By on November 18, 2009

(courtesy:Jalopnik)

Since day one, the Cadillac SRX was a desperate underdog looking to dethrone the Lexus RX: Middle America’s CUV of choice. But the SRX was a muscular macho machine and the Lexus is an overstuffed Camry Wagon. Now, with a more mundane blueprint, Cadillac believes their latest SRX utility is “the new standard for luxury crossovers.” Plus, as the promotional material claims, it’s also the Cadillac of Crossovers. Whoa dude: what standard are they holding themselves to, and does anyone still believe Cadillac is the ultimate word in luxury?

Starting from the greenwashed Provoq concept of 2008, the SRX is the nicest interpretation of the brand’s jarring Art and Science aesthetic. The bumper’s pronounced wedge flows logically into Cadillac’s corporate grille and stacked headlight clusters. The fastback roofline drops behind the B-pillar, yet passenger ingress/egress isn’t affected. And while the large D-pillar and tailfin-esque rear lighting pods are undoubtedly Cadillac, something looks wrong.

2010_cadillac_srx_rearGM Theta Platform uber alles: the wrong-wheel drive architectural hard points mean last year’s muscle makes way for clumsy and un-American. The side profile’s swage line works, until it draws you to the solid ventiports that don’t bother with a misleading grille. Even worse, it sports a GM Mark of Excellence logo that won’t come off with a screwdriver and WD-40. The tall front fenders are pure import-wannabe, with fake greenhouse extensions giving the illusion of a vehicle with a more unique blueprint. At least the optional 20-inch, six-lug hoops provide a tough stance, even if the dual exhausts look better than they sound.

But go inside, getting back to Cadillac’s “new standard” for the CUV-genre. The center stack is an upscale affair, even with DNA shared with lesser GM products. Too bad adjusting the long toothed vent registers creates more flex than the sails on a vintage racing boat in a typhoon. The door’s rich wood paneling is denied access to the dour dashboard and overwrought, plasticized console. Yet the SRX’s front buckets truly disappoint: the driver’s seat bottom has respectable bolstering and an M-series worthy pull out thigh support, but the passenger gets a hunk of foam with the consistency of a half-melted marshmallow. Then I clocked the badge on the tiller: this is supposed to be a Caddy?

But the SRX occasionally raises the bar: witness the multi-information panel in the speedometer. The HDMI-worthy resolution screen, clear interface and beautiful graphics at start-up are a clear winner for any car, at any price. The jeweled edges to the cluster double as redundant turn signal indicators: the green arrows of conventional wisdom meet their match, even if Cadillac retained them for the un-intuitive.

While the 3D graphics on the (optional) navigation system are ergo-friendly and work sans i-Drive interface, the BOSE beat box lacks the imaging qualities of the Lincoln MKX’s bullhorn-esque rear THX tweeters and the awesome thump of Lexus’ Mark Levinson-fettled cabins.

Not all is lost elsewhere. The SRX shines on the open road, though safe passage in a parking lot is no small feat with forward leaning, thick A-pillars blocking views of curbs, strollers and 2010_cadillac_SRX_intsubcompacts. Smooth roads exploit negligible body roll at sane speeds. The whole experience is Teutonic, with less tendency to understeer than a car, much less the roly-poly Lexus RX. But the hydraulic based steering gear was a surprise: excellent on-center feel and brilliant communication in fast sweepers. So Cadillac made quite the corner carver. You know, for a CUV.

And the excuses continue underhood, as the 3.0L direct-injected V6 makes adequate thrust, provided stoplight drags with the RX350 aren’t in your future. On the plus side, torque steer (with 223lb-ft) on the 4300lb Caddy is a non-issue. While a smaller displacement, turbocharged and all-wheel drive alternative is en route later this year, Cadillac is going about this incorrectly: why go smaller and busier when a V8 is the logical choice?

Oh, that’s right: global designs, cost savings and all that jive. So the SRX makes due with everyone else’s engineering, rearing its ugly head in ride comfort. While road noise is Lexian at speeds, the big wheels, firm dampeners and clumsy CUV stance make for a crude ride on pothole-soaked urban roads. Forget about wafting like a real Caddy, the SRX has nothing on the RX350. And this grip/comfort trade off is reverse Viagra for the average CUV buyer.

Plus, with nearly a 20 cu-ft deficit in cargo space, the Lexus RX’s perennial success remains untouchable. Cadillac is a brand in desperation: from the standard leatherette interior to the gutless engine, the SRX looks for signs of life via blueprints from the best (worst?) intentions of others. So GM’s top brand is doomed to live in a Lexus-shaped shadow until they grow a pair, investing in a unique platform. And sweat every last detail in the process.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

44 Comments on “Review: 2010 Cadillac SRX V6...”


  • avatar
    superbadd75

    2010 Cadillac SRX V6? All 2010 SRXs are V6s. The Northstar is gone with the old station wagonesque Sigma SRX.

  • avatar

    I drove one of these the same day I drove the Terrain. The handling was a little sharper. The ride was quieter but a little less smooth. And, despite what you might read above, there was torque steer. I was told the vehicle in question was AWD, but the torque steer led me to further investigate…and it wasn’t.

    The SRX’s largest shortcoming isn’t mentioned here–the rear seat is far less roomy than in the Terrain or in most competitors. Even another inch or two of knee room would have been welcome.

    TrueDelta had reliability stats for the new CTS well ahead of any other source, and I’d like to do the same for the new SRX. To read about the Car Reliability Survey, and sign up to help out:

    http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php

    • 0 avatar
      ChristyGarwood

      Michael, I checked out the back seat of the SRX in the lobby of the Warren Tech Center and there was plenty of room.  Are you tall and long legged by any chance?

      @SM -  Thanks for the review of the Cadillac SRX. There are 3,477 people who bought the SRX last month. I think folks are finding enough good reasons to buy the SRX over the RX350, especially when they test drive them.

      • 0 avatar
        superbadd75

        I think folks are finding enough good reasons to buy the SRX over the RX350, especially when they test drive them.

        One of them being the fact that the side airbags in the rear of the RX350 make the outboard rear seating positions unsafe for child seats. Stickers inside the rear doors of the RX warn against them.

  • avatar
    210delray

    The real problem with this vehicle is that it’s just a gussied-up Equinox and Terrain.  GM claims the SRX is on a different platform, but a side-by-side comparison shows it’s largely the same as its “lesser” cousins.  The upshot: this vehicle is not befitting of the Cadillac name.

  • avatar
    carguy

    I don’t think that the SRX is the only CUV suffering from platform uber alles syndrome. I recently had a short trip in a new RX350 (as a passenger) and all I could think of is Toyota Venza. Sure it was significantly beautified but the underpinnings are as obvious as they are on a an ES350.

  • avatar
    rpol35

    I honestly don’t know what the purpose of this vehicle is. I can’t get around its hideous appearance and beyond that, I don’t know why I would want to. As purposeless as the SUV craze became, this one (CUV)  seems even more rooted in uselessness. I’d like to see Cadillac’s marketing research on this one but it wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t exist or certainly not in a detailed or robust manner.  Another case of keeping up with the Joneses perhaps. I really don’t think this is what Cadillac is supposed to be.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      CUV’s pretty much slot in between a regular 5-door and an SUV, more or less their the U.S. version of estates/wagons. As more and more Hatchbacks become AWD eventually people will ditch the CUV’s for them.

  • avatar
    86er

    At the risk of answering my own question, GM spent over $5 billion on dedicated platforms only to wind up at square one? 

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Cadillac was supposedly doing so much better than Lincoln, and the dedicated platforms were pointed to as proof of that. Interesting that, today, Cadillac ends up basically where Lincoln now is – sharing platforms with the mass-market sister brand, and coming up short in comparison to the competition as a result.

      Except that, unlike Ford, GM spent about $4-5 billion to get here.

      • 0 avatar
        superbadd75

        And Cadillac has more than just a grill and taillamps to differentiate its lesser models from the top end. The Equinox/Terrain are actually longer than the Cadillac, and aren’t going to share the top engine offerings, premium level trimmings, and some of the top end features that the Cadillac has. Ford’s “platform sharing” is much easier to pick out than GM’s is lately. Parking a Ford next to its Lincoln equivalent reveals very distinct similarities, GM really is getting away from that.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      @geeber:  Lincoln tried a dedicated platform too, to wit:  D/EW98.

  • avatar
    tced2

    I’ve always been confused by the differences between the SRX and the CTS-wagon.  I understand that they are different platforms.  But they seem like similar vehicles – the SRX has a 3.0L and the CTS has a 3.6L.  Both are available with AWD.  It just seems like a lot of money to create a vehicle that is not that much different than another in the same brand.

  • avatar
    fredtal

    I’m in the minority of US drivers but maybe not amongst the TTAC group, but all these CUVs are heavy ill handling boats.  The Cad is worse with all that tacked on do-dads and uncontrolled quadrangles.  And I wouldn’t trust a Caddy with all that electronics past 30,000 miles. 

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    CTS Sportwagen….
    SRX 6….
    Really confused as to what car is what to whom.
    Which one performs better?

    I am going down to a Cadilac dealer to see these two side by side.

    • 0 avatar
      ChristyGarwood

      The CTS Sportswagon is a RWD sedan with the wagon option.  The SRX is a FWD crossover utility vehicle.  The green house and step-in height is taller/ higher on the SRX compared to the CTS Sportswagon. 

      Comparing the performance between the two Cadillac’s is a like comparing a hand mixer to a stand mixer.  Both could have excellent performance for what they are designed to do, but they are powered differently.  I strongly recommend you go to the dealer and check them out.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      “The SRX is a FWD crossover utility vehicle”
      That’s quite a fancy name for a tall station wagon, but it doesn’t provide a lot of information by itself.  Can we assume that means it’s taller and heavier, with more interior room, more cargo space, and lower fuel economy than the CTS wagon?

  • avatar
    wp8thsub

    That’s an interesting choice of background in the lead photo – yet another fire at the abandoned Packard plant in Detroit.  Perhaps foreshadowing the future of Cadillac?

  • avatar

    How ugly. How awkward. There seems to be a world-wide competition now in building visually unbearable cars (as, e.g., Audi Q7, BMW X6).  Shall we consider such designs as contemporary attempts by various committees to design a horse? . Who is responsible for such a crap? Are there any names? What is the mindset of people working in such committees? Is there no shame? Do you personally know one owner of such crap mobiles? What were their reasons to buy one? More questions than answers. Mysterious.

    • 0 avatar
      superbadd75

      And yet somehow this “crap” finds homes. There is a market for vehicles like this, look at the sales numbers for the Lexus RX since its introduction. It has consistently been Lexus’ number one seller, and this new SRX looks strikingly similar. These are the new wagons, what mommies cart their kids around in, and they are popular. If they hold enough cargo to make a trip to the local Whole Foods, that’s all that is necessary.

  • avatar
    Wheeljack

    Let’s not forget that virtually all (except the LS, SC and maybe the IS?) of the Lexus vehicles sold in the US are based on platforms available in a similar, albiet more proletarian, Toyota equivalent.

  • avatar
    NickR

    Why not the DI 3.6 v6 from the CTS?

  • avatar
    tcwarnke

    I recently drove the 2010 SRX and 2010 RX350 back to back and I disagree with this review.  I felt that the Cadillac was superior in every way with the exception of the front seat comfort.  The Caddy had better bolstering, but the seats were not as comfortable.  The interior of the RX350 is hideous.  The dash is a huge black plastic wave – not worthy at this price range IMO.  The shifter in the RX350 looks like it’s from the 80s as do the radio controls.  The Caddy has a way nicer interior.  I only had short test drives of each, but the Cadillac was a lot more fun to drive…
     
    I suggest that anyone in the market for an RX350 test drive it directly over to the Cadillac dealer and drive the SRX.  A back to back comparison may leave you surprised…

    Fair disclosure: I am a GM employee and did the back to back comparison during a GM ride and drive event.

  • avatar
    GarbageMotorsCo.

    SOOOOO instead of Equinox/Torrent/Vue, it’s Equinox/Terrain/SRX?

    I thought Governement Motors was supposed to be getting away from the rebadging crap?

    If my Cadillac experience mimicks the typical Cadillac experience, expect this so-called “Premium” crossover to be serviced by the same guy who wrenches on Chevy Aveos/Cobalts while Guido the pimp will be there to sell you your next Cadillac. And be sure to take a bath in febreeze just to get rid of the odor of stale cigars and cheap cologne afterwards.

    I don;t miss the Cadillac Experience whatsoever. Huge mistake.

    • 0 avatar
      dolorean23

      A little harsh, wouldn’t you say? “Guido the pimp”?? Not sure where you’re going my friend, but my one-half Italian doesn’t appreciate your wry sentiment. At any rate, for “rebadging crap”, do you somehow think the Lexus is not related somehow to the Toyota? And that you won’t find the Toyota guy working on your overpriced Lexus?

      I’m still in wait-n-see mode for GM, but from what I’ve seen of the Equinox and of the SRX in my little part of the world, I like and apparently I’m not the only one. And this from a Ford guy. 

  • avatar
    info@carsinpedia.com

    A few thoughts;  SRX is a handsome vehicle with a few shortcoming that GM hopefully will straighten out over time…give it time. It also shows that GM is trying to get it right.
    Also, every car manufacturer is guilty of brand management/rebadging: think Audi/VW/SEAT even Bentley (Continental is really a Audi A8 which is really a VW Phateon), Toyota/Lexua, Ford/Lincoln; GM is not the only one guilty of platform sharing among their different brands.

  • avatar
    cpmanx

    Forget about wafting like a real Caddy, the SRX has nothing on the RX350.
    I had to go back and read that line twice to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding the review. TTAC is criticizing  the SRX for not having a squishy, marshmallow ride? For prizing good handling over pillow-ride at any cost? Folks, you are really reaching for ways to trash this vehicle.
    As for the issue of platform sharing…well, what about the Camry/Venza/Highlander/RX350? For that matter, what is the point of the BMW X1, X3, 1-series 5-door, and 3-series wagon? (And just wait for the inevitable 3-series GT and X4.)
    The knock on GM in the past has been not the platform sharing per se so much as the unimaginative way it was done. In this case, the SRX does not look or feel at all like an Equinox, so what exactly is the problem? Personally I think this whole genre of CUVs is a rather dumb idea, but I don’t see that GMs entry is any worse than the similar ones from Lexus, Acura, etc.

    • 0 avatar

      Don’t over analyze it, I like Caddys that ride like Caddys.  Its a slice of Americana, and it defined the brand.  You know, back when people actually respected it.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      Yeah but the pillowy Caddy ride would translate to 30+ degree lean angles and tire howling onramps wouldn’t they? I mean a guy can only do so much with swaybars. I’ve owned softly sprung but HD swaybar cars before and they still ride pretty rough when you link the sides together. Yes, I suppose Caddy could have used active suspension bits but then there would be the cost.
       
      No, in something tall, I prefer the slightly stiffer ride.

  • avatar
    Bridge2farr

    Having  driven an AWD 2010  SRX and after reding numerous reviews allI can say is this review is way off. As in not even close.

  • avatar
    Bridge2farr

    “from the standard leatherette interior”
    Do you realize BMW and Mercedes entry models also have standard leatherette?

  • avatar

    Your review leaves out a lot of simple stuff.   As my ’99 Deville racks up more and more miles, I might be interested in a replacement.  But your review doesn’t tell me how many passengers the car will seat, how much luggage the car will hold, whether the rear seats fold down to make more cargo space,  0 to 60 times, 1/4 mile standing stand times, will the roof accept a ski rack, will a 4*8 sheet of plywood fit into the car, EPA gas mileage, range on one tank of gas, will adults fit into the rear seats without cries of pain.   You have a lotta happy talk about vehicle electronics, but many of us buy cars to drive and haul stuff, not listen to the sound system.  I gotta good stereo in the house, I can survive on the road with just an AM-FM radio .
    Seems to me you are trashing the car cause it isn’t exactly to your taste, without giving us potential buyers enough information to know what the car is.   The picture could be of a two passenger sporty car or an 8 passenger mini-school bus.   Did you actually drive the car?

    • 0 avatar

      You can find most of that information on Cadillac’s website.  Perhaps you aren’t familiar with TTAC’s 800 word limit, but its there and 0-60 times aren’t on my radar when you can google that quite easily.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      Why is the 4×8 sheet of plywood capability so important? Why would I risk skinning up the interior with the edges of building materials when I could make a simple one time investment in a trailer to haul a few sheets of rough or dirty materials home? Seriously.
      I’ve hauled a few appliances home in our CUV but I much prefer my little covered trailer where chipped paint or a skinned up floor is not a big deal.

  • avatar
    alexndr333

    Sajeev,
    You stated, “Don’t over analyze it, I like Caddys that ride like Caddys.  Its a slice of Americana, and it defined the brand.  You know, back when people actually respected it.” 
    I never understand this comment.  Something like it has been repeated on TTAC several times, and I suspect there’s some historical revisionism going on here.  Cadillacs of yore had presence at a time when the rest of the world was recovering from World War II and only America could afford the conspicuous consumption of the land yacht.  Now, in a new market of more congested roads, more stringent emission rules and intense pressures from subsidized “government motors” in every major country,  what do you expect Cadillac to be today?  Rolls Royce?  It was never that.   What it was in the ’60′s has been made obsolete by four decades worth of change in every facet of economics, technology, society and politics.  So, help me out here.  What do you specifically expect from Cadillac today?

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    There seems to be only two stylists left in the global world. Ugly bland and generic bland. Notice how everything uses the same basic door handles, lack of door moldings, mislocated chrome strip at the bottom of the doors, copying the BMW bangle 5 and 7 series look such as the Accord, Camry, Genesis, Buick LaCrosse, Lexus GS series etc. Line all these sedans up and look at them from the sides and I bet most everyday folks would have no clue what the hell they were looking at. Thats the generic bland style. The new SRX along with a plethora of new intros fall into the ugly bland look throwing silly squinty windows,  exaggerated character lines going in all sorts of weird contrived angles, fat oversized in your face grilles and way oversized tires and rims. Add in an occasional hidden door handle for the rear door such as in the Jeep Compass or the asinine one rear backup light on the current Scion xBox that looks like a comical Tonka toy winking at you from behind. In other words where has car styling dissappeared to?
    Regarding this new SRX, Caddy made several mistakes with this one. The mentioned wrong wheel drive, made in Mexico is it going to last beyond the warranty, wrong choice of engines(why in the hell didn’t they use the far more powerful 3.6?) and some questionable interior materials and lack of space. Cadillac should have named this one the underacheiver 2010.
     
     
     

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      I don’t see the things that you are writing about here at all. It is distinctive in it’s style and to me looks really pretty good. Still has those Caddy headlights and that Caddy grill that I don’t really like but my current rides both have details that I don’t like that much. I think GM did pretty well creating a unique vehicle here.
      Doesn’t matter much b/c I won’t likely ever drop the kind of coin that a Caddy requires at purchase time. Maybe used but then there are more durable brands out there that inspire more confidence of long term durability – making that second 100K miles relatively trouble free and affordable. Anything lasts 400K miles, how much money do you want to spend to get there?

  • avatar
    John R

    Meh. In a world where the RX and this thing exists, I thank goodness for the Infiniti FX.

  • avatar
    revolver1978

    I haven’t driven one, but I’m somewhat interested, if only because I know I’ll have more used SRX’s to choose from than used CTS Wagons in a few years’ time. (The wagon would be my first choice.)

    I have sat in both, and I agree with another poster, the RX350′s interior isn’t particularly fetching for a luxury vehicle. The materials seem to have gotten cheaper, at least in execution, than the previous one – the HVAC vents in particular. Ergonomically the 2010 RX took a step backward with one of those infuriating joy-stick contraptions. The previous RX had a touch screen, and was easier to use because of it. Why replace something that is straightforward (touchscreen) with technology from an Atari 2600 (joystick)?

    The SRX’s interior is certainly luxurious, if a bit over-the-top. Some of the details are just a bit to fussy, like the scalloped cowl over the guages. On the outside, aesthetically, the Wagon is much better executed.

    It’s portly, and the mileage isn’t any better than the wagon. In December of 09 Cadillac sold ~4400 SRX’s to Lexus’ ~11800 RX’s. However, the 2010 SRX is selling much better than the RWD version ever had – Apparently the typical luxury SUV/CUV driver has found something to like – maybe the earlier SRX looked too much like the Ford Freestyle, which didn’t sell well either.

    • 0 avatar
      Christy Garwood

      I drove on last week around the GM Tech Center in Warren during an employee ride/ drive event. What would you like to know?

      Or better yet, send TTAC an email and ask them to forward my email address to you so we can communicate directly. Depending on where you live, I might be able to facilitate a test drive of a company owned vehicle rather than at a dealership.

  • avatar

    I love the overall body design. Unlike RX, which has been getting uglier with each iteration, SRX is going in the right direction.

  • avatar
    Phil Ressler

    Until several days ago, I wouldn’t have even looked sideways at a crossover vehicle, let alone consider buying one. But a sudden and looming requirement to drive two or three regular 170 miles round trips per week for the foreseeable future puts me in the market for a third car. With a 4.3 years old Cadillac XLR-V and a fresh 2010 CTS-V in the garage, it seems sensible to consider something a little homeowner-practical that’s neither a sedan nor GT. If I let my heart drive the decision, I’d just wait for July and pick up an early CTS Coupe V (and lord knows I still could), but do I really need another high power car? Not really. So how about something with more utility but still crisp?

    I once had a magnificent F150 Harley crew cab. It was exceedingly practical and entertaining in its truckiness, except when it wasn’t. I had an F150 SVT Lightning that was even more entertaining but too Spartan and cramped for this mission. So no retracing steps. A CTS Wagon briefly tempts but I never liked the Lincoln Log proportions of wagons, and the Brits calling them “estate cars” doesn’t change the feeling of driving a pipe. The mid-size and compact crew cab pickups lack presence and their interiors (including seats) suck. An Escalade looked like a possibility. Hell, I’d even have popped for the 2Mode Hybrid, but the whole profile just isn’t me. So for the first time, the existence of the SRX caught my eye in the periphery. Head for the web.

    I’ve had an all-but-perfect experience owning Cadillacs since early 2006. My XLR-V has given me no trouble worth mentioning, and our 2006 CTS-V had only one unscheduled service – the TSB on the differential pinion seal. It was obvious that car should be succeeded by the 2nd generation CTS-V so that transaction was easily done. Inclined to continue with Cadillac, the SRX has my attention, but I paused to go drive the principle players in the category for context.

    Oy. The Lexus RX really is a wallowing pig and the interior is slipping downmarket fast. Oh, it’s perfectly crafted to make a strong 15 seconds impression, but it doesn’t stand up to 15 minutes of scrutiny let alone 15 months. Or 60. The Germans have somehow managed to get a common training on how to make these unibody utes feel ponderous even when they are dynamically competent. They generally add useless mass and you can feel the necessary hardware and computational engineering constantly fighting it, even when the vehicle is going where you intended. BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Porsche all have their specific thumbprint on the genre, but they are more the same than different, and not in a good way. BMW, Porsche and Audi add the insult of particularly inept interior space utilization. So on balance, no. I’m not prepared to live with any of them. The Ford and GM alternatives to the SRX are either bigger than I care to have hanging out behind me, or too downmarket for the mission. Infiniti? Not good enough to justify sending a briefcase of money out of the country. Lincoln? Well….presently just too strange.

    So, after reading all the squawking about the SRX 3.0L drivetrain’s torque anemia and indecisive transmission, I drove one. OK, I see the point but the software governance of the transmission has improved things, and…well…there’s always some way to hot-rod the factory engine bay. And that’s when I stumbled on the existence of the 2.8L SRX Turbo. Hmmm…torque band mesa-flat from 2000rpm to roughly redline. Aisin shiftable six-ratio? Good match. I’m here to drive *that* one.

    First, the static requirements. 1/ Beautiful interior, and in its embrace in real-world 3D it isn’t nearly as polygon-fussy as it appears in flat photographs. 2/ It passes my essential test for anything with four doors: I’m 6’3” so can I “sit behind myself?” Yes. And with the adjustable seatback rack on the back seat, I can do it comfortably. 3/ Ergonomics? Brand familiar. Everything is where it should be. 4/ Adjustable pedals? Perfect. My wife is a foot shorter than me. 5/ Excellent interior space utilization relative to exterior dimensions. 6/ Sharply-styled vehicle with presence; more than any crossover can expect to have. 6/ High-visibility greenhouse with a big-screen view through the rear camera to help. 7/ Easy to read and use navigation system.

    I read some criticism of the Bose sound system. Now, I’m no fan of Bose, but frankly all these high-end car sound systems suck. It doesn’t matter whether the logo says Levinson, B&O, B&W, Harman….whatever. None of them sound remotely realistic nor competitive with quality home audio. So drop the pretense. This sound system is just one of many ways automakers collaborate with audio brands to dream up a completely faux fidelity in the acoustically ridiculous audiospace of an automobile. If you think a car audio system is a selling point, you’re deaf, innocently unaware or just don’t care. And no, digital signal processing doesn’t fix it, nor make your desiccated-digits iPod sound good.

    Underway, all the ambivalence I had about driving a crossover vanished. Thanks to a truly-rigid structure and GM’s sensationally simple but effective computer-controlled magnetorheological damping, the SRX Turbo corners flat, is stable at speed, dynamically predictable and as an added engineering bonus, it’s blessed with precision steering with incisive feedback that shames most sedans. The Aisin shifts crisply, especially in performance mode, and do-it-yourself-shifts follow your inputs real-time and hold gear to redline. The 2.8L with the spinner gets the 2+ tons moving quickly, and midrange speed changes put reserve steam at your disposal. I read reviews that praised this engine for complete lack of turbo lag, and a few others complaining the engine feels dated because of turbo lag. Turbo lag is for practical purposes non-existent. My guess is the reviewer who complained tanked up with regular gas. The Turbo SRX is estimated to have a 0 – 60 time of 7.5 seconds. It sure feels quicker, and my experience on SoCal onramps strongly suggests it is. Or maybe I’m just good at whipping it. But it doesn’t complain. Keep in mind, my daily drivers are 4 second cars, +/-. If this car were truly slow, I’d feel it. As it is, the Turbo 6 has about the same power as a 1996 SVT Cobra I owned for 10 years. Add the crossover’s extra mass, and motive performance seems fine to me. If there’s anything in the category quicker at the price it’s not enough of a factor to discount the car’s handling. The Turbo SRX leads the field in that respect. Dynamically, this SRX completely conceals its tall car reality. It may not be light, but it feels lighter on its feet than anything else in the category.

    The 2010 SRX Turbo drives smaller than its size, has convincing power and dynamics with an admirable CTS-quality interior. For me, the seats are excellent and the Turbo puts leather everywhere you care to have it. My experience with 2006 and later Cadillac interiors suggests interior materials will hold up. My XLR-V interior still looks and feels new over four years later, and our lease turn-in 2006 CTS-V showed no apparent wear despite being a lesser execution than current Cadillac standards. At $55,000 fully loaded (Turbo Premium) I can’t fault it in the context of today’s warped market. More power (or less mass) is always appreciated but in actual driving, for its type the vehicle weighs what it should and moves crisply. I’m days from a decision but if I buy in the category, this is it.

    Phil

  • avatar
    foryou2nv

    Ugly plastic coated hearse for Pygmies.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India