Review: 2010 Cadillac SRX
11-17-09, 04:25 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2010 Cadillac SRX
By CL member request, a Review of the 2010 Cadillac SRX.
http://www.cadillac.com/vehicles/201...er/overview.do
In a Nutshell: Versatile, well-finished, and somewhat better build quality than its predecessor, but with a number of design quirks.
There has been some (though not a huge) amount of CL interest in the new 2010 Cadillac SRX, and I did get a couple of review requests for it, so, while I am waiting for the new Audi A3 TDI Diesel (which I also have review requests for) to be introduced in the Washington, D.C. area, I decided to go ahead and review the SRX this morning, since supply of most 3.0L versions, right now, at local Cadillac dealers, is plentiful.
The SRX nameplate goes back several years and was introduced by Cadillac as a medium-sized, car-based, crossover SUV derived from a the CTS body and platform. The CTS itself, of course, in 2001, replaced the ill-fated, poorly-built, Opel-derived Cadillac Catera, and, like the Catera, developed a reputation for worse-than average reliability and, in addition, a dull, cheap-plastic, poorly-finished interior not worthy of the Cadillac nameplate. The first-generation SRX interior was a slight improvement on the CTS, but, IMO, not by much. The SRX was introduced basically because Cadillac needed a smaller, cheaper alternative car-based SUV to the enormous, full-size, truck-based Escalade, which cost LOTS of money, had enough chrome and bling on it to look like a circus wagon rolling down the street, and was, at that time, like the competing Lincoln Navigator, a stereotype vehicle for big-money athletes, singers/rappers, and entertainers.
So, as the basic CTS platform was all-new last year, this year, for 2010, we have a redesigned, all-new SRX platform as well. The new size/shape of the SRX (it is slightly smaller than the last-generation model) suggested, to me at least, that it shared roots with its second-generation Saturn VUE cousin. But the Cadillac people say no, that is not the case....it still shares the CTS platform. Of course, since it is an SUV, only one body style is offered....a 5-door hatchback. While there are no separate trim-level models as such, there are three basic trim packages. Cadillac doesn't call them "Packages" though......they are referred to as "Luxury Collection", "Performance Collection" (which, of course, includes a Sport Suspension), and "Premium Collection", which includes the Sport suspension and some additional electronic and convienence features. One transmission is offered (a 6-speed Sport-shift automatic) and two V6 engines....the ubiquitous GM 3.0L V6 used in several other mid-sized GM vehicles; this version with with 265 HP and 223 Ft-lbs. of torque, and a smaller, Saab-derived, Turbo 2.8L V6 with 300 HP and 295 Ft-lbs. of torque. All, 3.0L models, regardless of trim level, come with a choice of Front or All-Wheel Drive (I can't imagine buying a vehicle like this with FWD), and all 2.8L models have standard AWD.
While the Turbo 2.8L V6 may be an option on the spec sheet, in reality, they are almost impossible to find, at least here in the D.C. area. 3.0L models, however, are in plentiful supply (indeed, I saw enough of them on the lot today, both FWD and AWD, to suggest that supply may be exceeding demand and discounting may be available). I did several inventory checks, on-line, at local Cadillac shops today, and couldn't find a single 2.8L model in stock. When I asked the Cadillac salespeople about that, they acknowledged that 2.8L models are virtually non-existent here, and that they just weren't ordering any. Apparantly, they feel that turbo models just don't fit the SRX's image and wouldn't sell widely. They also complained that Cadillac hasn't done much, in its marketing, to promote the turbo model (remember...that's their words, not necessarily mine). I didn't ask directly, but I got the impression that they might, if requested, special-order a 2.8L model for a healthy deposit. ($$$$$ often talk).
As I shuffled through the rows of new SRXs looking for an ideal one to review, I noticed that the Premium Collection models, especially the AWD ones, were quite pricey (some of them listed for over 50K, a pretty healthy amount). Though they do have more equipment, of course, than lower-line versions, I didn't think that the difference in interior trim/ambience, which was little different than the lower-line Luxury model, was really worth the price difference. So, since 2.8L models weren't available, I picked out a silver 3.0L AWD Luxury-Collection model with only a few options (one of which was the rear-seat entertainment) for the review. While not cheap, it seemed reasonably-priced, at $41,800, considering what it offered....along the price lines of the Lexus RX350 competition. So then, it was time to get out my note-pad, get the key, and get to work.
Model Reviewed: 2010 Cadillac SRX AWD Luxury Collection.
Base Price: $39,405
Options:
Audio/CD Upgrade: $300
Rear Seat Entertainment System: $1295
Destination/Freight: $825
List Price as Reviewed: $41,825
Drivetrain: AWD, Transverse-mounted VVT 3.0L V6, 265 HP @ 6950 RPM, Torque 223 Ft-lbs. @ 5100 RPM, 6-speed HydraMatic/Asian-Warner automatic transmission with manual Sport-Shift mode, Electronically-controlled Limited-Slip differential.
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 23 Highway
Exterior Color: Radiant Silver
Interior: Black/Titanium Leather
PLUSSES:
Excellent 5/100 Drivetrain and 4/50 Bumper-to-Bumper warranties.
Choice of FWD/AWD with all 3.0L V6 models, regardless of trim level.
Smooth, quiet automatic transmission.
Smooth, slick, shift lever has a nice fore/aft motion; no annoying zig-zag.
Quick steering response.
Good, but not excellent, wind-noise isolation.
Standard high-quality Michelin Mud & Snow tires.
Nicely done exterior trim/chrome.
Excellent paint job.
OK, decent paint-color choice.
Chunky, angular front-end styling a refreshing change (IMO) from Aero/Jelly-Bean vehicles.
Classy, traditional vertical Cadillac taillights.
Reasonably strong sheet metal and doors.
Good underhood layout for a luxury car.
Well-designed steering wheel with nice wood rim.
Comfortable seats for narrower torsos.
Nice-feeling seat leather.
Unique, multi-display dash turn-signal indicators.
Killer stereo with Bose speakers.
Superb heater/air-conditioner.
Nicely-done, relatively high-quality interior trim.
Superbly finished cargo-area trim.
A number of interior storage-compartments.
Good front/rear legroom.
Good front headroom (with seat cushion adjusted down).
Clearly-labelled, easy-to-read gauges, with one exception.
Relatively solid, clear, easy-to-use buttons/stalks/levers.
Luxury-Collection package includes remote-controls for engine starter, heated seats, and climate-control.
MINUSES:
Optional 2.8L Turbo V6 models may be hard to find.
Premium-Collection models can get quite pricey.
AWD weight/drag and transmission slip-shifts impede some V6 performance.
Manual-shift gear indicator could be improved.
Relatively high engine revs needed for good response.
Significant body roll (with Luxury Collection-spec suspension) in spite of the quick steering response.
Slightly more road/engine noise than its primary Lexus RX350 competitor.
Mushy brake response/braking action.
Brake pedal mounted too high above the gas pedal (IMO)....adjustable pedals don't necessarily help.
Cheap-feeling plastic exterior mirror housings.
Lozenge-shaped exterior mirrors too small (IMO) for optimum vison.
Temporary spare tire instead of a real spare (come on, guys......this is a Cadillac)
Temporary spare tire hard to reach because of bolted multi-panels.
No remote cargo-area releases for rear-seats.
Poor rear-vision from rear roofline/window/D-pillar design.
Front seat cushion bolster-padding marginal for wide backsides.
Quirky, floating-needle speedometer (ala Mercedes-Benz) somewhat hard (IMO) to read at first glance.
Marginal rear headroom from sloped rear roofline and moon-roof housing.
Undersized power-mirror selector-tab somewhat hard to flip for large fingers.
Crystal Red and Platinum Ice exterior paint colors extra cost.
Cadillac/GM economic future, with Government money, OK for the time being, but unclear in the long run.
EXTERIOR:
Well, newly-redesigned or not, there is no denying the fact that this is a member of the Cadillac family. The chunky, in-your-face, chiseled-look front end is the same sterotypical New-Age Cadillac as its brothers and sisters. However, while the styling is not necessarily among my favorites, I basically like it......IMO, it presents a refreshing change from the endless ocean of aero-look, Jelly-Bean vehicles so prevalent on today's roads. The huge, chiseled headlights and toothy, chrome, egg-crate grille announce the car's presence like an old-fashioned British headmaster walking into a private-school class, yet the SRX still, inconspicuously, lacks the extreme chrome/flash/bling of the circus-like Escalade. The sheet metal seems reasonably solid and, one step or so better than that used on the former CTS/SRX. The paint job is good enough to be in the excellent category.....as I've remarked in reviews of other recent GM products, the General has made huge leaps in paint quality in recent years, just as they have done with some of their interiors. The eight different exterior colors offered are a fairly nice mix of dull and not-so-dull....I personally liked the Caribbean Blue, Crystal Red Tintcoat, and White Pearl (Platinum Ice). Unfortunately, the red and White are extra-cost, European-style. Like with many other American-designed vehicles, the twin plastic exterior mirror housings had a cheap, flimsy feel, and the mirrors themselves were, IMO, too small and lozenge-shaped. They did, however, snap-swivel and lock fairly easily and solidly. The exterior chrome and trim is generally solid and well,done, and the doors, liftgate, and hood have a reasonably solid feel to them. Ground clearance is high enough for some pretty deep mud, water puddles, and snow. In the back lie a pair of classy, traditional, vertical Cadillac taillights, but, IMO, the rest of the rear end is not well-done....it's styled more for form than function. The rear roofline droops down at a modest angle, but that angle is enough to rob some rear headroom and cargo space......more on that later. The shape/size of the rear D-pillars and smallish rear window/spoiler strongly limit the view out the back from inside the car.......in this, and in the cargo area, it shares some of the basic rear-end problems of the Infiniti EX35, though to a smaller extent, as the EX35's cargo area is even more cramped.
UNDERHOOD:
The underhood layout is quite good by luxury-vehicle standards......I was pleasantly surprised (premium-level vehicles often hide almost everything and severely limit access). Open up the fairly solid, insulated-pad hood, and a pair of nice gas struts hold it up for you. The transversely-mounted 3.0L V6 fits in quite nicely, with plenty of room to spare. While there is a big, annoying, plastic cover on top of the engine (almost all luxury vehicles have that), the sides of the engine and its components are easily reached. There is even room in front of the engine block to reach down, grab, and unscrew the oil filter without going underneath, so DIY oil changes should be comparatively easy....though getting to the oil drain plug could be another matter. Dipsticks, reservoirs, and filler caps are no problem...all easily accessable. The battery takes a little effort to reach, but is still not bad.
INTERIOR:
The interior, in most aspects, is not only head-and-shoulders, but, in some ways, even light-years ahead of the old CTS/SRX El Cheapo interior. Overall, it is quite a pleasant place, so I'll list the few negative things about it now and get them out of the way, so we can get to the nice stuff.
The headroom in back, under the full-length panorama-roof, is marginal for tall people because of the droop-down of the rear roofline.....this is no Escalade by any means. Vision out the back, as I've already mentioned above, is not good, because of the design of the rear roofline, D-Pillars, and rear window....more or less similiar to the Infiniti EX35. I didn't particularly like the design of the floating-red needle, white-face speedometer, as, IMO, a floating-needle (similiar to what Mercedes uses) is not as easy to instantly decipher at a glance as a full-length needle. They could have used a conventional full-length needle, except that the SRX's designers decided to fill up the whole center of the speedometer with fuel-economy data. The power-mirror left/right selector tab, like that of the Lexus ES350, is best flipped by the tiny fingers on Santa's Elves, not normal-sized adult American fingers. And, though the front seats are generally comfortable and relaxing, the side-bolsters have a noticeably harder area, with less padding on them, right in the area where larger, full-sized American rumps (yes, like mine) press into them. They don't actually squeeze or press into an oversized butt like classic sports-car seats do...it's just a rather hard, poorly-padded area that the butt and upper-legs sit on. It ends to become less noticeable, though, as you get used to it.....by the time I got back from the test-drive, I didn't feel it as bad. The brake pedal could have been better-located (more on that below).
There's not much else to complain about inside, though.....compared to the previous junk interior, the SRX designers did a superb job with this new one. Legroom is fine front and back, even with the front seat adjusted back somewhat for taller people. Headroom is fine up front, even with the moon-roof (it's actually a full-length panorama-roof with a sliding panel, instead of a conventional housing). The stereo sound quality is a real killer with the Bose speakers....up in Lexus territory (just perfect for the late Bon Scott and AC/DC doing "Highway to Hell" and "TNT"). Though I didn't like the floating-needle speedometer, the matching white-face/full-length red-needle tach/secondary gauges (including a MPG Gauge) were nice to look at and read. The 3-spoke steering wheel is well-shaped, comfortable to hold, has a nicely-done polished-wood upper-rim, and has solid-feeling, easy-to-use switches/buttons on the spokes. The seat leather is supple, good-looking, has a nice feel, and generally comfortable except for the aforementioned edges of the front-seat cushions. All of the front-seat adjustments are power-operated, except for the headrests. The interior hardware is all at least fairly solid, the buttons/***** are all clearly marked and, on my non-NAV model, easy to use. The strong climate control will keep you warm at the North Pole and cool in the California Desert....a traditional GM strong point. The interior trim is perhaps the most-improved feature over the old SRX, with nicely-done/fitted chrome, brushed-metal, and wood trim. Not quite to Audi standards, but now close. And one, last, interesting thing inside....the turn-signals, besides the usual small green arrow-flashers on the dash, have big, green slit-windows on the sides of the gauge-housing that also flash on and off with the regular indicators.....perhaps (?) to get the attention of those drivers who absent-mindedly drive down the road with their turn-signal flashers on when they aren't turning/changing lanes, which, of course, can confuse drivers.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The Luxury-collection trim includes a power-operated rear liftgate. It opens up to a superbly well-finished cargo area, at least as far as the floor/wall coverings are concerned. Plush, soft, expensive-feeling black carpeting covers both the walls and cargo floor, and a carpeted panel with edges adorned with solid, real metal/chrome (not plastic) tie-down-rings. The solid flip-up panel itself also feels like something out of a tank. Unfortunately, after that, the bean-counters then stepped in and cheapened things out. While the split-rear seats fold down to expand cargo space (and produce a flat floor), they don't have remote release-controls in the back of the cargo bed, for convienience, like some premium vehicles do, so you have to lean way forward and manually flick both tabs on the back of the seats (the salespeople said that a power rear-seat fold-down feature comes with the Premium-Collection option, but I didn't see it listed in the specs). There is a small pass-through in the rear seats for long, narrow objects to be carried without actually folding the seats. The temporary spare tire (in a Cadillac?) is hard to reach, because. to get to it, one must first unscrew a lower lift-up panel first with a Star-shaped wrench and fitting......most vehicles don't actually fasten the panel down like that. That, of course, in addition to the regular cargo-floor panel on top of it, so you have a difficult, multi-stage operation getting to the temprary spare.....and where, of course, a real spare SHOULD be instead.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 3.0L V6 with a state-of-the-art engine START/STOP button and, of course, the electronic fob in the vicinity.....a remote starter, which turns on the engine and preheats/cools the seats and climate control is an option. The V6 fires up whisper-quiet, though a very faint trace of exhaust noise is audible. The 3.0L engine felt quite responsive and torquey in the new 2010 Buick LaCrosse I reviewed several weeks ago, but, in this vehicle, the extra weight of an SUV in general, and, of course, the weight/drag of the AWD saps a noticeable amount of the engine's power. Acceleration is adequate, and it's fine for everyday stop-go driving and cruising, but generally doesn't give you much of a shove in the back....definitely not as much as in the LaCrosse. Some exhaust noise is heard upon acceleration...about as much as in the Lexus ES350 (the RX350 is noticeably quieter), but it is not obtrusive...this is a Cadillac, after all. Still, the 3.0L's less-than-dragster performance is reason enough, IMO, for Cadillac dealers to consider ordering (and Cadillac to actually produce) some Turbo 2.8L models, which have 70 more Ft-lbs. of torque. And, in this version, the 3.0L's HP and torque peaks are both at very high RPM's, which further limits low-RPM response.
Not only the weight/drag of AWD, but, to some extent, the ultra-smooth automatic transmission, contribute to the engine's leisurely performance. The smooth shifts apparantly allow some slippage in the torque converter, which, of course, saps some power during the shifts. It's nice for comfort, though.....you don't have to put up with a bumpy transmission.....which is one thing I've never liked. There is a manual Sport-shift gate, which very slightly firms up the shifts, but is still comfort-oriented. The shift lever itself works slickly, has a nice fore/aft motion without an annoying zig/zag, and has a comfortable feel. One thing I don't like about the way they did the manual gear-indicator (and, I confess, a weakness that is also in my own Subaru Outback) is that when you put the lever in manual mode, you don't know what gear you are in BEFORE you start manual-shifting.....so, when you up or down-shift manually the first time, you don't know what gear you will end up in. You can get around this in my Outback (not sure about the SRX) by bumping the lever forwrd first in the manual shift-gate to visually display the gear you're in (and probably an upshift), then back to its resting position, but you shouldn't have to do that first, IMO.
The chassis/steering/suspension is OK, but not quite up to BMW or Mercedes standards. The initial steering response is quick, paticularly at low speeds. Body roll, however, on the Luxury-grade suspension my car had, (and, of course, from the high center of gravity) was rather pronounced. Ride comfort was, again, OK, neither notably firm or soft. The suspension soaked up bumps fairly well, but produced some audible thumps. Wind-noise control was good but not excellent, and there was a small amount of road noise from the standard Michelin mud & snow tires. Michelin tires, of course, are noted for their quality, but have never been known for the kind of ride quietness you would get on, say, a Goodyear Regatta tire. Again, the Lexus RX350, overall, was noticeably quieter. Brakes were not one of the strong points, and the pedal showed a marked amount of sponginess in its initial application.....again, the German SUV's, to me, seemed notably better in this areaeir braking action/feel. I also had some spacing-problems with the way that the brake pedal was mounted inboard and high above the gas pedal......my big size-15 circus-clown shoes easily hung up on the bottom of the pedal, and I had to use some care moving my foot from gas to brake (as I often have to do, in many vehicles). Power-adjustable foot pedals come with the Luxury-Collection package, but do little good in my case, because they move both the gas and brake pedals equally together, and don't allow you to adjust one independently of the other.
THE VERDICT:
OK, the new SRX does have some quirks, but there's no denying that is an enormous improvement, quality-wise, fit/finish, and in the interior, over the old SRX. The new SRX's interior (finally) can compete with much of its competition. It uses components now that don't feel like they will fall right off in your hands. The paint job is almost Lexus-quality. The underhood layout is actually useful and not an insult to your intelligence, like with so many upmarket, premium-nameplate vehicles. The Luxury-Collection-grade drivetrain/chassis are not particularly impressive from a sporting standpoint, but are OK and do the job fine in everyday driving. There is room inside for even tall people, especially in front. Towing limits are 2500 or 3500 lbs., depending on the package.
But a few things still need improvement. The high-style, form-over-function rear end compromises cargo room, visibility and read headroom.....this is one of the few areas where the old SRX was actually better. The front-seat cushions, comfortable as they are, need more padding on the sides. The brake pedal needs to be relocated downwards, and the pedal itself given less mushiness in the braking action. A real spare tire, please. And last, let's get some 2.8L Turbo models in production.....there are some sport-oriented people who, even though the standard engine is OK for everyday driving, will want a litle more spunk.
http://www.cadillac.com/vehicles/201...er/overview.do
In a Nutshell: Versatile, well-finished, and somewhat better build quality than its predecessor, but with a number of design quirks.
There has been some (though not a huge) amount of CL interest in the new 2010 Cadillac SRX, and I did get a couple of review requests for it, so, while I am waiting for the new Audi A3 TDI Diesel (which I also have review requests for) to be introduced in the Washington, D.C. area, I decided to go ahead and review the SRX this morning, since supply of most 3.0L versions, right now, at local Cadillac dealers, is plentiful.
The SRX nameplate goes back several years and was introduced by Cadillac as a medium-sized, car-based, crossover SUV derived from a the CTS body and platform. The CTS itself, of course, in 2001, replaced the ill-fated, poorly-built, Opel-derived Cadillac Catera, and, like the Catera, developed a reputation for worse-than average reliability and, in addition, a dull, cheap-plastic, poorly-finished interior not worthy of the Cadillac nameplate. The first-generation SRX interior was a slight improvement on the CTS, but, IMO, not by much. The SRX was introduced basically because Cadillac needed a smaller, cheaper alternative car-based SUV to the enormous, full-size, truck-based Escalade, which cost LOTS of money, had enough chrome and bling on it to look like a circus wagon rolling down the street, and was, at that time, like the competing Lincoln Navigator, a stereotype vehicle for big-money athletes, singers/rappers, and entertainers.
So, as the basic CTS platform was all-new last year, this year, for 2010, we have a redesigned, all-new SRX platform as well. The new size/shape of the SRX (it is slightly smaller than the last-generation model) suggested, to me at least, that it shared roots with its second-generation Saturn VUE cousin. But the Cadillac people say no, that is not the case....it still shares the CTS platform. Of course, since it is an SUV, only one body style is offered....a 5-door hatchback. While there are no separate trim-level models as such, there are three basic trim packages. Cadillac doesn't call them "Packages" though......they are referred to as "Luxury Collection", "Performance Collection" (which, of course, includes a Sport Suspension), and "Premium Collection", which includes the Sport suspension and some additional electronic and convienence features. One transmission is offered (a 6-speed Sport-shift automatic) and two V6 engines....the ubiquitous GM 3.0L V6 used in several other mid-sized GM vehicles; this version with with 265 HP and 223 Ft-lbs. of torque, and a smaller, Saab-derived, Turbo 2.8L V6 with 300 HP and 295 Ft-lbs. of torque. All, 3.0L models, regardless of trim level, come with a choice of Front or All-Wheel Drive (I can't imagine buying a vehicle like this with FWD), and all 2.8L models have standard AWD.
While the Turbo 2.8L V6 may be an option on the spec sheet, in reality, they are almost impossible to find, at least here in the D.C. area. 3.0L models, however, are in plentiful supply (indeed, I saw enough of them on the lot today, both FWD and AWD, to suggest that supply may be exceeding demand and discounting may be available). I did several inventory checks, on-line, at local Cadillac shops today, and couldn't find a single 2.8L model in stock. When I asked the Cadillac salespeople about that, they acknowledged that 2.8L models are virtually non-existent here, and that they just weren't ordering any. Apparantly, they feel that turbo models just don't fit the SRX's image and wouldn't sell widely. They also complained that Cadillac hasn't done much, in its marketing, to promote the turbo model (remember...that's their words, not necessarily mine). I didn't ask directly, but I got the impression that they might, if requested, special-order a 2.8L model for a healthy deposit. ($$$$$ often talk).
As I shuffled through the rows of new SRXs looking for an ideal one to review, I noticed that the Premium Collection models, especially the AWD ones, were quite pricey (some of them listed for over 50K, a pretty healthy amount). Though they do have more equipment, of course, than lower-line versions, I didn't think that the difference in interior trim/ambience, which was little different than the lower-line Luxury model, was really worth the price difference. So, since 2.8L models weren't available, I picked out a silver 3.0L AWD Luxury-Collection model with only a few options (one of which was the rear-seat entertainment) for the review. While not cheap, it seemed reasonably-priced, at $41,800, considering what it offered....along the price lines of the Lexus RX350 competition. So then, it was time to get out my note-pad, get the key, and get to work.
Model Reviewed: 2010 Cadillac SRX AWD Luxury Collection.
Base Price: $39,405
Options:
Audio/CD Upgrade: $300
Rear Seat Entertainment System: $1295
Destination/Freight: $825
List Price as Reviewed: $41,825
Drivetrain: AWD, Transverse-mounted VVT 3.0L V6, 265 HP @ 6950 RPM, Torque 223 Ft-lbs. @ 5100 RPM, 6-speed HydraMatic/Asian-Warner automatic transmission with manual Sport-Shift mode, Electronically-controlled Limited-Slip differential.
EPA Mileage Rating: 17 City, 23 Highway
Exterior Color: Radiant Silver
Interior: Black/Titanium Leather
PLUSSES:
Excellent 5/100 Drivetrain and 4/50 Bumper-to-Bumper warranties.
Choice of FWD/AWD with all 3.0L V6 models, regardless of trim level.
Smooth, quiet automatic transmission.
Smooth, slick, shift lever has a nice fore/aft motion; no annoying zig-zag.
Quick steering response.
Good, but not excellent, wind-noise isolation.
Standard high-quality Michelin Mud & Snow tires.
Nicely done exterior trim/chrome.
Excellent paint job.
OK, decent paint-color choice.
Chunky, angular front-end styling a refreshing change (IMO) from Aero/Jelly-Bean vehicles.
Classy, traditional vertical Cadillac taillights.
Reasonably strong sheet metal and doors.
Good underhood layout for a luxury car.
Well-designed steering wheel with nice wood rim.
Comfortable seats for narrower torsos.
Nice-feeling seat leather.
Unique, multi-display dash turn-signal indicators.
Killer stereo with Bose speakers.
Superb heater/air-conditioner.
Nicely-done, relatively high-quality interior trim.
Superbly finished cargo-area trim.
A number of interior storage-compartments.
Good front/rear legroom.
Good front headroom (with seat cushion adjusted down).
Clearly-labelled, easy-to-read gauges, with one exception.
Relatively solid, clear, easy-to-use buttons/stalks/levers.
Luxury-Collection package includes remote-controls for engine starter, heated seats, and climate-control.
MINUSES:
Optional 2.8L Turbo V6 models may be hard to find.
Premium-Collection models can get quite pricey.
AWD weight/drag and transmission slip-shifts impede some V6 performance.
Manual-shift gear indicator could be improved.
Relatively high engine revs needed for good response.
Significant body roll (with Luxury Collection-spec suspension) in spite of the quick steering response.
Slightly more road/engine noise than its primary Lexus RX350 competitor.
Mushy brake response/braking action.
Brake pedal mounted too high above the gas pedal (IMO)....adjustable pedals don't necessarily help.
Cheap-feeling plastic exterior mirror housings.
Lozenge-shaped exterior mirrors too small (IMO) for optimum vison.
Temporary spare tire instead of a real spare (come on, guys......this is a Cadillac)
Temporary spare tire hard to reach because of bolted multi-panels.
No remote cargo-area releases for rear-seats.
Poor rear-vision from rear roofline/window/D-pillar design.
Front seat cushion bolster-padding marginal for wide backsides.
Quirky, floating-needle speedometer (ala Mercedes-Benz) somewhat hard (IMO) to read at first glance.
Marginal rear headroom from sloped rear roofline and moon-roof housing.
Undersized power-mirror selector-tab somewhat hard to flip for large fingers.
Crystal Red and Platinum Ice exterior paint colors extra cost.
Cadillac/GM economic future, with Government money, OK for the time being, but unclear in the long run.
EXTERIOR:
Well, newly-redesigned or not, there is no denying the fact that this is a member of the Cadillac family. The chunky, in-your-face, chiseled-look front end is the same sterotypical New-Age Cadillac as its brothers and sisters. However, while the styling is not necessarily among my favorites, I basically like it......IMO, it presents a refreshing change from the endless ocean of aero-look, Jelly-Bean vehicles so prevalent on today's roads. The huge, chiseled headlights and toothy, chrome, egg-crate grille announce the car's presence like an old-fashioned British headmaster walking into a private-school class, yet the SRX still, inconspicuously, lacks the extreme chrome/flash/bling of the circus-like Escalade. The sheet metal seems reasonably solid and, one step or so better than that used on the former CTS/SRX. The paint job is good enough to be in the excellent category.....as I've remarked in reviews of other recent GM products, the General has made huge leaps in paint quality in recent years, just as they have done with some of their interiors. The eight different exterior colors offered are a fairly nice mix of dull and not-so-dull....I personally liked the Caribbean Blue, Crystal Red Tintcoat, and White Pearl (Platinum Ice). Unfortunately, the red and White are extra-cost, European-style. Like with many other American-designed vehicles, the twin plastic exterior mirror housings had a cheap, flimsy feel, and the mirrors themselves were, IMO, too small and lozenge-shaped. They did, however, snap-swivel and lock fairly easily and solidly. The exterior chrome and trim is generally solid and well,done, and the doors, liftgate, and hood have a reasonably solid feel to them. Ground clearance is high enough for some pretty deep mud, water puddles, and snow. In the back lie a pair of classy, traditional, vertical Cadillac taillights, but, IMO, the rest of the rear end is not well-done....it's styled more for form than function. The rear roofline droops down at a modest angle, but that angle is enough to rob some rear headroom and cargo space......more on that later. The shape/size of the rear D-pillars and smallish rear window/spoiler strongly limit the view out the back from inside the car.......in this, and in the cargo area, it shares some of the basic rear-end problems of the Infiniti EX35, though to a smaller extent, as the EX35's cargo area is even more cramped.
UNDERHOOD:
The underhood layout is quite good by luxury-vehicle standards......I was pleasantly surprised (premium-level vehicles often hide almost everything and severely limit access). Open up the fairly solid, insulated-pad hood, and a pair of nice gas struts hold it up for you. The transversely-mounted 3.0L V6 fits in quite nicely, with plenty of room to spare. While there is a big, annoying, plastic cover on top of the engine (almost all luxury vehicles have that), the sides of the engine and its components are easily reached. There is even room in front of the engine block to reach down, grab, and unscrew the oil filter without going underneath, so DIY oil changes should be comparatively easy....though getting to the oil drain plug could be another matter. Dipsticks, reservoirs, and filler caps are no problem...all easily accessable. The battery takes a little effort to reach, but is still not bad.
INTERIOR:
The interior, in most aspects, is not only head-and-shoulders, but, in some ways, even light-years ahead of the old CTS/SRX El Cheapo interior. Overall, it is quite a pleasant place, so I'll list the few negative things about it now and get them out of the way, so we can get to the nice stuff.
The headroom in back, under the full-length panorama-roof, is marginal for tall people because of the droop-down of the rear roofline.....this is no Escalade by any means. Vision out the back, as I've already mentioned above, is not good, because of the design of the rear roofline, D-Pillars, and rear window....more or less similiar to the Infiniti EX35. I didn't particularly like the design of the floating-red needle, white-face speedometer, as, IMO, a floating-needle (similiar to what Mercedes uses) is not as easy to instantly decipher at a glance as a full-length needle. They could have used a conventional full-length needle, except that the SRX's designers decided to fill up the whole center of the speedometer with fuel-economy data. The power-mirror left/right selector tab, like that of the Lexus ES350, is best flipped by the tiny fingers on Santa's Elves, not normal-sized adult American fingers. And, though the front seats are generally comfortable and relaxing, the side-bolsters have a noticeably harder area, with less padding on them, right in the area where larger, full-sized American rumps (yes, like mine) press into them. They don't actually squeeze or press into an oversized butt like classic sports-car seats do...it's just a rather hard, poorly-padded area that the butt and upper-legs sit on. It ends to become less noticeable, though, as you get used to it.....by the time I got back from the test-drive, I didn't feel it as bad. The brake pedal could have been better-located (more on that below).
There's not much else to complain about inside, though.....compared to the previous junk interior, the SRX designers did a superb job with this new one. Legroom is fine front and back, even with the front seat adjusted back somewhat for taller people. Headroom is fine up front, even with the moon-roof (it's actually a full-length panorama-roof with a sliding panel, instead of a conventional housing). The stereo sound quality is a real killer with the Bose speakers....up in Lexus territory (just perfect for the late Bon Scott and AC/DC doing "Highway to Hell" and "TNT"). Though I didn't like the floating-needle speedometer, the matching white-face/full-length red-needle tach/secondary gauges (including a MPG Gauge) were nice to look at and read. The 3-spoke steering wheel is well-shaped, comfortable to hold, has a nicely-done polished-wood upper-rim, and has solid-feeling, easy-to-use switches/buttons on the spokes. The seat leather is supple, good-looking, has a nice feel, and generally comfortable except for the aforementioned edges of the front-seat cushions. All of the front-seat adjustments are power-operated, except for the headrests. The interior hardware is all at least fairly solid, the buttons/***** are all clearly marked and, on my non-NAV model, easy to use. The strong climate control will keep you warm at the North Pole and cool in the California Desert....a traditional GM strong point. The interior trim is perhaps the most-improved feature over the old SRX, with nicely-done/fitted chrome, brushed-metal, and wood trim. Not quite to Audi standards, but now close. And one, last, interesting thing inside....the turn-signals, besides the usual small green arrow-flashers on the dash, have big, green slit-windows on the sides of the gauge-housing that also flash on and off with the regular indicators.....perhaps (?) to get the attention of those drivers who absent-mindedly drive down the road with their turn-signal flashers on when they aren't turning/changing lanes, which, of course, can confuse drivers.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The Luxury-collection trim includes a power-operated rear liftgate. It opens up to a superbly well-finished cargo area, at least as far as the floor/wall coverings are concerned. Plush, soft, expensive-feeling black carpeting covers both the walls and cargo floor, and a carpeted panel with edges adorned with solid, real metal/chrome (not plastic) tie-down-rings. The solid flip-up panel itself also feels like something out of a tank. Unfortunately, after that, the bean-counters then stepped in and cheapened things out. While the split-rear seats fold down to expand cargo space (and produce a flat floor), they don't have remote release-controls in the back of the cargo bed, for convienience, like some premium vehicles do, so you have to lean way forward and manually flick both tabs on the back of the seats (the salespeople said that a power rear-seat fold-down feature comes with the Premium-Collection option, but I didn't see it listed in the specs). There is a small pass-through in the rear seats for long, narrow objects to be carried without actually folding the seats. The temporary spare tire (in a Cadillac?) is hard to reach, because. to get to it, one must first unscrew a lower lift-up panel first with a Star-shaped wrench and fitting......most vehicles don't actually fasten the panel down like that. That, of course, in addition to the regular cargo-floor panel on top of it, so you have a difficult, multi-stage operation getting to the temprary spare.....and where, of course, a real spare SHOULD be instead.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 3.0L V6 with a state-of-the-art engine START/STOP button and, of course, the electronic fob in the vicinity.....a remote starter, which turns on the engine and preheats/cools the seats and climate control is an option. The V6 fires up whisper-quiet, though a very faint trace of exhaust noise is audible. The 3.0L engine felt quite responsive and torquey in the new 2010 Buick LaCrosse I reviewed several weeks ago, but, in this vehicle, the extra weight of an SUV in general, and, of course, the weight/drag of the AWD saps a noticeable amount of the engine's power. Acceleration is adequate, and it's fine for everyday stop-go driving and cruising, but generally doesn't give you much of a shove in the back....definitely not as much as in the LaCrosse. Some exhaust noise is heard upon acceleration...about as much as in the Lexus ES350 (the RX350 is noticeably quieter), but it is not obtrusive...this is a Cadillac, after all. Still, the 3.0L's less-than-dragster performance is reason enough, IMO, for Cadillac dealers to consider ordering (and Cadillac to actually produce) some Turbo 2.8L models, which have 70 more Ft-lbs. of torque. And, in this version, the 3.0L's HP and torque peaks are both at very high RPM's, which further limits low-RPM response.
Not only the weight/drag of AWD, but, to some extent, the ultra-smooth automatic transmission, contribute to the engine's leisurely performance. The smooth shifts apparantly allow some slippage in the torque converter, which, of course, saps some power during the shifts. It's nice for comfort, though.....you don't have to put up with a bumpy transmission.....which is one thing I've never liked. There is a manual Sport-shift gate, which very slightly firms up the shifts, but is still comfort-oriented. The shift lever itself works slickly, has a nice fore/aft motion without an annoying zig/zag, and has a comfortable feel. One thing I don't like about the way they did the manual gear-indicator (and, I confess, a weakness that is also in my own Subaru Outback) is that when you put the lever in manual mode, you don't know what gear you are in BEFORE you start manual-shifting.....so, when you up or down-shift manually the first time, you don't know what gear you will end up in. You can get around this in my Outback (not sure about the SRX) by bumping the lever forwrd first in the manual shift-gate to visually display the gear you're in (and probably an upshift), then back to its resting position, but you shouldn't have to do that first, IMO.
The chassis/steering/suspension is OK, but not quite up to BMW or Mercedes standards. The initial steering response is quick, paticularly at low speeds. Body roll, however, on the Luxury-grade suspension my car had, (and, of course, from the high center of gravity) was rather pronounced. Ride comfort was, again, OK, neither notably firm or soft. The suspension soaked up bumps fairly well, but produced some audible thumps. Wind-noise control was good but not excellent, and there was a small amount of road noise from the standard Michelin mud & snow tires. Michelin tires, of course, are noted for their quality, but have never been known for the kind of ride quietness you would get on, say, a Goodyear Regatta tire. Again, the Lexus RX350, overall, was noticeably quieter. Brakes were not one of the strong points, and the pedal showed a marked amount of sponginess in its initial application.....again, the German SUV's, to me, seemed notably better in this areaeir braking action/feel. I also had some spacing-problems with the way that the brake pedal was mounted inboard and high above the gas pedal......my big size-15 circus-clown shoes easily hung up on the bottom of the pedal, and I had to use some care moving my foot from gas to brake (as I often have to do, in many vehicles). Power-adjustable foot pedals come with the Luxury-Collection package, but do little good in my case, because they move both the gas and brake pedals equally together, and don't allow you to adjust one independently of the other.
THE VERDICT:
OK, the new SRX does have some quirks, but there's no denying that is an enormous improvement, quality-wise, fit/finish, and in the interior, over the old SRX. The new SRX's interior (finally) can compete with much of its competition. It uses components now that don't feel like they will fall right off in your hands. The paint job is almost Lexus-quality. The underhood layout is actually useful and not an insult to your intelligence, like with so many upmarket, premium-nameplate vehicles. The Luxury-Collection-grade drivetrain/chassis are not particularly impressive from a sporting standpoint, but are OK and do the job fine in everyday driving. There is room inside for even tall people, especially in front. Towing limits are 2500 or 3500 lbs., depending on the package.
But a few things still need improvement. The high-style, form-over-function rear end compromises cargo room, visibility and read headroom.....this is one of the few areas where the old SRX was actually better. The front-seat cushions, comfortable as they are, need more padding on the sides. The brake pedal needs to be relocated downwards, and the pedal itself given less mushiness in the braking action. A real spare tire, please. And last, let's get some 2.8L Turbo models in production.....there are some sport-oriented people who, even though the standard engine is OK for everyday driving, will want a litle more spunk.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-17-09 at 04:40 PM.
11-17-09, 05:35 PM
#2
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, interesting comments on the 3.0L engine. On paper, this engine seems almost pointless. Perhaps it is cheaper than the DI, 3.6L, but looking at the specs of a few other vehicles (such as the CTS), the 3.6L offers more power while using the same amount of fuel. However, I've never driven a car with either engine, so I can't comment on smoothness or noise.
I have high hopes for the 2.8L model. Audi really is demonstrating very nicely how turbochargers and superchargers can make a quick car that is efficient. The new S4 really is something....on paper.
I have high hopes for the 2.8L model. Audi really is demonstrating very nicely how turbochargers and superchargers can make a quick car that is efficient. The new S4 really is something....on paper.
11-17-09, 07:24 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Yes, interesting comments on the 3.0L engine. On paper, this engine seems almost pointless. Perhaps it is cheaper than the DI, 3.6L, but looking at the specs of a few other vehicles (such as the CTS), the 3.6L offers more power while using the same amount of fuel. However, I've never driven a car with either engine, so I can't comment on smoothness or noise.
I have high hopes for the 2.8L model. Audi really is demonstrating very nicely how turbochargers and superchargers can make a quick car that is efficient. The new S4 really is something....on paper.
I don't know about all the Cadillac salespeople, but the ones I talked to today were not impressed with the idea of a turbo Cadillac.........never mind the fact that the supercharged, ultra-high-performance, 550 HP CTS-V does manage to sell.
11-17-09, 08:43 PM
#4
As always, nicely written review mmarshall. It's definitely a nice improvement over the last SRX IMO. The design is fresh, and the quality and reliability is surely an improvement over the last generation, though some may not agree due to the lack of a third row and V8 power. I am a little hesitant about the powertrains due to this vehicles weight. I think the 3.6 would have been better utilized in this application as standard considering most of it's competitors have more standard horsepower than the 3.0. Regardless they did make a latter so I can't complain too much, but it is a little disappointing that the 2.8 is hard to come by. Also I agree that it is a bit odd that there is only a temporary spare tire, I mean this is a luxury vehicle is it not, I'm paying over 40K for something that should be standard. Aside from those gripes, I think its a good step forward for Cadillac, though I'd still get and RX350 between the two
11-17-09, 08:54 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. I put a lot of time and effort into them.
Remember, though, while the fit-finish level, general hardware, and trim quality is indeed much better than in the 1Gen SRX, the new 2Gen model is still new and untested for reliability in the hands of consumers. And its precedessors......the 1Gen CTS, SRX, and Catera, all were well-below-average in reliability......I noted that in the review.
The Lexus ES350 is one of the few non-hard-core off-road vehicles that now (again) offers a proper full-size spare......but you have to pay $205 for it.
That's clearly the case in the Washington, D.C. area where I live (and we're generally the country's second-largest new-car market outside of SoCal). But, if that's the case or not where you live in CA, I don't know.....I can't say.
I'm with you. Though the new SRX, admittedly, has some nice things going for it, for 40K, I'd take an RX350 hands-down. I like the RX's refinement, tomb-quietness, smoothness, and high overall quality.
I put a lot of time and effort into them.
It's definitely a nice improvement over the last SRX IMO. The design is fresh, and the quality and reliability is surely an improvement over the last generation
Also I agree that it is a bit odd that there is only a temporary spare tire, I mean this is a luxury vehicle is it not, I'm paying over 40K for something that should be standard.
it is a little disappointing that the 2.8 is hard to come by
Aside from those gripes, I think its a good step forward for Cadillac, though I'd still get and RX350 between the two
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-17-09 at 09:17 PM.
11-17-09, 09:00 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
awesome review as always. I like the SRX and will agree that the vehicle is way ahead of the last generation but I still think I would give my money to Lexus who has perfected the RX to a damn science. also the interior has won awards
11-17-09, 09:07 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
So would I, if I were spending 40K or more, as I indicated above to Hoovey2411. But, for under 40K, I'd still probably go with Subaru.
I still think I would give my money to Lexus who has perfected the RX to a damn science. also the interior has won awards
Trending Topics
11-18-09, 06:15 AM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
Nice write up mmarshall, we also test drove the SRX last month when the wife was shopping for a SUV. We thought it drove pretty nice, especially the steering, but way too much chrome adn that side chrome are vent is tacky. We didnt like the interior and the rear end either.
GM will need to come up with something better than the SRX if they ever want to be a real player again in the global auto industry.
GM will need to come up with something better than the SRX if they ever want to be a real player again in the global auto industry.
11-18-09, 06:28 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Have you and her decided on a new vehicle yet, or still shoping?
The steering response IS nice for an SUV (almost sports-car like), but the chassis and high center of gravity allow for marked body roll as well.
I guess that's a matter of perspective, and personal preference. The old CTS/SRX had an interior that, if anything, didn't have ENOUGH chrome or wood trim....and way too much dull, cheap plastic The new model, as I see it, is simply playing catch-up.
They're off to a pretty good start, though, with the new SRX. A little more torque, a little more chassis sophistication, a rear end you can actually see out of, and some more sound-insulation, and they will probably be there.
An they are also well on the way with some of their other vehicles, like the Chevy Malibu, Saturn Aura, Buick LaCrosse, and, yes, some versions of Cadillac's own 2Gen CTS. The new CTS SportWagon, for example, which I looked at in the showroom yesterday (but didn't drive) looks like it may be a real killer. It's pricey, though.........that one was 54K.
we also test drove the SRX last month when the wife was shopping for a SUV.
We thought it drove pretty nice, especially the steering,
but way too much chrome adn that side chrome are vent is tacky. We didnt like the interior and the rear end either.
GM will need to come up with something better than the SRX if they ever want to be a real player again in the global auto industry.
An they are also well on the way with some of their other vehicles, like the Chevy Malibu, Saturn Aura, Buick LaCrosse, and, yes, some versions of Cadillac's own 2Gen CTS. The new CTS SportWagon, for example, which I looked at in the showroom yesterday (but didn't drive) looks like it may be a real killer. It's pricey, though.........that one was 54K.
11-18-09, 07:05 AM
#13
Nice review Marshall. I found the SRX to be quieter than the RX from my time behind the wheel at the the Caddy Driving Event. Next time I will have to take vids for validity The steering was on the loose side but the suspension is quite compliant. The SRX is a very nice vehicle for the price. It is less expensive than my X3 & comes with more standard equipment which is great.
11-18-09, 07:05 AM
#14
Lexus Test Driver
It came down to the Lexus RX350, Volvo XC60 and the Audi Q5. The Volvo XC60 was the big surprise, we fully expected a quick test drive and move onto the next dealer, but the XC60 was so much fun to drive, we almost bought one. At the end, we didnt like the rear end, the water fall center console and the fact that it will be owned by a Chinese car company soon. We ended up with, in our opinion, the best combination of luxury and performance of all the suvs we test drove, the Q5.
11-18-09, 10:52 AM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
It came down to the Lexus RX350, Volvo XC60 and the Audi Q5. The Volvo XC60 was the big surprise, we fully expected a quick test drive and move onto the next dealer, but the XC60 was so much fun to drive, we almost bought one. At the end, we didnt like the rear end, the water fall center console and the fact that it will be owned by a Chinese car company soon. We ended up with, in our opinion, the best combination of luxury and performance of all the suvs we test drove, the Q5.
I did review a Q5, last winter, but I don't remember doing an XC60.