pow

Sounds like he's digging the retro thing. Camaro is cool... definitely doesn't get close to 30 mpg city, though.

Cars with base MSRP between $20K and $25K that have city MPG greater than 25: Prius - 51 Insight - 40 Civic Hybrid - 40 Jetta TDI - 40 MINI Clubman - 28 There are more choices if he wants to spend slightly more (Fusion Hybrid) or less (Fit).

It will probably be a 2011 model. This looks interesting. Hyundai is really trying hard with each of their new releases.

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

Sounding an awful lot like FOG there, which is surprising, because I thought it's the most positive review I've read of the LaCrosse ever. His point about "target fixation" is a good one; the entry-level luxury segment is competitive, and to declare the LaCrosse a winner because it's better than one Lexus model would be missing the point. The Genesis sedan and G37 Journey are as comfortable and luxurious as the LaCrosse CXS, and all three hope to target the same well-heeled buyers.

Agreed. The LaCrosse 3.6 has far more power and torque than the 3.0, and its highway MPG is one better.

There are no displacement taxes for car engines in Europe - they're based on emissions. The 3.0 V6 has been for North American applications - Equinox, Terrain, LaCrosse, SRX, and CTS.

As a base engine, it's far better than the... ... of the 3.1 pushrod V6 found in the Century.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009...photopanel..2.* Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy. Try to forget the awful commercials for the 2010 Buick LaCrosse for a moment. As ill-conceived as those pathetic attempts to make Buick look cool may have been, the car doesn't really need that much help. It's not the best-looking sedan Buick has ever made, but it's not ugly either and it has some good hardware under the skin. In this case, our CXL tester was powered by the base 3.0-liter V6 and a six-speed automatic transmission. With 255 horsepower, it's a pretty stout engine, but it did have 2 tons of sedan to move. A standard set of 18-inch wheels and tires helped, too, but the all-season tread left a little on the table when it came to the handling tests. Of course we're aware that the track is the last place you would ever find a 21st-century Buick, but it did better than you might think. Click through to read all the details. Vehicle: 2010 Buick LaCrosse CXL Odometer: N/A Date: 07/28/2009 Driver: Chris Walton Price: $32,090 Specifications: Drive Type: Front-wheel drive Transmission Type: Six-speed automatic with manual gate Engine Type: V6 Displacement (cc/cu-in): 2,994 (183 cu-in) Redline (rpm): 6,900 Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 255 @ 6,900 Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 217 @ 5,100 Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc Brake Type (rear): Solid disc Steering System: Speed-proportional hydraulic power steering Suspension Type (front): Independent, MacPherson struts, coil springs, stabilizer bar Suspension Type (rear): Independent, multilink, coil springs, stabilizer bar Tire Size (front): 235/50R18 97V Tire Size (rear): 235/50R18 97V Tire Brand: Michelin Tire Model: Pilot HxMxM4 Tire Type: All-season Wheel Size: N/A Wheel Material (front/rear): Aluminum alloy As-tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,035 Test Results: 0-30 (sec): 3.5 0-45 (sec): 5.6 0-60 (sec): 8.4 0-75 (sec): 12.8 1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 16.4 @ 86.0 0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 8.1 30-0 (ft): 32 60-0 (ft): 127 Braking Rating: Good Slalom (mph): 62.4 Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.81 Handling Rating: Good Db @ Idle: 42.8 Db @ Full Throttle: 74.2 Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 67.1 Acceleration Comments: Very quiet at idle and while running through the gears. Obviously smoothness and fuel-efficiency were the goals here -- not acceleration. Gearshifts are smooth and there don't appear to be any dead spots in the rev range. Braking Comments: Noticeable idle-stroke (an inch or two) but the brakes are otherwise intuitive and progressive. Powerful and fade-resistant, with zero ABS flutter/hum/vibration. Dead straight with minimal-to-moderate pitch. Handling Comments: Skid pad: A familiar and intuitive hydraulic feel. Good load-up without unnecessary added weight. Early-onset stability system chops throttle, but when it's shut off, the LaCrosse has good balance and control. Minimal understeer at the limit. Slalom: The car turns in crisply, but the steering ratio feels a little slow. The chassis takes a set quickly and is not caught on its heels in the transitions either. Precise steering enables the driver to place the car close to the cones. Eventually, mild understeer limits the car's speed. With VCS on, it's still capable and only dabs the brakes to make early/small corrections to heading. Nicely tuned VSC. --- The base V6 looks pointless. The 3.0 and 3.6 are essentially the same engines - direct injection, HF DOHC - and likely cost the same to build. But the 3.6 has more power AND better fuel economy.

Eh, looks scammy to me. The few actual repo cars I've seen for sale were priced close to normal used cars.

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.

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.

I need to do that one day. Hmm... Passat or Volvo 240? Both automatic.

Fiat Bravo... in person, it's gorgeous, and it would make an exquisite Dodge Neon.

There are 5 new Patriots in all of Los Angeles County. C4C plus the matching cash (now down to $3500) made them fly off lots.

They're safe if you get the optional torso airbag. Great structure, too - only the Patriot, Tiguan, and Forester got "good" roof strength ratings.

No, but I don't think it's completely horrible anymore. It's like a Subaru Forester before it turned all soft.

The local New Balance store had a clearance tent sale recently, and US-made shoes were selling for as little as $39!

Here's an interesting review of the CTS from across the pond... certainly a different perspective of Cadillac than in the US. It does show what buyers are looking for in Europe and perhaps why Cadillac is struggling:

I've always wondered why the previous-gen CTS couldn't have been sold as a midsize Pontiac. Chrysler turned an old E-class into a new 300, VW turned an old A4 into the SEAT Exeo. Give it different skin, and bam, you've got old "high value" Sigma and state-of-the-art "new" Sigma.

In the US, entry-level luxury cars can do well regardless of size. The ES, TL, and G37 are all huge, like the CTS, and they seem to be doing fine. Size might even be viewed as an advantage here. The lack of a competitive small RWD compact is hurting Cadillac in Europe, however, where you have older, narrower streets in built-up areas. As the CTS moves up in price, quality, and prestige to 5-series territory, I see room for a new compact entry-luxury Cadillac. Bearing in mind Cadillac has zero brand presence in Europe, where there's already a huge number of established luxury makes, and considering how strapped for funds GM is, perhaps it would be better to ignore the European market altogether and invest in emerging markets.

At $10,000 for a Patriot, I'm surprised anyone would even buy a CR-V that costs twice as much. The Patriot isn't the best SUV in the world, but it's safe, economical (23/27 mpg for 2.0 CVT FWD), decent looking, made in the USA, and most importantly, CHEAP.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2009/0...;mktid=cj260233

+1, I wouldn't even want to be in a 15 mph crash with a seat like that. Have you checked the passenger seat, moltar?

I'm lovin' it. That's my favorite color for the Camaro.