Interactive Review: 2011 Cadillac SRX Turbo Premium

[Drew Dowdell]

Interactive Review:

2011 Cadillac SRX Turbo Premium

While I get caught up writing the reviews for the 2011 Cadillac CTS Coupe, a 2011 GMC Acadia Denali, and the 2011 Ford Fiesta. They finally sent me a Cadillac in the only proper color for the car and I have to say the look has really grown on me. Think up some questions about this 2011 Cadillac SRX Turbo Premium AWD.

Media Gallery:2011 Cadillac SRX Turbo

[Justin Bimmer]

Ramos Azizpe =

[William Maley]

Is the engine that was used in Saabs?

Any turbo lag?

[ocnblu]

I'm pretty sure somebody in the Oldsmoboi household has been itching to try out the SRX. What are that person's impressions of the vehicle?

[Camino LS6]

Sorry, my allergies are kicking up...

[William Maley]

Will the SRX Turbo dig a hole into your driveway

[ocnblu]

Sorry, my allergies are kicking up...

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm pretty sure somebody in the Oldsmoboi household has been itching to try out the SRX. What are that person's impressions of the vehicle?

His opinion - Do. Want.

He'll skip the Turbo though.... he's been driving a 160hp 4-cylinder with a 4-speed auto and AWD.... anything is a step up in power at this point.

Is the engine that was used in Saabs?

Any turbo lag?

It is the same engine as the 9-4x, I'll have to research more to find out if it's the same as the 9-5 and 9-3x

Ramos Azizpe =

You know, I'm not so sure. On initial inspection, build quality seems VERY high. I would actually rate this interior above the CTS.

edit: certainly higher quality than my spelling... sheesh..

[pow]

Does it feel like a $56K car?

[Drew Dowdell]

Does it feel like a $56K car?

I'm going to have to go to the BMW and Benz dealer to find out.

I'll say this, it feels exactly like a small Cadillac crossover should. Fast, handles decent (so far, haven't pushed it hard yet) feels luxurious, looks it too.

[BuddyP]

Is it just respectable quick or is it truly quick? The 4900 lb BMW X5 4.4 puts out just 15 more hp and 30 lbs more torque but will run a 15 flat to high 14 second 1/4 mile time. Motor Trend only got a measly 15.9 sec 1/4 mile time with the 2.8 turbo SRX.... that is horrible. It's even 300 lbs lighter than the X5. It should run at LEAST a 15 flat 1/4 time.

Also, my frusterations with the rest of the GM brands, is that when you have leather seats, only the seating surface on the front and middle seating surface on the second row seats are truly leather... the rest is vinyl. Is the Cadillac all leather like the Benz and BMW's? It is real wood or fake wood?

Edited December 31, 2010 by BuddyP

[Northstar]

Does the trim on the door and dash line up nicely? I sat in one the other day and the fit and finish wasn't too great, and there was a large gap between the trim on the dash and the trim on the door. Specifically the air vent on the dash and wood trim on the door.

[regfootball]

I have to admit the new SRX interior is bangup.

But 56 grand for a Cadillac Vue is a bit steep.

They seriously need to axe the chrome fender vents.

[regfootball]

and now they discontinued the turbo?

[balthazar]

>>"But 56 grand for a Cadillac Vue is a bit steep."<<

And that is exactly the kind of self-fufilling crap that will insure just that.

[Drew Dowdell]

Link reg?

[PurdueGuy]

Pretty abysmal fuel economy IMO.

[Drew Dowdell]

This annoys me so much I'm ready to cancel the review.

[FAPTurbo]

Any chance you could get your mitts on a non-Turbo SRX to do some comparison in the real world?

Although the turbo's demise is not great for enthusiasts, given the crowd that buys these vehicles, I doubt it'll be terribly missed.

[Robert Hall]

How's the side and rear visibility? Driver's position/ergonomics? Cupholders? Sound system? HVAC?

[ZL-1]

Cancelling the turbo is, to be kind, idiotic.... unless..... there's something coming like a turbo 3.0L DI engine... but that's just my speculation.

[Satty]

This annoys me so much I'm ready to cancel the review.

Option 2: Keep it, obviously GM doesn't need it.

[William Maley]

This annoys me so much I'm ready to cancel the review.

Option 2: Keep it, obviously GM doesn't need it.

Or you could send it to me, long term test anyone?

[regfootball]

Link reg?

-the other site-

hey, you were able to test a rare vehicle.

i am guessing the blowing up turbo 2.8 GM didn't want to deal with anymore.

I am sure a 3.0 is in the future and I am also betting the 3.6 the engine soon.

Edited January 2, 2011 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah, the one site that I remove links to when I can.

But I've also sent an email to Cadillac to get some more information about this announcement.

[William Maley]

Cadillac drops the 2.8T in the SRX, leaving the 3.0 V6 as the only engine for now..

Do they leave it as the only engine or add the 3.6 or something else?

Questions, questions

[Northstar]

Interesting they cancelled the turbo. I know someone who had the engine replaced in his turbo SRX a couple days after he got it (with like 100 miles on it).

[FAPTurbo]

Interesting they cancelled the turbo. I know someone who had the engine replaced in his turbo SRX a couple days after he got it (with like 100 miles on it).

There were some teething problems early on, where people, and one or two reviewers, who did not use Premium fuel ended up with terrible engine knock.

[Northstar]

There were some teething problems early on, where people, and one or two reviewers, who did not use Premium fuel ended up with terrible engine knock.

This guy's engine simply blew up basically. Had to have the whole engine replaced. I doubt it was a gas issue unless the dealership cheaped out and put regular in it, because it only took 3 days for it to blow up, IIRC.

[Drew Dowdell]

It could have been an unknowing car jockey that put regular in it. It only takes one time to blow up an engine if you use the wrong fuel and push it hard.

They were supposed to get an ECU flash to prevent that though.

[eldiablobanshee]

Yeah, the one site that I remove links to when I can.

But I've also sent an email to Cadillac to get some more information about this announcement.

sorry forgot i can not post links like that.

[b4z]

I saw a post on the 1st on a cadillac forum that a member had gotten a call from his Caddy dealer telling him that Dec. 18th was the last day to order a Turbo.

Nobody else confirmed it.

I went on a gm forum and posted in their section where you can suggest a news article and a couple of hours later it was confirmed by a GM source(who knew the worked on New Year's Day?) and posted on their home page that the Turbo was axed.

I don't know why it took so long to get out publically since it was apparently removed from the Order Guide on Dec. 20th.

....But am willing to take at least partial credit for getting this story out.

Perhaps the fact that nobody really cared about the Turbo is why it took so long for the story to make the rounds on the internet?

let's hope the new LFX 3.6L goes into the SRX.

[Justin Bimmer]

I think it is a combination of both lack of demand because of the fuel economy and the expense the option puts on the SRX and the problems GM has continually had with this engine. I wouldn't be surprised to see a turbo engine come back to the SRX eventually.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well I traded a few emails with Robyn at Cadillac today and everything we already knew was confirmed. Also, unspoken but naturally, the Aisen 6-Speed auto is gone along with the turbo.

I took a drive up to the dealer where I bought my '04 CTS to take an SRX 3.0 out for a spin, so my impressions of that will be included in the review.

I also got a little bit of insider information on upcoming engines that I just want to confirm.

[regfootball]

probably the updated 3.6 the camaro is getting and then eventually a tt 3.0.

or hey maybe they will throw some leftover 3.9's in it....

[NOS2006]

It is real wood or fake wood?

Cadillac is using all real accents in its new cars. I can't comment on the seats though.

Does the trim on the door and dash line up nicely? I sat in one the other day and the fit and finish wasn't too great, and there was a large gap between the trim on the dash and the trim on the door. Specifically the air vent on the dash and wood trim on the door.

This comment really makes me torn. I'm super happy it's not perfect because it's our competitor's interior, but not at all happy because it's a Cadillac.

[ZL-1]

I think it is a combination of both lack of demand because of the fuel economy and the expense the option puts on the SRX and the problems GM has continually had with this engine. I wouldn't be surprised to see a turbo engine come back to the SRX eventually.

The expense bit worries me: a vehicle that sells for $50K and is based entirely on existing architectures and engine families sold at far lower pricepoints is not profitable? Its profitability is all dependent on the USD/AUD exchange rate? How on Earth does GM allocate costs? =/

[smk4565]

The 2.8 Turbo sure didn't last long, but isn't very fuel efficient given it's displacement or power output. And that engine was already sort of dated when the SRX came out.

So now if you get it optioned up, it is $50k for a Cadillac Vue with a platform/engine/transmission of a Malibu and Equinox. Sign me up.

[pow]

It probably didn't help that the SRX Turbo was slower (and thirstier) than most of its naturally-aspirated competitors. Likewise, the Regal Turbo is only on par with most naturally-aspirated I4s, with the fuel consumption of a V6.

GM doesn't seem to be having the same success with turbocharging and downsizing as Ford and VW are. Perhaps its the weight of their vehicles.

Edited January 5, 2011 by pow

[b4z]

Oldsmoboi, the trick to making a 3.0L SRX fun and drivable is to leave it in the "Sport" setting all the time.

In drive it feels very sluggish especially pulling away from a stop sign slowly.

[ZL-1]

Oldsmoboi, the trick to making a 3.0L SRX fun and drivable is to leave it in the "Sport" setting all the time.

In drive it feels very sluggish especially pulling away from a stop sign slowly.

Which means that the problem is not the engine itself but most likely the transmission's software calibration...

[pow]

Edmunds recently track tested the Q5 with the new 2.0T and eight-speed automatic: 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, quicker than SRX Turbo, and 20/27 MPG compared to 15/22 for the Caddy.

[CSpec]

Edmunds recently track tested the Q5 with the new 2.0T and eight-speed automatic: 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, quicker than SRX Turbo, and 20/27 MPG compared to 15/22 for the Caddy.

Sheesh. I suspect Cadillac is working on replacing the 2.8t with something else.

[Drew Dowdell]

I've received the same "suggestion" about what engine is going into the SRX from two completely separate sources now.