this generation sells a LOT better than the previous one, which was more like a tall CTS wagon. The Lexus RX350/400H lead this segment, and it has done so ever since the original RX300 was released about 15 years ago. Sure, FWD is lame compared to RWD. But the sales figures do not lie. New customers ditching other brands for the new SRX is a good thing because it is what they want. The new LFX engine going into the SRX should have gone in the engine bay in the first place because lack of torque in the 3L V6 made this porky crossover feel slow. Ideally, the X3 and the X5 would be the market leaders and the 1st generation SRX would have been upgraded. That did not happen. Since women seem to lead in this segment, let her have what she wants: a comfortable ride in a useful vehicle that is not too big for her.

As for the TL/MKZ vs. CTS/3/C class, point taken and QFT.

New SRX sells better than the old one because the old one was $10,000 more expensive and looked too long and too wagon like. Plus the new SRX is a better size. And yes, mostly women shop in this segment and they care more about soft, easy, predictable FWD, rather than the handling and performance advantage of RWD. Also consider the GLK and X3 are compacts, compared to more mid-size Lincoln/Lexus/Cadillac entrants to this segment. That "more room for the kids" argument helps the RX350 over an X3 also.

But the segment may not always be like that, especially as mainstream crossovers get better and near the limit of FWD performance. Plus, Cadillac has no competitor to the M-class or X5, and there is probably more profit to be had at that price point than at the entry level one. SRX sells for now, but I wonder if the same formula will be working come 2018-2020. Acura and Lincoln have tumbled in recent years with that strategy, I don't like Cadillac going down that road and they are doing it with 3 of 5 current/future vehicles (Escalade, XTS, SRX).

[Lamar]

SMK has the MPG right.

I just drove a car with their 8AT for the first time today (my mom's 535i) and it's a good, smooth transmission, but it shifts a LOT. Even in DS mode.

One thing about GM, though, is that they hate to buy automatic transmissions from someone else. That's why they're getting their own 8AT together (don't know which way it will turn though).

[riviera74]

SMK has the MPG right.

I just drove a car with their 8AT for the first time today (my mom's 535i) and it's a good, smooth transmission, but it shifts a LOT. Even in DS mode.

One thing about GM, though, is that they hate to buy automatic transmissions from someone else. That's why they're getting their own 8AT together (don't know which way it will turn though).

GM hates buying automatics from others because the automatic was invented by Oldsmobile in 1940. Moreover, BMW and Ford use GM 6ATs in their vehicles now, so why should GM use someone else's AT?

[Lamar]

GM hates buying automatics from others because the automatic was invented by Oldsmobile in 1940. Moreover, BMW and Ford use GM 6ATs in their vehicles now, so why should GM use someone else's AT?

Interesting point there, and I agree.

(With Ford, though, the 6F is a joint venture with the GM 6T.)

[riviera74]

New SRX sells better than the old one because the old one was $10,000 more expensive and looked too long and too wagon like. Plus the new SRX is a better size. And yes, mostly women shop in this segment and they care more about soft, easy, predictable FWD, rather than the handling and performance advantage of RWD. Also consider the GLK and X3 are compacts, compared to more mid-size Lincoln/Lexus/Cadillac entrants to this segment. That "more room for the kids" argument helps the RX350 over an X3 also.

But the segment may not always be like that, especially as mainstream crossovers get better and near the limit of FWD performance. Plus, Cadillac has no competitor to the M-class or X5, and there is probably more profit to be had at that price point than at the entry level one. SRX sells for now, but I wonder if the same formula will be working come 2018-2020. Acura and Lincoln have tumbled in recent years with that strategy, I don't like Cadillac going down that road and they are doing it with 3 of 5 current/future vehicles (Escalade, XTS, SRX).

I doubt the Escalade will completely go FWD (i.e. be put on Lambda), especially if GM wants to maintain profits. I suspect that the SRX will still be with us as a FWD for another decade; I do hope there is a RWD alternative available alongside the SRX to cover both ends of the market. The XTS should be temporary, and I hope it does not see 2018.

Lamar is right about the GM 6ATs being a joint venture with Ford; I forgot about that fact.

[Drew Dowdell]

GM hates buying automatics from others because the automatic was invented by Oldsmobile in 1940. Moreover, BMW and Ford use GM 6ATs in their vehicles now, so why should GM use someone else's AT?

Interesting point there, and I agree.

(With Ford, though, the 6F is a joint venture with the GM 6T.)

yeah... GM developed it, Ford gave them money for the design and then did their own software for it.

[Lamar]

yeah... GM developed it, Ford gave them money for the design and then did their own software for it.

Proof?

Both of the original press releases I read (GM as well as Ford) say that the transaxle was co-developed.

[hyperv6]

GM is the best to build automatic transmissions and has been for years. Their only issues they ever had were in the years they tried to save money on them and they got caught in the 80's.

Even Rolls bought the Turbo 400 in the past and tried to improve it only to have issues. They polished the valve body to make it look up to Rolls standards only to have it malfunction and GM tell them to stop polishing it as the ruff castings help control the flow.

I think it will be save to say the 8 speed GM has coming will be world class.

Edited July 28, 2011 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

As an companion to the SRX and Escalade, I'd like to see a Cadillac X6 competitor---the previous SRX dirty bits and ride height married to a CTS 4dr 'coupe' bodystyle (i.e. the CTS 4dr w/ the 2dr's rear end)...that would be totally badazz...

[Lamar]

As an companion to the SRX and Escalade, I'd like to see a Cadillac X6 competitor---the previous SRX dirty bits and ride height married to a CTS 4dr 'coupe' bodystyle (i.e. the CTS 4dr w/ the 2dr's rear end)...that would be totally badazz...

Not you too, Moltie...

[Robert Hall]

As an companion to the SRX and Escalade, I'd like to see a Cadillac X6 competitor---the previous SRX dirty bits and ride height married to a CTS 4dr 'coupe' bodystyle (i.e. the CTS 4dr w/ the 2dr's rear end)...that would be totally badazz...

Not you too, Moltie...

I've always had a soft spot for the AMC Eagles..

I'd love to see a RWD/AWD CTS fastback CUV...in V-series version also!

(wish I had mad phat photoshop skillz and the time...CTS-XV... )

(Maybe I'm just loopy from overwork..I'm half way through week 3 of a deathmarch...last 2 were 75 hr weeks, this will be at least 85...but at least every hour is billable and all meals are provided in-office...)

Edited July 28, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Lamar]

As an companion to the SRX and Escalade, I'd like to see a Cadillac X6 competitor---the previous SRX dirty bits and ride height married to a CTS 4dr 'coupe' bodystyle (i.e. the CTS 4dr w/ the 2dr's rear end)...that would be totally badazz...

Not you too, Moltie...

I've always had a soft spot for the AMC Eagles..

I'd love to see a RWD/AWD CTS fastback CUV...in V-series version also!

No, I feel you.

But one company already built an X6 competitor when it really wasn't asked for by many... and the ZDX was born.

[Z-06]

GM already built the X6 in the form of Aztec. X6, ZDX and Juke are its spiritual successors.

[Robert Hall]

As an companion to the SRX and Escalade, I'd like to see a Cadillac X6 competitor---the previous SRX dirty bits and ride height married to a CTS 4dr 'coupe' bodystyle (i.e. the CTS 4dr w/ the 2dr's rear end)...that would be totally badazz...

Not you too, Moltie...

I've always had a soft spot for the AMC Eagles..

I'd love to see a RWD/AWD CTS fastback CUV...in V-series version also!

No, I feel you.

But one company already built an X6 competitor when it really wasn't asked for by many... and the ZDX was born.

No comparison... I'm thinking something serious to compete w/ the X6M...(I'd love to see Cadillac have a V-series SUV as badass as the Jeep GC SRT8, but they can't do that with a weak FWD-based CUV and the Esky is too big..)

Edited July 29, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[smk4565]

I doubt the Escalade will completely go FWD (i.e. be put on Lambda), especially if GM wants to maintain profits. I suspect that the SRX will still be with us as a FWD for another decade; I do hope there is a RWD alternative available alongside the SRX to cover both ends of the market. The XTS should be temporary, and I hope it does not see 2018.

Lamar is right about the GM 6ATs being a joint venture with Ford; I forgot about that fact.

I actually meant that the Escalade is a Chevy Tahoe underneath the same way that Lincolns and Acuras are Fords and Hondas. I think the Escalade will stay Tahoe based, but if it did move to Lambda, the same problem of having your top vehicle be a Chevy with chrome, wood and leather exists.

[smk4565]

Please no X6, ZDX, or 4-door cross-coupe-fastback-hatch vehicle. They are pointless, they don't have the cargo space of a normal SUV, and they don't handle as well as a car. Cadillac needs to focus on their car lines.

[hyperv6]

The Cadillac Large SUV's need little right now. They sell well and more then likely make twice the profit some of the other make since they are based on a Chevy truck. Right now I would love to see them stay on the cars and not make them world class. I want to see GM make them class leading world class.

The Truck SUV's should be changed up later but for now they are the one thing that I would say make more money per unit that Cadillac makes. If GMC is cleaning up slap another 20 grand on that and think of the profits.

I expect the SUV's to get a little smaller and softer in the next gen. Cadillac may just sneek in a more car like one next time.

[Drew Dowdell]

yeah... GM developed it, Ford gave them money for the design and then did their own software for it.

Proof?

It works reasonably well and isn't prone to catastrophic failure.

Remember, "co-developed" can mean GM did the hardware and Ford did the software.

[pow]

I just saw a Range Rover Evoque yesterday. Now *that's* an SUV coupe.

[Robert Hall]

I just saw a Range Rover Evoque yesterday. Now *that's* an SUV coupe.

Haven't seen one in person, but looking at the photos in a recent issue of Car magazine the rear and rear side windows look awfully tiny...have to have to a rear view camera to see anything..