Luxury Crossover Comparison Test: 2010 SRX Dead Last

[schmallz]

Originally Posted by CUtiger08

As much as I would love to say "I knew it" in regards to the SRX being less than best-in-class... they really should have either done all base models or all models with $6-10k in options. I doubt the overall outcome would have changed, but even I will acknowledge the unequal terms of this test. Adding AWD defiantely wouldn't have helped in any real way... the 2.8T might have helped, but it would have leapfrogged the others in price.

Also, in regards to not bringing along the RX because it's roomier: someone needs to buy a tapemeasure

RX350: 188 inches long, 108 inch wb, 74 inch wide
SRX 3.0: 190 inches long, 110.5 in wb, 75 inch wide

I don't think you could make a more direct size comparison without using directly rebadged models... and the SRX is a hair bigger in every way. Either the SRX is too big for this test, or the RX is the right size.

The SRX and RX are both mid size CUVs, like the X5, ML and Q7.

Neither of these cars should be compared to the likes of the X3, GLK or Q5.

[schmallz]

Originally Posted by emh

Sorry, this argument doesn't hold. Most people buy an RX for three reasons and three reasons only:
1. It's a Lexus
2. Perceived reliability
3. It's a Lexus

4. It's the size of an X5, but costs as much as an X3.

[KITT222]

I think Edmunds is biased against GM. Btu then again its just another voice on the internet. The SRX is a crossover, and crossovers are where GM is throwing a lot of money, so it will be a fine luxury crossover. Plus you dont get the smugness of a Mercedes, the soccer-mom picture of a Volvo, and sports crossover look of a Audi. I'd take the Cadillac over any of them any day of the week. Or maybe its Chevy counterpart. Whatever.

[schmallz]

Originally Posted by KITT222

I think Edmunds is biased against GM. Btu then again its just another voice on the internet. The SRX is a crossover, and crossovers are where GM is throwing a lot of money, so it will be a fine luxury crossover. Plus you dont get the smugness of a Mercedes, the soccer-mom picture of a Volvo, and sports crossover look of a Audi. I'd take the Cadillac over any of them any day of the week. Or maybe its Chevy counterpart. Whatever.

You just get a crappy CUV, if you choose the SRX.

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by schmallz

You just get a crappy CUV, if you choose the SRX.

That's certainly not the case. The SRX is a very nice crossover. It may not be the best in its class, but it's very nice.

-Reviewers love the way the SRX handles with its adjustable suspension.
-Interior design, borrowed from the CTS, is nearly best-in-class in design if not the best.
-Always positive reviews for the infotainment system with pop-up screen and 40GB hard drive.
-20" rims available for those that into that thing. They do look impressive.
-The turbo 2.8 acceleration is about average compared to the other competitive luxury crossovers, but the turbo makes is it a little more fun to drive.
-Styling, though subjective, is among the best. If you seen a black SRX on the road, it stands out. The attention to details is definitely there.

So if you are the type of person that buys a vehicle on style, desire bold modern styling, want it to handle well in the chicanes, and desire an intuitive feature-rich infotainment system, the SRX may be for you.

Your comment means very little considering you have probably never even seen the vehicle.

I don’t drive an SRX, but labeling someone else’s car as "crappy" is in poor taste.

You probably wouldn't want to hear what a lot people on this site think or your car.

[jlmartin99]

Originally Posted by TuffG929

Link

TuffG929,

Edmunds likes what is the opposite for my preference. I have driven these vehicles except for the Volvo model. For my taste, there are only two crossovers that would make my purchase list consideration, Cadillac's SRX and Audi's Q5. Quite frankly, the styling of the other two, Mercedes-Benz's GLK and Volvo's XC60 simply would not be considered for purchase.

Not sure what about their style and design that appears deficient, but I would only use these models to compare with others to establish a base.

JLM

[AirCleaner]

If the SRX had more power,,a smoother ride,,quieter cabin it would be a fine vehicle. Exterior wise,,the SRX looks good. The options raise the price too much, and most of the options SHOULD have just been standard in the first place.

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

Last place? More Caddy money wasted.

[st.clouds]

Of course it's dead last.

When you have all 3 of these "winning" combinations, you aren't even competing.

1) FWD
2) Poor value for the money
3) Underpowered

[red_rider]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Despite being larger, it has less room inside.
The car is fat.

I could've guessed that the minute specs were released on it. But isn't that the main appeal of a cuv over a comparable wagon?

[Gagarin]

What is the STORY ON THIS 3.0 V6?

Why, oh, why, does it exist?

[70eldo]

Originally Posted by Gagarin

What is the STORY ON THIS 3.0 V6?

Why, oh, why, does it exist?

Good question!
Would trade that for a 3.0 Turbo and a 3.6 Turbo instead and use those engines through the GM palette...

[WannabeRich]

Originally Posted by Gagarin

What is the STORY ON THIS 3.0 V6?

Why, oh, why, does it exist?

My sentiments too. While you can argue that it's an improvement over the previous Equinox and Lacross engines, it is a downgrade in the SRX application. It does not get any better mileage (in any application I can find) than the 3.6DI.

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by Quickening

Of course the SRX got last. The crappy 3.0 engine is wrecking this car in reviews. Though Edmunds is the first I've seen to complain about the suspenion, everyone else seemed to love the suspension/rid/handling.

Yes, this 3.0 is a mistake everywhere GM is using it so far. It'd be a great engine in a 3,000 or even 3,500 pound car. But still it in a 4,000+ pound car, and no dice. Drove a LaCrosse AWD with it.

My suspicion: they thought all of these vehicles would be hundreds of pounds lighter when the engine was okayed for use in them.