Croc

The styling of the SRX is in no way "bizarre." It has ONE bad angle, a rear 3/4 view. Bizarre is the X5 (Bangle-bizarre) and the RX350. Look at what vehicles sell...the ones with good/great interiors for the price. Unless a vehicle is Aztek-ugly, Americans do not care if it is attractive, bland, or a bit awkward. Beautiful styling might contribute to first-year sales, but after that the reviews, word-of-mouth, practicality and value play much bigger roles. If styling drove buying decisions as much as you claim, the first-gen Escalade wouldn't have been a hit, the Ford Thunderbird would have been a massive success, and the Phaeton wouldn't be going for 42k on dealer lots as we speak. The SRX is not losing its sales potential from an awkward rear 3/4 view, turbo...that's just ridiculous.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Quite possibly our next vehicle will be a Lambda--either an Acadia or Enclave.

Or if you're as directionally retarded as my sister is...

You're being facetious, right? Because the other option is woefully uninformed. It isn't unsafe, it isn't a distraction, and it is very, very useful. If you just glance at it every now and then you can find your bearing in an unfamiliar area. Say you are in a suburb with a maze of winding streets, 90% of which end in a cul-de-sac. Having a map displayed on a nav screen will help you find your way. What about going on a road trip? You're going to another town you're not at all familiar with...but you're going solo. What do you do? Well, print off driving directions on Google...but stopping to look at them or, worse, looking at them while driving is far more unsafe and distracting than a navigation system. Not only do you take your eyes off the road, but you have to look at the tiny little maps to find your bearing instead of having the "YOU ARE HERE" moving arrow on the navigation screen. You should only look at the screen briefly, like you would a side mirror. Are side mirrors dangerous because they can reflect random light and distract you, prompting you to stare at them too long and rear end someone? NO!How is turn-by-turn more useful? It has no map! How are fewer features more useful? That makes no sense... Finally, I see one person failing to mention a benefit of a nav system, only saying it jazzes up an interior...not every poster on here who likes nav systems. If you personally dislike nav, think it's overpriced or find it too distracting, that's fine. Don't order it for yourself or just get a prescription for Adderall XR. The rest of us who want one should be able to pay for one, especially if it's just a matter of swapping out one radio for another. GM has no excuse for offering it as an option.

They won't ticket you in your own driveway. Even in a public parking lot, you can turn it on as you're walking toward it. I doubt that would violate the law. It' nice to have as you can get it warmed up before you get in it (if in a driveway) or get things started as you're walking up to it. You get in, radio is already on, seat heaters starting up, etc.

No, it's closer to 80%. Jeez, don't you ever fact-check these days?

Disagree. Feedback is pretty much "report a bug" forum and that shouldn't be at the top.

Wait...no nav? Boo... Keyless start is unnecessary, but I'm sure it will have remote start which is competitive.

Are you including interior and exterior in "design"? Yes, the competition is more conservative, but another key point: this market is dominated by women. How many women would respond to a center stack that looks like a 1995 Compaq Presario and a dash/interior theme lifted from Captain Kirk's command post? The interior was just too off-putting, especially compared to the elegant lines and textures on the Volvo XC90. My mother was choosing between the two a few years ago and went with the Volvo because of the interior (and "it looks like a hearse"). But she also found the front of the Volvo a bit weird, and liked the SRX's LED tails (she's a safety fiend).

Only because Dolce & Gabbana never uses the low-grade cotten Hanes uses. Brands only matter to the extent of the quality/reputation of quality. That's how some brands are cheaper and lower-rent than others. If you are talking about literally the same exact shirt with the same Hanes quality that just happens to have a D&G tag and is sold at a D&G price...well reputation of D&G quality might help it sell some, but I think it would be by and large spurned by shoppers for being a step-down (or three) from the usual D&G look and feel. Call that the Cimarron Effect. There will always be status-seekers...but you need more than just status-seeking sheeple for something to catch on...because chances are status-seekers only want it because it just caught on.

The Altima just got redesigned.

Again, you ignore price. CTS gets away with it because it started under 30k. It got away with the interior. The (nearly) exact same interior design was then put in the crossover costing 10k more...for BASE. Have you ever priced an SRX? You go from 38k to 55k pretty quickly because the packages are pretty bundled and a little pricey. Even if you stick with the 6cyl.Here's the essential problem: The SRX is priced like an STS but looked and felt like a CTS. OK I finally finished reading your (unnecessarily long) post, and all I gotta say is chill. The exterior design was not the problem. YES, an exterior ropes people in. Then they see the window sticker, then they see the interior. Acura and Volvo sold more because the interior fit the price. You talk so much about "intended markets" but do you even know the SRX's (and XC90's, et al) intended customers? Female. Affluent. Upper-20s to early retirees. Kids/grandkids. Shops at Saks. Eats at Panera. That's the target market. The exterior designs are all perfectly inoffensive (for the most part). As you noted the pricing is all very similar. The thing about affluent people, though, is that they don't just spend money recklessly. They want to get quality. That's why they see nothing wrong with a $60 T-shirt, because they feel having the softest, highest-quality cotton is worth it. Were it a Hanes T-shirt going for $60, they wouldn't touch it. The SRX would have sold much better if it simply had the perceived quality to match (or exceed) the level expected for the price point. The XC90 has it. The RX330 has it. The ML-350 has it in spades (though reliability is actually abysmal). This is where the SRX underperformed and what broke the deal. The SRX had a $30k interior yet was being sold for (most popular options) $52k. That's ridiculous, and an incredible gap in perceived design quality that cost sales. A lot of sales. The target demographic buys luxury crossovers not on emotional design appeal, but on practicality, value, function, and content. It must not be perceived as ugly (none in the segment really are), it must serve a practical need without obvious compromises, the price cannot be inflated for what you get (conversely, cannot be too cheap either or it loses the luster of exclusivity), it must function and perform as intended on a daily basis, and being a luxury vehicle it must be offered with the same level of options as its competitors. SRX had good materials, but a terribly cheap-looking interior. Great materials cannot save a design disaster. As for exterior, the only other crossover on the market that can look more elegant than an SRX is the Tourag. The exterior wasn't the problem, but the interior was (at that price point). Yup. Red or Sandstone hide it best, though.

The first thing I do when I see a writer mention Renault helping GM is I look for a "how" to explain the assertion. I've yet to find one.

No. What killed the SRX was the cheap-looking 80s Star Trek throwback interior...with the price. Cadillac tried to price it too upmarket too quickly, without establishing the brand recognition first. Add in a third-rate interior design, it simply came across as $10 grand overpriced.The pricing is essentially the same now, but the new interior makes it worthy of all the Benjamins. The only issue with the exterior is that from some angles and in some colors the rear 3/4 can resemble a hearse due to the shape of the pillars and cargo area/third row windows. I personally don't see it, but enough people have remarked it in my presence that I'm lending credence to that viewpoint.

Pity about the SRX. The 2007 is truly best-in-class. Maybe they will reconsider if sales go up due to the redesign... What's the last MY the current generation will be produced?

I like everything except the front. It's too aggressive for a smash-hit midsized family sedan. Specifically, the grille is off. The top of it should be much lower and the bar should be much smaller. The bowtie may need to be relocated. Also, the lower grille is too angular. The center point is fine...but the sides should be less severe. As for the rear, I like it but, like the front, it is a tad overdone and severe. What would look much better: lose the vertical element of the outboard set...make them more Lucerne-like except extend them inward so that there is another red circle between the current red and white circles. The top line should taper inward still and the circles should be the same size as current. Badging should be relocated to below the taillamps. Basically a modern take on the successful early-90s rears.

That's fine...I just feel obligated to let anyone thinking of buying one know the potentially flawed design. I do believe they created a fuel tank shield retrofit later...and those supposedly improved the integrity of the tank greatly. Could the examples you've seen have had the shield retrofitted?

Nah, it isn't the hype...I've seen internal documents of the testing of the tanks and they just barely met the 15 mph side crash standards of their time. Getting hit by a car prolly didn't do too much due to the height mis-match, but a contact with a truck or SUV...that's a hot engine compartment going into the side of a gas tank.

Mazda CX-7

I like it!

Exactly.You were much nicer than my intended reply of "Have you ever been to or heard of Europe? It's just a continent with lots of people who drive wagons." The sad thing is if you go back and read the last page and a half of comments, European sales justifying the wagon is pretty well-worn territory in this thread...

Oops, you're right. It was the pickups that had the tank side-saddle, but not the SUVs. My bad.

Your personal hangups are irrelevant.I would never be caught dead driving a minivan, but abandoning that segment is just stupid. Unless you personally generate billions of dollars in sales revenue, GM should think globally...and globally means sport wagons. I see enough Benz, BMW, Audi and Volvo wagons to know this is a segment GM is foolishly missing out on almost completely. This isn't a County Squire or Colony Park we're talking about here...it's a CTS.

You were born in the 1970s? Ah, a child of lead paint and gas in Eastern Europe? Everything makes sense now...