4 The Captain: My Review of the new Cadillac SRX4 3.0L

[The_Blur]

This is the only car in its class that looks good at all, and Cadillac did a great job with it. It looks perfect, and I'm sure it drives like a Cadillac. While I'm disappointed with the 3.0L engine choice, it is clearly not built to race, making the decision a little more logical given that the engine is in production. Hopefully, GM will eventually reduce its number of active engines to the high-profile winners, like the LLT.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I think the only mistake with that car is that it doesn't have the larger 3.6L engine. 265 hp is nice, but with over 2 tons of bulk to move it needs the torque that larger (or forced induction) engines provide.

Don't get me wrong.. The vehicle is definetly not slow. I seriously think that when the initial tests were done by Motor Trend and the like.. they were running PRE-PRODUCTION vehicles that were no tuned properly in the first place. WHY GM would allow such a thing is beyond me, but they did give MT a PRE-PROD SRX with ill fitting car pet and trim panels.. surely realizing that the writers at MT and such look for ANYTHING to be negative about.

What I was saying is that the vehicle would really be capable of allowing the owner to seriously see what that perfect suspension is capable of if it had the 304HP 3.6L under the hood.. or the 300HP 3.8L turbo as a base engine. I realize what GM was trying to achieve tho... considering the smaller displacement engines makes it easier to sell in Europe. The real issue is that this is not Europe.. and the 3.6L would have been a better choice to lead off than the 3.0L, which I think is a great engine for the lower brands, including Buick.. but not your Flagship Division. Despite Lexus, BMW, Benz, Audi, and even Porsche actually offering HP rating below 300HP.. I would love to see Cadillac offer not one vehicle with less than 300HP.

But then... my buying habits are not that of the general and mainstream buying public.

[TheCaptain]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

the wood only adds to the premium feel IMO. I have considered changing out my V's trim for Wood.

Yea, but i'm 23. I like Carbon Fibre (even fake) better then wood.


And for the big engine sizes:
I hate to bring it up... but the US.'s CAFE regulations screwed everybody into getting smaller engines. It's only going to get worse too, most vehicles (like the previous SRX) had a V8 option. Not anymore. 35 US MPG by 2016 has to be the Average Fleet MPG rating. So say bye to big engines. Or you will just have to coin up and buy the 'Slade.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by TheCaptain

Yea, but i'm 23. I like Carbon Fibre (even fake) better then wood.


And for the big engine sizes:
I hate to bring it up... but the US.'s CAFE regulations screwed everybody into getting smaller engines. It's only going to get worse too, most vehicles (like the previous SRX) had a V8 option. Not anymore. 35 US MPG by 2016 has to be the Average Fleet MPG rating. So say bye to big engines. Or you will just have to coin up and buy the 'Slade.

fake carbon fibre ... grumble grumble grumble... hrmf!
(I'm in the same age bracket as you by the way)

Anyhoo ... last I checked there were still plenty of loopholes left in CAFE, and large engines don't always mean more fuel consumption. Different average for trucks (which include crossovers as small as the HHR), boost in numbers for having a flex fuel vehicle, footprint (wheelbase x track width) based adjustment to allow larger vehicles to be less efficient and prevent an invasion of micro cars. Thats just of the top of my head.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by TheCaptain

Yea, but i'm 23. I like Carbon Fibre (even fake) better then wood.


And for the big engine sizes:
I hate to bring it up... but the US.'s CAFE regulations screwed everybody into getting smaller engines. It's only going to get worse too, most vehicles (like the previous SRX) had a V8 option. Not anymore. 35 US MPG by 2016 has to be the Average Fleet MPG rating. So say bye to big engines. Or you will just have to coin up and buy the 'Slade.

I don't buy your explanation. Mostly because small engines don't always translate into good fuel economy. Look at Mitsu, Mazda, or even Nissan's small engines... their economy sucks. New technology will allow us to continue havingV8s and such. GM will probably debut GenV Small-Blocks with the XTS or C7 in a year or two. The SRX not having a V8 option this time around really boils down to the fact that most of it's competition only run with V6s. The exception being the X5 with it's 4.8L 350HP engine getting 14/19MPG... and of course the Benz ML with it's V8s. GM could easily turbo-charge the 3.0L/3.6L and get well beyond both of BMW's 4.8L and Benz's 5.5L.

[returnofcc]

Interior and exterior wise, the car seems nice. Yet, a 265hp engine in a 5500lb truck is complete fail. Remember, this is Cadillac, the top of the line American car, it's meant to compete with Lexus/BMW/Audi/Infiniti/Mercedes, and that engine places it behind all of those cars.
As for the OP, sorry, but this car is not in the same class as the x5 v8, as it loses to the x5 v6.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

small engines don't always translate into good fuel economy.

Yup. For example, the 2.0L I4 in Honda S2000 gets 18 city/25 highway (same as the SRX). This is a tiny sub 3000 lb car with gearing that is hardly more aggressive than the Camaro. Just one example and possibly the most extreme, plenty of others out there as well.

Originally Posted by returnofcc

Interior and exterior wise, the car seems nice. Yet, a 265hp engine in a 5500lb truck is complete fail. Remember, this is Cadillac, the top of the line American car, it's meant to compete with Lexus/BMW/Audi/Infiniti/Mercedes, and that engine places it behind all of those cars.
As for the OP, sorry, but this car is not in the same class as the x5 v8, as it loses to the x5 v6.

It doesn't even come close to 5500 lbs. Heck, the AWD Escalade weighs 5700 lbs and that is a full size body on frame SUV. The SRX is a midisized crossover and weighs around 4200 lbs. Don't confuse gross vehicle weight rating with curb weight.

Also, you are right that its not in the same class as the X5. This is only a 5 seater, not 7. The closest competitor might be the Lexus RX 350.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by returnofcc

Interior and exterior wise, the car seems nice. Yet, a 265hp engine in a 5500lb truck is complete fail. Remember, this is Cadillac, the top of the line American car, it's meant to compete with Lexus/BMW/Audi/Infiniti/Mercedes, and that engine places it behind all of those cars.
As for the OP, sorry, but this car is not in the same class as the x5 v8, as it loses to the x5 v6.

First of all I would seriously prefer that U re-read what I typed. I said that the SRX competes well with the X5 in terms of HANDLING.. very well in fact. And altho I am not a fan of the 3.0L in this vehicle... it is still not a bad engine and performs adequate for a base engine. Once the 2.8L hits it will be a CHOICE for the buyer to have. This is something that Lexus, Audi, and Acura owners do not have. My true gripe is that the 2.8L was not the first engine to debut... with a more powerful engine to top off the range, leaving the 3.0L as a base engine for people who were not truly interested in ripping down the highway (yup.. they exist.. about 80% of buyers in fact), even tho... the 3.0L is fully capable of doing just that

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

It doesn't even come close to 5500 lbs. Heck, the AWD Escalade weighs 5700 lbs and that is a full size body on frame SUV. The SRX is a midisized crossover and weighs around 4200 lbs. Don't confuse gross vehicle weight rating with curb weight.

YUP.. I forgot to address this in my response. Almost every one of the CUVs in this class carry similar weight due to them simply being LUXO. The SRX is certainly LUXO.

[returnofcc]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

It doesn't even come close to 5500 lbs. Heck, the AWD Escalade weighs 5700 lbs and that is a full size body on frame SUV. The SRX is a midisized crossover and weighs around 4200 lbs. Don't confuse gross vehicle weight rating with curb weight.

Whoops, my bad, I thought that was the curb weight. Disregard the whole engine comment of mine

[TheCaptain]

I had my fun for speed in the Cobalt SS SC. (250 kph anyone! ) Time for a luxo change with the SRX! And AWD handling that is close to on par with my SS SC is pretty amazing!!

[syr74]

The lack of a V8 this go 'round wasn't really something which GM was in any position to choose. To be blunt GM just didn't have the resources to develop a proper, rwd competitor to the X5/GX/ML even if they wanted to. That reality left GM with just one option, use an existing platform none of which can accommodate a V8. The truth is that we'll likely never know whether the second generation SRX is actually the vehicle GM wanted to build, and it could well be exactly that since this is a large and lucrative segment. That said, even if the new ute isn't the SRX they really wanted to build, it was well and truly the SRX that they could afford to build.

Frankly, I find nothing wrong with that. The first step on the road to recovery is acknowledging where you are in the here and now. And this vehicles shows that, at least in this instance, Cadillac understands very well where they are in the here and now.

[DGthe3]

and who knows, maybe it will get a V8 in a couple model years. Thats just pure speculation on my part, nothing at all to back it up.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

The lack of a V8 this go 'round wasn't really something which GM was in any position to choose. To be blunt GM just didn't have the resources to develop a proper, rwd competitor to the X5/GX/ML even if they wanted to. That reality left GM with just one option, use an existing platform none of which can accommodate a V8. The truth is that we'll likely never know whether the second generation SRX is actually the vehicle GM wanted to build, and it could well be exactly that since this is a large and lucrative segment. That said, even if the new ute isn't the SRX they really wanted to build, it was well and truly the SRX that they could afford to build.

But that argument holds absolutely no water since...as U pointed out about an "existing platform..." the same platform that the old SRX used is still being used under the CTS. Even more to the point: The Sigma platform is completely depreciated and would have required none of the money it took for GM to engineer the Epis-Thet Platform which was not in existence before. I propose that the cheaper route would have been to keep it on Sigma.. which no one bought.. and looking at other RWD/AWD vehicles in the segment.. no one buys:(

I think GM looked at RWD/AWD Sigma SRX sales... then looked at Infinti FX, X5, and BenzML sales... then looked at RX and MDX sales.. and said

"shit... FWD/AWD buyers are where it's at."

I just think that they decided that having a Premium CUV that could actually handle would retain the miniscule amount of 1st gen SRX buyers.. along with adding some new ones as well.