Cadillac SRX Turbo Model Axed SRX Turbo becomes history after one year on the market. www.GMInsideNews.com
January 1, 2011
By: Nick Saporito
In recent weeks there has been speculation that Cadillac would be killing off the turbocharged model of its SRX crossover. The speculation fueled by dealership rumors and recent amendments to GM’s vehicle order guide; both suggesting the cease of production of the turbo model. Today Cadillac PR has confirmed to GMI that the SRX Turbo has been discontinued.
Cadillac spokesperson Robyn Henderson stated that low sales of the turbo model fueled its demise, citing that over 90-percent of SRX sales have been of the 3.0-liter model.
SRX Turbo was powered by GM’s 2.8-liter V-6 with 300 horsepower and 295 feet-pounds of torque. The engine has been criticized in the press for its fuel economy ratings of 15 miles per-gallon city and 22 miles per-gallon highway.
The SRX is now left with GM’s 3.0-liter V-6, which produces 265 horsepower and 223 feet-pounds of torque.
Henderson also stated that the SRX continues to be a sales leader in the luxury crossover segment. Specifically citing that the SRX has a larger share of the market than BMW X3, Audi Q5 and Mercedes-Benz GLK.
Henderson also stated that the SRX continues to be a sales leader in the luxury crossover segment. Specifically citing that the SRX has a larger share of the market than BMW X3, Audi A5 and Mercedes-Benz GLK.
Well, guess you can't argue with success... sales are sales.
But remember the XLR - when the "new" wears-off, wouldn't you rather have the DI 3.6 under the hood??
Henderson also stated that the SRX continues to be a sales leader in the luxury crossover segment. Specifically citing that the SRX has a larger share of the market than BMW X3, Audi A5 and Mercedes-Benz GLK.
I hate the 3.0, but it seems to be working pretty well for the SRX... I really hope GM gets moving on that 3.0 TT or just drop the 3.6 DI into the SRX...
How about the Pentastar 3.6? If GM will not invest in a proper motor for the SRX, then it can at least buy one from an external company. The Chrysler motor would be far better than the current good-for-a-boat-anchor-only GM 3.0.
If you want GM to buy external for a proper 6 cylinder, look no further then the N55 from BMW. All GM has to do is put on a proper working HPFP, and you'll have a sweet powertrain with its diesel like low end grunt pushing that pig forward.
Would like to trade in the wife's Enclave for an SRX, but waiting for a better engine choice. She doesn't need the third seating row of the Enclave since we now have the Yukon XL.
That's too bad for the more performance oriented drivers that would prefer the power of the 2.8T. :drive:
But I guess if you're targeting the RX it wouldnt matter; it's not like Lexus is trying to be a performance brand. So if you really want the 2.8T you will have to get the Saab 9-4x Aero
So, is 2011 the last year for the 2.8T then or are they going to just stop making them with this engine immediately? I see about a dozen new 2011 SRX 2.8Ts online here in Chicago and when you build a 2011 on the Cadillac site you can choose a 2.8T model.
I take it you have not sampled an SRX 2.8T based on your comment about it being for "more performance oriented drivers." The 2.8T engine is totally wrong for this application, because a 4500 pound vehicle needs more off the line torque than this one produces. The result is a vehicle that feels dull and sluggish in spite of its good numbers on the spec sheet. I haven't driven a base SRX, but the turbo left me wishing for a NA 3.6 liter.
It's beyond me how GM can shove the 3.6 into everything it has EXCEPT for Cadillac's most important vehicle. The lineup should be 3.0 for a base engine, 3.6, and that 3.6TT they've needed for two years could be the range topper. Come on GM...
I like the 3.0L. It's bore/stroke combo makes for a very revvy, lively motor - much more so than the 3.6. It's unfair to crucify it because it's been tasked to move a nearly 4500 pound vehicle around.
I'd bet that if you bolted a 3.0 to a stick, and put it in a lighter car, it would be a real gem that's lots of fun to rev through the gears.
I like the 3.0L. It's bore/stroke combo makes for a very revvy, lively motor - much more so than the 3.6. It's unfair to crucify it because it's been tasked to move a nearly 4500 pound vehicle around.
Gee... someone offering an opinion based on experience?
Let's be honest, the target demographic isn't buying this car to drift, the segment leader isn't tearing up the Nürburgring and the competition isn't making gains by offering more power.
Look at the FWD/AWD vehicles GM has that are available with the 3.0 and 3.6 engines and
you'll find the 3.6's city/hwy economy is near on identical to the 3.0, what does that tell you?
The 3.0 is not worth the effort in heavier vehicles so come on GM, make the
3.6 SIDI standard and start giving your buyers a greater smile factor....
If the 3.0 is similar to the 3.6. Why not go to the 3.6? What changes will have to be made? Can I put a 3.6 in my Terrain? If gm won't fix it then I will.
Then how come the latest SRX FWD/AWD sales have shot through the roof compared to the old RWD model?
Yes, perhaps it's a new or changed demographic but one that's less interested in all out performance.
So does this mean if the CTS-V has less than 10% volume of sales, will GM cancel it too? This decision makes no sense. If the turbo is being replaced with another engine, then the new engine should have been announced at the same time.
In other late breakiog news... President Lincoln has been shot!!!!
This change was in the order guide on 20 Dec. Also HVAC controls have been deleted from the steering wheel and the front glass is not longer "deep tinted".
I am very sad today, I think I read the whole thread and never saw the word "decontent". I guess that makes me first. Yea!
Are they still going to put the 2.8T in the Saab since they are all about turbos? I do agree the 3.6 should be in the SRX (and just about every other car it is not, including the Equinox/Terrain and a hi-po version in the Enclave). It is a great motor. The 3.0 sucks in whatever it is in.
I haven't been paying close attention but isn't the turbo SRX on par or less powerful (0-60, etc.) than the Lexus RX? If so, than by losing this engine, Cadillac may be handing these customers to Lexus - and they'll probably never get them back.
Cadillac spokesperson Robyn Henderson stated that low sales of the turbo model fueled its demise, citing that over 90-percent of SRX sales have been of the 3.0-liter model..
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
GM Inside News Forum
3.5M posts
83.7K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to GM owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about General Motors news, concepts, releases, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!