Sign in to follow this  
pow

Edmunds starts SRX long-term test

33 posts in this topic

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...icleId=117281#8

ntroduction

By editors at Edmunds.com Email

Date posted: 10-26-2006

STORY TOOLS

Print thisPRINT THIS Save thisSAVE THIS

Email thisEMAIL THIS Most PopularMOST POPULAR

Our test garage is typically reserved for all-new vehicles, but occasionally we like to revisit an old favorite to reaffirm its benchmark status or check the overall progress of a manufacturer. Although the 2007 Cadillac SRX has received a number of upgrades, the decision to add it to the Edmunds long-term fleet is as much a check on General Motors' self-proclaimed commitment to improved build quality as it is about the SRX itself.

Not that the Cadillac crossover SUV hasn't received substantial improvements. Immediately noticeable is the higher-quality materials in the upgraded interior with redesigned instrument panel and center console. There's also a new Bose 5.1 surround-sound audio system that we were anxious to sample. But in the spirit of trying to keep fuel mileage up, we passed on the optional all-wheel-drive system and opted for the V6 engine instead of the V8.

To keep the price palpable we also skipped the third-row seat and the Sport Package, which tweaks the suspension and adds larger wheels and tires. Instead our rear-wheel-drive SRX rides on the standard Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires: P235/65R17s on the front and P255/60R17s on the rear.

Responsible performance

Rated at 255 horsepower, the Cadillac SRX's 3.5-liter V6 engine provided adequate power around town, and our first trip to the test track for instrumented performance testing confirmed our initial impressions. The SRX closed the 0-60-mph gap in 8.2 seconds, crossing the quarter-mile mark in 16.1 seconds at 86.4 mph. A slalom run of 58.2 mph was also impressive for the luxury SUV, which exhibited precise steering through the cones. The Caddy's 60-0 braking distance was an average 136 feet. This year the V8 receives a six-speed automatic transmission while our V6 keeps the five-speed, and earns a 16/23 mpg rating for city/highway.

You're beautiful on the inside

With just over 1,000 miles on the odometer, praise is aplenty for the SRX's new interior: "The interior redo is great with classy style and upmarket materials," noted Editorial Director Kevin Smith. "It's very comfortable and livable, but just a little busy in some of the small electronic functions, like audio-system navigation and trip-odometer reset."

Edmunds Editor in Chief Karl Brauer sums up the interior upgrades: "Cadillac has decided on less science, more art for its interiors, and I think it's an excellent way to go. The CTS/SRX interiors always felt too 'machined' for my taste, and the new SRX interior is much more 'organic,' not to mention much higher in quality." Brauer continues: "All the materials in the cabin are new, and areas like the center stack, the dash and the door panels are vastly improved. The wood inserts are also much better, as is the optional wood steering wheel (which we got). The weight of the switchgear (windows, audio system, etc.) is also quite good, as is steering feel and feedback (though that was already pretty good on the SRX). Cadillac also reworked the door sill area to make it easier to get into and out of, and it's something we immediately noticed."

Driving impressions

Driving impressions were a little more divided. "I get an odd sense from the vehicle's on-road feel and drivability, like a hint of slowness and ponderousness was intentionally designed in to make it feel larger than it is. Escalade envy, perhaps?" asked Smith.

Brauer's biggest complaint was that the brake and gas pedals don't line up. The gas pedal is noticeably lower and that's before you apply any throttle. "I hate this issue, as it makes a quick transition from throttle to brake very difficult, especially in a panic situation. Our test car has the power-adjustable pedals, but playing with these didn't help. Also, the clock is placed at a weird angle, so that the blue-tinted portion of the upper windshield is reflected in the clock's face (at least it is for how I set the driver seat). On the plus side, I like the engine, transmission, steering, brakes, handling, seat comfort, interior materials, interior design, exterior design and ergonomics (except the pedal issue). Bonus points for the look and the function of the LCD touchscreen. Very slick!"

"The ride is firm for a luxury SUV and the engine gives you the best of both worlds — it's nice and quiet if you are mellow but it growls when you goose it. Spiraling down an off-ramp, it leaned more than I would have liked but it has good steering feel. Brakes are a bit mushy, though," Smith said.

We look forward to spending the next 12 months behind the wheel of the Cadillac SRX, and invite you to come along for the ride as we regularly report our findings in our Long-Term Road Test blog.

Current Odometer: 1,397

Best Fuel Economy: 14.6 mpg

Worst Fuel Economy: 26.1 mpg

Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 20.3 mpg

Body Repair Costs: None

Maintenance Costs: None

Problems: None.

The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rated at 255 horsepower, the Cadillac SRX's 3.5-liter V6 engine provided adequate power around town"

is supposed to good or bad for caddi...... it's wrong anyway...

"Best Fuel Economy: 14.6 mpg

Worst Fuel Economy: 26.1 mpg"

this turn into golf gas milage?!

was this copied and pasted? cause that so should not have gotten past editors.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Cadillac markets the hell out of the new interior and it brings sales up. I don't really think there's much wrong with it now that the interior appears to be up to par.

I don't know what they're talking about when they say it feels bigger than it is. It feels only slightly bigger than the CTS and smaller than the STS from my experience.

Also, the 0-60 time seems really slow. I don't know if it's because it's Edmunds (they generally have slower 0-60 times than the car mags) but I think C&D got like 7.2 for the V6 to 60 in the 2004 or 2005 model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rated at 255 horsepower, the Cadillac SRX's 3.5-liter V6 engine provided adequate power around town"

is supposed to good or bad for caddi......  it's wrong anyway...

"Best Fuel Economy: 14.6 mpg

Worst Fuel Economy: 26.1 mpg"

this turn into golf gas milage?!

was this copied and pasted?  cause that so should not have gotten past editors.....

209234[/snapback]

Especially since it's not a "3.5L" V6...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interior looks 50x better with NAV.

They seem really impressed with interior quality. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Cadillac markets the hell out of the new interior and it brings sales up. I don't really think there's much wrong with it now that the interior appears to be up to par.

I don't know what they're talking about when they say it feels bigger than it is. It feels only slightly bigger than the CTS and smaller than the STS from my experience.

Also, the 0-60 time seems really slow. I don't know if it's because it's Edmunds (they generally have slower 0-60 times than the car mags) but I think C&D got like 7.2 for the V6 to 60 in the 2004 or 2005 model.

209241[/snapback]

I've always thought the 7.2sec time from C&D was suspect. I'm more inclined to believe Edmund's 8.2sec......why? Well, C&D timed a CTS Sport (alot lighter, AND with a manual tranny) from 0-60 in 6.9sec. The SRX with an auto should not be that close to the CTS Sport in acceleration.....??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought the 7.2sec time from C&D was suspect.  I'm more inclined to believe Edmund's 8.2sec......why?  Well, C&D timed a CTS Sport (alot lighter, AND with a manual tranny) from 0-60 in 6.9sec.  The SRX with an auto should not be that close to the CTS Sport in acceleration.....??????

209398[/snapback]

They got 0-60 in 6.9? Maybe they suck at shifting.

I've seen the non-Sport CTS with the 3.6 get as low as 6.6 (maybe even lower?). Hell, some publications had the 03 CTS with the old 3.2 getting 0-60 in 6.9 while most were around 7.0 or 7.1.

Also, I just thought of something: The C&D SRX was AWD vs. RWD for the Edmunds SRX. Maybe that had something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interior looks 50x better with NAV. 

They seem really impressed with interior quality.  :thumbsup:

209256[/snapback]

Much, much, much improved. I guess the designers who did work on the older SRX were fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figure I have for 2004 CTS with the 3.6L is 6.6 to 60 and 15 to 1/4 mile. 7.2 for the SRX seems possible.

Anywho, the interior definitely looks very nice in that pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote an earlier post about the 07 Lexus GS

So, everyone who bought the '06 SRX is a total moron.

209499[/snapback]

I didn't make that comment, but I'll comment on it. Everyone that bought an '06 were undoubtedly able to get a much better deal than they'll be able to get on an '07. And it's different than the GS. The GS was a new-for-2006 model year vehicle, and rather than giving it the 3.5 from the start (it was available in the IS, so I don't see why the GS couldn't have used it) then waited a year and then introduced it.

The GS situation is more similar to the 03 CTS to 04 CTS, except that the 3.6 wasn't available at launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope Edmunds' gets some good impressions from it over the next year. The interior upgrade is a major plus for the car, and I think it's one of the best implementations of the Cadillac brand styling since the XLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the new interior. It just shows you what GM can do with the right leadership. My only gripe is the metal trim in the center console. It's a little too wide. That's pretty minor though. I'd say the SRX and Acadia interiors are GM's first no-excuses efforts in interior design. Hopefully, every new vehicle will have have interiors just as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the new interior.  It just shows you what GM can do with the right leadership.  My only gripe is the metal trim in the center console.  It's a little too wide.  That's pretty minor though.  I'd say the SRX and Acadia interiors are GM's first no-excuses efforts in interior design.  Hopefully, every new vehicle will have have interiors just as good.

209669[/snapback]

Don't forget Enclave and CTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They got 0-60 in 6.9? Maybe they suck at shifting.

I've seen the non-Sport CTS with the 3.6 get as low as 6.6 (maybe even lower?). Hell, some publications had the 03 CTS with the old 3.2 getting 0-60 in 6.9 while most were around 7.0 or 7.1.

Also, I just thought of something: The C&D SRX was AWD vs. RWD for the Edmunds SRX. Maybe that had something to do with it.

209409[/snapback]

AWD will make it slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AWD will make it slower.

209692[/snapback]

Not from a stop to 60mph. You get better traction with AWD, which is key when you're starting from a stop. From a roll from say 20-60, yes, the RWD will be faster, but the AWD will be faster from a stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in the spirit of trying to keep fuel mileage up, we passed on the optional all-wheel-drive system and opted for the V6 engine instead of the V8.

To keep the price palpable we also skipped the third-row seat and the Sport Package, which tweaks the suspension and adds larger wheels and tires. Instead our rear-wheel-drive SRX rides on the standard Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires: P235/65R17s on the front and P255/60R17s on the rear.

Since when did Edmunds become Consumer Reports?!?!?! Jesus, talk about handicapping the thing right out of the gate (Because you know they'll judge it as if it were the top model)!!! I guess the top knotch model is too competitive for them to test or something.

Brauer's biggest complaint was that the brake and gas pedals don't line up. The gas pedal is noticeably lower and that's before you apply any throttle. "I hate this issue, as it makes a quick transition from throttle to brake very difficult, especially in a panic situation. Our test car has the power-adjustable pedals, but playing with these didn't help.

Ever drive a manual?!?!?!? I didn't think so...

Also, the clock is placed at a weird angle, so that the blue-tinted portion of the upper windshield is reflected in the clock's face (at least it is for how I set the driver seat).

Maybe you should re-adjust your seat...

On the plus side, I like the engine, transmission, steering, brakes, handling, seat comfort, interior materials, interior design, exterior design and ergonomics (except the pedal issue). Bonus points for the look and the function of the LCD touchscreen. Very slick!"

[sorority girl voice] LIKE OHMYGOD!!!!!! LIKE...[/sorority girl voice]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They got 0-60 in 6.9? Maybe they suck at shifting.

I've seen the non-Sport CTS with the 3.6 get as low as 6.6 (maybe even lower?). Hell, some publications had the 03 CTS with the old 3.2 getting 0-60 in 6.9 while most were around 7.0 or 7.1.

Also, I just thought of something: The C&D SRX was AWD vs. RWD for the Edmunds SRX. Maybe that had something to do with it.

209409[/snapback]

Check again....the C&D SRX was also RWD.

And, 18-inch wheels and stuff all add weight.....C&D is usually very consistent with their times....so if the current car is a 6.9sec car (by their standards) you can usually take that to the bank.

Which all makes me really wonder about the 7.2 they got for the SRX.....hmmmm

Edited by The O.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not from a stop to 60mph. You get better traction with AWD, which is key when you're starting from a stop. From a roll from say 20-60, yes, the RWD will be faster, but the AWD will be faster from a stop.

209706[/snapback]

In a rwd, automatic SRX, you are not traction-limited.

AWD really only helps with high-powered cars like WRXs, EVOs, Carerra4s, etc.

Plus in an AWD, if you can't get a good enough brake-torque, you could end up bogging the engine off the line.....because of TOO much traction. In THAT case, sometimes, some very minor wheelspin can actually get you going FASTER

Edited by The O.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i looked at new 07 SRX. did not get to sit in it, but man oh man the interior looks very nice. it is greatly improved. enough for me to say I like the SRX now. the dash top and new wood in particular looks really sweet.

Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brauer's biggest complaint was that the brake and gas pedals don't line up. The gas pedal is noticeably lower and that's before you apply any throttle. "I hate this issue, as it makes a quick transition from throttle to brake very difficult, especially in a panic situation.

I am sorry but isn't this the case with EVERY car? Every car I have ever driven, from a 97 Lexus LS to my 84 S10. 04 Denali XL et all. Am I just missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this