New BRX to be actually named SRX

[jasaero]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Luxury car customers are not as price sensitive when it comes to gasoline. What they most care about is that the car is luxurious and has a strong image in the market. If the 2nd gen SRX will do that. Then good. Then the FWD platform won't really matter.

But if the FWD platform doesn't match the performance RWD Sigma architecture... and the high end SRX doesn't perform as well as the last SRX or at least keep up with X5... and if it doesn't have the necessary technology... or luxury amenities.... Then yes...SRX will have a problem.

What you'll essentially have is a tarted up, heavily modified Equinox with a Cadillac badge and a nice engine.

This isn't totally true. Many lux byers have a second car as a prius I am quite sure. Fuel economy isn't just about price sensitivety anymore. I don't think FWD will even be available on the Caddy or Saab versions of this vehicle anyhow. Also I think the platform will be pretty unique for these two vehicles compared to the Chevy or Saturn versions. Also I am not totally convinced performance is a Lux SUV buyers biggest concern either. Standard XWD would give it the wet and winter performance that is most important for an SUV anyhow. Really I think the softest performance spot when pairing it up against an X5 is the towing capacity. Not sure many with these vehicles ever even exploit that though?

[Gm786]

Well this sounds good. I was actually expecting GM to do this. After all GM doesn't need any overlapping models. It's a good thing that the replacement for the Cadillac SRX won't be named BRX, after all the name SRX sounds better and just fits in my opinion as a luxury crossover name for Cadillac. I would really like to see more spy pictures of the 2010 Cadillac SRX crossover.

[AndrewGS]

It shouldn't even exist in 2010 Cadillac. It may have worked in 1999 when every other Cadillac was FWD. Now every other Cadillac is RWD.

It's not full-sized, so why does it wear the S-segment nameplate? Then again, why does the STS? Why does the CTS wear a C-segment nameplate? DTS? Lack of planning, that's why. Catera became CTS, Seville became STS and Deville (which was de Ville) became DTS.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by MCGARRETT

I'll bet that the X5 eats the RX300 "alive" too, but which one is a better seller?

Being equal/worse/better than the X5 really has not helped the current SRX, the heart of this market is something that sits high, looks good, has luxury equipment and a designer badge, thats what the majority of luxury crossover buyers(i.e women with nice purses and expensive sunglasses) like.

What killed the SRX is not the way it drives or feels.. Its far superior to any other vehicle in its class, even now, after all these years.
DESIGN killed it. It looks more like a pacifica than X5

[Mikkoo]

Originally Posted by AndrewGS

It shouldn't even exist in 2010 Cadillac. It may have worked in 1999 when every other Cadillac was FWD. Now every other Cadillac is RWD.

It's not full-sized, so why does it wear the S-segment nameplate? Then again, why does the STS? Why does the CTS wear a C-segment nameplate? DTS? Lack of planning, that's why. Catera became CTS, Seville became STS and Deville (which was de Ville) became DTS.

You forgot about the FWD BLS for Europe only.

[ral1960]

Originally Posted by AndrewGS

It's not full-sized, so why does it wear the S-segment nameplate?

The wheelbase is 115", IIRC.
Current SRX is 116". With a transverse motor, the new one should have more interior room. I hope it doesn't have a high step-in height like the lambdas, whose lower interior height is their second biggest defect, after weight. The snow belt may like that, but I don't.

[johnstarnes]

Nice to see some continuity since SRX has some cache'. As to FWD, when I lived in Denver, rear drive cars would spin around ineffectually on snowy icy roads. Plus aren't there weight savings with FWD? Subarus were very popular in Colorado due to their AWD, could even go up mountain roads.

[Bravada]

This is simply a sign of GM's rapid "downscaling" move due to CAFE and fighting for higher margins. GM wants people to take smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient vehicles in lieu of previously larger counterparts. We've seen that in the 1980s already - while this might not be a move too inventive, I believe it will ultimately help GM. It is better to continue the current lines and align them with forseeable market trends rather than kill them completely (see Taurus falling into irrelevance and moving into large car obscurity while Fusion is fighting hard for at least third place).

[minnfang]

I think the BRX-SRX-CRWhatever will sell on its looks. The last concept version of this vehicle was stunning for its class.
They mentiond a 2.8L V6. GM had better get the drivetrain right on this vehicle so as not to be percieved as cheap. They should have two drivetrain choices...
FWD version with six speed auto and a DI 2.8L V6 tuned for economy.
AWD version with six speed auto and a DI 3.6L V6 tuned for performance.

Do NOT put a 4 or 5 speed auto into a budget version and call it a Cadillac! That would only be handing out ammo to the critics.

[BlueMontreal]

D

Originally Posted by minnfang

I think the BRX-SRX-CRWhatever will sell on its looks. The last concept version of this vehicle was stunning for its class.
They mentiond a 2.8L V6. GM had better get the drivetrain right on this vehicle so as not to be percieved as cheap. They should have two drivetrain choices...
FWD version with six speed auto and a DI 2.8L V6 tuned for economy.
AWD version with six speed auto and a DI 3.6L V6 tuned for performance.

Do NOT put a 4 or 5 speed auto into a budget version and call it a Cadillac! That would only be handing out ammo to the critics.

DI 2.8 L ? About time. Would make a nice base engine for the CTS.

[CJ Thunder]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Odd decision. I guess they just don't want to introduce a whole new nameplate.

Thats funny, three 'random' letters...name plate...har har har....

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by CJ Thunder

Thats funny, three 'random' letters...name plate...har har har....

No, it's actually not random.
CTS=Catera Touring Sedan
STS=Seville Touring Sedan
SLS=Seville Luxury Sedan
DTS=Deville Touring Sedan
SRX=Seville Reconfigurable Crossover or something...

[Buick61]

The appeal of the SRX is that it's a great, great CUV to drive. A lot of that is owed to its RWD architecture. There's no way that a FWD based SUV will have the same dynamics, and that's a real deal killer. The SRX was Cadillac's answer to the X5, and now it's going to be fighting out with the MDX or, gasp, RDX? What a sad, sad decline.

[Beau]

Does anyone else think that GM should be working on a totally variable valve setup. I don't just mean variable cam timing which we already have. [which is better than nothing ]
I know that some Duccatis run camless motors, and I don't believe the lift is variable, but I do believe the duration is.

Variable duration would make GMs smaller motors MUCH more usefull, and would increase mileage greatly without sacrificing power.

You could take a direct injection 2.8, and make 320 horsepower out of it... NA depending on the heads which GM usually isn't very good at. Sure it would spin to 8500 rpm, but there would be very large torque advantages to it as well. If you wanted to drive it like a granny, you'd get 27 MPG city and 36 highway as long as the chassis wasn't a lard of iron.

Throw that motor in a a vehicle similar but smaller than the G8, I'd be all over that...

[Astra RL]

If it is done right it could work. With AWD split 50-50 front to rear then there is not really a problem, but if it is like super handling all wheel drive on the MDX then they can forget it. Also to differentiate it from the 9-4X they need to make the Saab fwd of fwd heavy AWD. If it was me I would make the 9-4X smaller to have more direct competition with the X3, GLK, and Q5. If the 3.6 DI is standard with a 3.0 DI turbo is optional then it is basically on par with the X5.