SRX beats LR3 in Automobile Comparo

[Buick61]

Automobile Magazine pitted a Cadillac SRX against Land Rovers new LR3. While they like the interior of the LR3 better, the Cadillac was dynamically superior.

Here's their conclusion:

"The Cadillac SRX and the Land Rover LR3 come from two completely different schools of thought. With the soul (and chassis) of a sport sedan, the SRX offers an agile, exciting driving experience with minimal frills but minimal people space (adults should consult a chiropractor before attempting a third row seating maneuver). The LR3 represents the other end of the SUV spectrum with more tanklike architecture and as many toys as Land Rover could squeeze in along with real space for seven adults. If you're a gadget freak with $50,000 to spend and no need to get anywhere fast, the LR3 is a great vehicle. We pack lightly, and we prefer a sprint across the countryside to a slow crawl up a mountain any day of the week. The SRX remains our favorite mid-size SUV."

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/0411_lr3_srx/

[TaHoE]

Very Very Nice! I would like to see How the Escalade Stacks up to the Range Rover now...lol

[mgescuro]

But the two aren't even remote competitors. One is more trucky. The other is a crossover.
LR3's competitor should be 9-7X.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

But the two aren't even remote competitors. One is more trucky. The other is a crossover.
LR3's competitor should be 9-7X.

I don't think most people would say "Let's not look at any SUV with body on frame construction, Dear." I think people shop by features/content, price, size, etc. But how the body is constructed isn't really on the list.

[powervette]

[quote=Buick61]I don't think most people would say "Let's not look at any SUV with body on frame construction, Dear."


You're completely right

[mgescuro]

Their capabilities are different and therefore shouldn't be direct competitors, even though they are in similar categories.

[jro4566]

I was kind of surprised that they compared these two. I see the SRX's competitors as the FX and X5, while the LR3 takes on the 9-7X and likewise. But on the other hand, so many manufacturers are producing SUVs that compete in the same segment from the same company! GM has the SRX, 9-7X/Rainier and variants, and Rendezvous. FoMoCo has the Aviator and variants, LR3, and XC90. Nissan has the FX, Murano, and Pathfinder. So to say which car competes with which is a puzzle to me...

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Buick61

Ok, well...if we're talking about capabilities, then even the comparison to the Saab 9-7x, as you suggested, would be erroneous. The Saab may be body and frame, but it certainly can't go off-road too far. It's also smaller and cheaper. By hyperbolizing your logic, one would conclude that there are rarely any direct competitors. Everyone does something a little different. Someone may go offroad better, someone may have a different engine output, different transmission, different seating capacity, different color options, different wheel sizes. By pigeon-holing the LR3 into a category where it's only competitors are the ones that go offroad or have a body on frame design isn't really a good interpretation on the realities of today's auto market.

Pilots compete with Trailblazers, Accords compete with 300s, Pacificas compete with Explorers....it's about size/style, general use, and price.

OK...well maybe not capabilities. But they are certainly more truck than crossover. Also, according to Motor Trend, the 9-7X will hit the low-mid-$40Ks... around the general vicinity of the LR3.
I guess the LR3's direct competitor would be the H3 then. :P

Pilots really compete with the Blazer. Accords don't comete with the 300s. PAcificas compete with SRX.
Subtle nuances make the compeititon.

Just like the Ford 500 doesn't compete with the Pontiac G6.