I would have been more interested to see the Cadillac equipped using the 2.8L turbo w/ 300+ hp rather than the base engine, and also with the magnetic ride control suspension, possibly with something smaller than 20" wheels. That would have helped dramatically in the power, acceleration, fuel economy (relative to power) and ride quality scenarios while doing nothing but improving the driving experience. The SRX definitely had room left in its MSRP to fit all of the above and more in and still be comparable to the RX.

To all of you crying foul... this is not news... magazines prefer exciting vehicles that are fun to drive.

And aside from all of that the SRX is a car offering much of what the RX does for considerably less money. It's not a bad choice, though I have to say I think I'd probably go with the RX because if I buy a luxury SUV I'm not going to plan on driving it hard... my priorities are reliability, quality, and comfort of of which the RX is most likely >= SRX.

 

Yeah, why even break it down like this if it apparently doesn't matter. I smell bias.

 

Whats [not] funny about the 'fun to drive' comments, is that the vast majority of consumers don't consider driving a 'fun' activity, period. They view driving as a tedious, but convenient, means of getting between point A and B, and also as a time to do a lot of other things (often unsafe), besides focusing on driving...much less doing so with even an afterthought of 'fun'.

Hopefully, Lexus continues down their own path, making vehicles which appeal to different tastes. I'd be damned if I one day had to look at a Lexus 3-series, or a Lexus X-5, in the strict sense of performance oriented driving dynamics, as an 'alternative' to the competition.

Under most daily driving considerations, the road-feel, steering, and competence are more than up for the task of handling traffic and non-track abuse. The qualities are specifically designed to isolate the driver from the road, and many consumers consider this a great thing...and thusly speak with their wallets. Obviously, the level of compromise varies by individual, and some of these magazines simply give the impression that they haven't yet grasped this.

 

I've test driven the new RX & it drives like a hovercraft. Great vehicle for those with a "we", "our", "us" in the household. Not so great for the single male who enjoys driving.. It is a boring drive. Like them or not, Car & Driver is about the connection between Car & Driver .. The RX does not exhibit such a connection. I am not into mags.. Instead, I go out & drive cars. I love driving, thus my choice for getting the more expensive X3. I have to check out this SRX.

 

I personally think it's a good move by Cadillac to go after the mid-sized luxury crossover segment but with a different formula. Do any of you really think any of the other luxury makes are going to out cush, out refine, essentially, out Lexus, the RX in this segment? The SRX will be an alternative to those who perhaps need the utility of a mid-sized crossover, but prefer better driving dynamics.

Think Audi, Cadillac, Infiniti, and BMW owners. Some will see the Q5, X3, and EX as too small. Some will find the Q7 and X5 too large or too expensive. The FX is also limited in size and utility along with having a polarizing exterior. The SRX looks like a good fit for these owners.

 

Agreed, but then how much value can one extract from featuring vehicles, obviously not meant for catering to drivers interests?

I think in reading these types of articles, the bias undermines the value of the article, where the author can certainly compare vehicles on merits they were designed for. To then attach negative connotation to features/design which met the intentions of the engineers, and then buying public, is a bit presumptuous.

In a nutshell, even for enthusiast or drivers, these reviews mean very little. ‘Beating’ a par-for-the-course Lexus in feel and feedback just isn’t saying much, and seems like a waste of ink.

 

I have a 2008 RX350. I have to agree about how numb the steering and drive is. I didn't buy it for that reason though. It is my family car with my kids in the back. Now, if I bought one or myself it would not be the car I would buy.

 

Excellent points.

 

This is another fine example of the complete POS writing our American mags are. They are worth nothing but paper to start the fireplace with. This conclusion makes NO SENSE!!!
The RX is 2 seconds faster, has better passing power and gets better economy WTF? What ****ing performance is MT talking about?
Good points. Anyone buying SUVs for better driving dynamics probably also buys a Whooper over a Big Mac b/c the Whooper is grilled so it must be healthier?

Yup, more MT junk. Hey MT, some of us won't even consider a Government Motors car or your crappy mag.

Bingo

You bought it b/c you are a man/woman that has some sense and doesn't need to prove to other people that you need a sporty SUV, which is akin to saying you like Swine Flu.

1. This review is actually from MT, not C&D
2. Everyone and their momma copied the RX in this segment and tries to outsell it but cant.
3. The single male that enjoys driving that buys a SUV to fulfill that need clearly is mentally challanged. They are SUVs, for utility, not for driving sporty. Thats what a wagon is for, that is what a MAN would drive if we are going to go "there".
4. The RX establishes a connection with its driver over comfort, ease and making life easy. Not trying to be something its not intended to be.
5. The X3 is not very sporty and has not much utility and only newer models with revisions fixed some of the problems. Its basically been called by every major publication the worst BMW ever built and sold. If you like it, good for you. Its sporty done completely wrong.

 

I agree with what you are saying. I think that they write these types of articles and incite this type of drama just to sell magazines- it is, afterall, a business. The RX is long considered the benchmark in this class, so if they show the Cadillac toppling it, then that is pretty "controversial" and will warrant a few more pick ups at least.

 

It seems to me that Motor Trend has recently shifted it's focus to become more enthusiast oriented. To do that, they have to push the "fun-to-drive" and "German road feel" kinds of things even more than Road & Track or Car & Driver. In a recent test, they picked a 328 over the G37 even though the G37 clearly won every measureable test. Why? The non-measureable "feel" of the BMW.

This approach means that there are no longer any car magazines that take the perspective of us, the great mass of people, who don't see the car as a source of fun. The RX350 has hit the sweet spot for a lot of people even if it is boring to drive. It has reasonable utility, reasonably luxurious interior, nice quiet ride, and it is relatively cheap. With equal equipment, the SRX is about the same price as the RX, without the luxury. After the first year, the niche market cars tend to sell poorly while the RX just plods along as a best seller.

Infinity builds a couple of SUV's that are great fun to drive. They now have really nice interiors, but the poor ride keeps them as slow sellers. The SRX will have a tough time beating the FX35 except for appearance.

Steve

 

How many (straight) single males who enjoy driving buy something in this class of vehicle?

 

Good point and another question is...

Which demography has more population? 1) Single male who enjoys driving that buys SUVs/crossovers or 2) those with a "we", "our", "us" in the household?

It's just funny that all auto editors and SOME PEOPLE HERE all make it sound like the enthusiasts are the majority of the population while the reality couldn't be any further away from that...

 

No doubt, but enthusiasts will tend to frequent these forums for sure.

 

I think the OP comments had more to do with MT, not Lexus or Cadillac, specifically. For the most part, I agree with him. I lost a lot of respect for MT when the M3 beat out the 911 Turbo.