Luxury Crossover Comparison Test: 2010 SRX Dead Last

[FenwickHockey65]

I saw 3.0L, facepalmed, and X-ed out of the article.

[goatgary]

Wait till CR gets their hands on this...and hold on to your shorts!

[BORG]

The SRX is first and foremost a competitor to the RX and MKX, not a competitor to a small volume, high priced European SUV/CUV. Lincoln was the first to take on the RX, which still blows my mind that nobody else has tried harder, even Acura didn't try. Finally Caddy has gotten its act together and figured this out!

No amount of rag comparos can change the nature of the market. The SRX, RX, and MKX are true American luxury crossovers, they are perfectly designed for this market and will be/are enormously successful. I never pay attention to these comparison tests, they don't explain the whole story.

[Orbit]

Originally Posted by ZR2BlaZeR2

I think the SRX is just a stop gap for Cadillac to somewhat remain relevant until the ship gets righted. If it ever gets righted.

This is a huge problem for GM. Too many new models are "stop gaps" (current Impala, apparently the new SRX, probably the Cruze, too) until the next redesign, when, we are promised, they will be smokin' products. Too bad GM does not often produce class-leading products with the first version (the current Malibu is one), one that captures attention, good reviews, and market share right away. Instead, the put out a mediocre product in a very competitive segment, and fail to win many new customers. It is said that the 5-year life cycle of GM products goes something like this:

Year 1: 60% as good as the class leader
Year 2: 70%
Year 3: 80%
Year 4: 90%
Year 5: 95%, but terminate the model due to poor sales, and start the cycle all over again.

All the time a "stop gap" model is out there, the competition is refining is entry, so when that refreshed GM product finally gets out there...it is behind once again. And the cycle repeats...

That said, the CTS Sport Wagon looks terrific. It's the kind of car I would buy, not some lumpy dumpy two-ton mini-SUV thing. Too bad wagons are so unfashionable in the US.

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by Orbit

This is a huge problem for GM. Too many new models are "stop gaps" (current Impala, apparently the new SRX, probably the Cruze, too) until the next redesign, when, we are promised, they will be smokin' products. Too bad GM does not often produce class-leading products with the first version (the current Malibu is one), one that captures attention, good reviews, and market share right away. Instead, the put out a mediocre product in a very competitive segment, and fail to win many new customers. It is said that the 5-year life cycle of GM products goes something like this:

Year 1: 60% as good as the class leader
Year 2: 70%
Year 3: 80%
Year 4: 90%
Year 5: 95%, but terminate the model due to poor sales, and start the cycle all over again.

All the time a "stop gap" model is out there, the competition is refining is entry, so when that refreshed GM product finally gets out there...it is behind once again. And the cycle repeats...

That said, the CTS Sport Wagon looks terrific. It's the kind of car I would buy, not some lumpy dumpy two-ton mini-SUV thing. Too bad wagons are so unfashionable in the US.

Wow that annual progression list says it all! Like the Fiero....FINALLY get it right, then kill it. Hopefully.....GM has ACTUALLY changed its habits and is abandoning three decades of self sabotage.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by Orbit

That said, the CTS Sport Wagon looks terrific. It's the kind of car I would buy, not some lumpy dumpy two-ton mini-SUV thing. Too bad wagons are so unfashionable in the US.

I agree... IMO the CTS wagon looks better than the sedan. And the sedan is great looking.
I'll be curious to see if it sells.

[ral1960]

I left this message yesterday at the Cadillac blog:

I don’t see the point of using the 3.0 V6 unless you want to force the performance-minded to pay several thousand more for the turbo. You risk losing potential customers who hear or discover that the standard engine is only adequate but don’t care to buy all the bells and whistles of the Turbo model. The manufacturing cost (and EPA mpg) of the 3.0 and 3.6 must be nearly identical.

I gather the 3.6 is too much engine for the Haldex AWD, since they aren’t combined on the LaCrosse, either. So offer the 3.6 with FWD only, and the AWD with the Turbo only, and drop the 3.0 if you want to keep it to two engines.

http://cadillac.gmblogs.com/2009/08/...1/#comment-825

[04bonnie]

The problem with the 5 year cycle is that they never change anything noticable, like exterior lights, moldings, dashes, stuff like that. They change colors, wheels, and options and call it good. Eventhough I hate imports with a passion, look at the Toyota Corolla for example, it changes very often...little stuff, but even the current Corolla is only a few model years old, but looks different from when it was really changed (what year was that?)

But anyway, the only plus I can see is parts prices being less. Take a Chevy Lumina (95 thru 2001, eventhough the 00, and 01 were only fleet, they are out there in used)....the headlights, the sheetmetal, taillights, glass....dash, etc., etc., are ALL the same.

The SRX is all new, so if it goes 5 years as it is...it will need some help competing. I'm not very happy that another comparison, from the autoshow last year, compared the SRX and the Lincoln MKT....NOTHING the same.

[GMfan1111]

lousy finish but the SRX earned it in this case seeing as how the 3.0 V6 is not that great of a powerplant. The 2.8 would've performed better, not a first place finish but maybe a second place at best

[dindak]

I think they either need to go 3.6L DI only next year. It's a great mill with great mileage.

[Orbit]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

Like the Fiero....FINALLY get it right, then kill it. Hopefully.....GM has ACTUALLY changed its habits and is abandoning three decades of self sabotage.

Yeah, the 6-cylinder Fiero in its last year was finally a great car--I wish I had bought one long ago--and then GM killed it. Imagine what kind of two-seat sports cars GM would have now if it had continued gradually refining the Fiero...Maybe Chevy would be the dead brand now, not Pontiac. Another opportunity wasted.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by Orbit

Yeah, the 6-cylinder Fiero in its last year was finally a great car--I wish I had bought one long ago--and then GM killed it.

Replace Fiero with Allante and XLR and you get the same deal.
Final year upgrade followed by death.

[calgaryhhr]

Originally Posted by eaton53

I agree... IMO the CTS wagon looks better than the sedan. And the sedan is great looking.
I'll be curious to see if it sells.

The SRX should be blown out of the water by the CTS wagon. The CTS wagon is a better looking vehicle and will have better driving dynamics. That being said it is also supposed to be more expensive and I think people will likely settle with the lower priced and sub par SRX.

I think the SRX should be scrapped and focus should be placed on the CTS variants and other products (new 3 class competitor and a new STS.)

[goblue]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

So to translate....
Despite being larger, it has less room inside.
The car is fat.
The car is cheaper because it has less available, because it wasn't optioned identically to the others in the comparo.
The car has some other neat items and has class competitive materials.

But when you add everything together, what you get is still a pretty mediocre car that may or may not be class competitive, in a segment where the competition is very stiff.

I still like that tagline.... "Cadillac aimed lower, and still missed the mark."

Yup, as Edmunds said in their review of the 2.8T SRX, luxury is about being able to twitch your right foot and dispatch an annoying driver. The 3.0 fails miserably in that regard. It's not a luxury powertrain.

Cadillac hit the mark for many aspects, but missed horribly on powertrain.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by bryce miller

first and foremost what looks tacky to me is the lack of foglights its a crossover SUV and a LUXURY crossover and it does not have foglights standard?? this is a cadillac not a base chevy. also the wheels i personally think look terrible on that SRX i think GM either has great wheels or terrible wheels not a lot inbetween. I like the interior though. a lot of people i know thinks it looks like the VUE witha cadillac front end i really think the sidevent didnt help that because it looks similar to teh one of the VUE the should of put the escalade vent on the side or none at all. they needs to be consistent with some of theyre design cues. i really want to like this SRX but i think the skimped a bit and to me it looks a bit piggish thats my opinion. i say scrap the VUE looking side vent, throw standard fogs on it, and put some good looking wheels on it and that would help it go a long ways to me in the look dept.

It's always a bad sign when the cost cutting is visible from 20 yards. They do the no fog light thing on the CTS, too. Same for the cheap-o looking wheels.

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

Its Inside line we are talking about. I do not consider them credible. They are LA based import worshipers.

Originally Posted by A.J.

I think the SRX would've placed second or even first if it was tested with the 2.8T engine.

GM's vehicles need to lose weight.

Originally Posted by eaton53

Really, shouldn't they be testing at equal price points?
This test should've had an SRX with the 2.8T in it. But this IS Edmunds...

The 3.0 is really for MKX intenders...

Originally Posted by Payne78

Seriously?

First of all, this was Edmunds, so it's no surprise they were dumb enough to test a base model SRX against all those heavily optioned vehicles, and then stated they're not impressed. Really, no kidding? Morons. They must also have awards within their company, that they give out to see how many times they can contradict themselves within an article.

Second, some of you don't seem to be much better than the Edmunds staff. SRX doesn't lead in every category!?! What, OMG, it's such a POS... I guess there aren't any great cars out there according to that logic, because I doubt there exists a car that is best in class in every way. So they must all be junk?

BTW, 255 HP in a base engine isn't enough? It may not be class leading, but damn, come on this isn't the Camaro, it's a CUV, not meant to drag race. I'm sure for the average person it is more than sufficient.

The SRX does what it needs to, to be competative against it's rivals. I think it does a damn fine job, from what I've read. In case you all have forgotten, GM doesn't have limitless amounts of money to pour into every car they make. They can't make all their cars class leading vehicles, no more than any other manufacturer can, and others haven't just come out of bankruptcy. Sure they should aim to make it the best possible but be realistic and remember money and time don't grow on tree's.

I swear, some of you probably can't get through a day without complaining about something. One can't seem to get through the day without b!tching about anything Cadillac. Talk about annoying.

My only real complaint about recent GM vehicles is their weight. I don't understand why they are so much heavier sometimes. Though in this case it seems to be about avg.

You guys are either seriously misinformed or in terrible denial. Edmunds, like every other media outlet HAS NO SAY IN WHAT SPECIFIC OPTIONS THEY GET IN A TEST CAR! They say "We're doing a $45K luxury CUV test, what SRXs do you have in the press pool that's closest to what we need.

The 2.8T ISN'T EVEN IN PRODUCTION YET! That's why it's not tested. A few pre-production examples have snuck out, but only one or two publications have had any seat time with it yet.

The Volvo is just as much of an MDX/RDX/RX/MKX competitor as the SRX did, and it still didn't embarrass itself here.

Cadillac won all kinds of awards and comparison tests with the last generation SRX, even as late as last year the aging model came in second against very tight competition (I think there were about 6 cars tested). And here is this fresh-out-of-the-box model, and it's bringing up the rear.

Cadillac failed with this car. It doesn't look expensive, it's obese, it's slow, it's cheap in places that it shouldn't, it's big outside, small inside, and the 2.8T motor will only be available on the $50,000 trim level model.

If the RX350 was really there target, then 1) the base engine should AT LEAST match what Lexus offers at that price and 2) why have a German-chasing turbo model if that's not the crowd they're gunning for?

Cadillac is all over the place with this. If they were serious, they'd offer a 2010.5 revision that has such basic luxury things as fog lights standard, the base engine would be upgraded, and they'd put the AISIN transmission in all the models, not just the turbo.