turbo200

I don't if we know if nav will be an option or not. But if it isn't, it just makes no sense, it makes no sense at all... NAV is a necessity, really spruces up the look of interiors, and could easily fit in this interior in the place of the radio.

aw thanks! i finally got mentioned! i also find your posts to be clear-headed and full of logic and information. thanks for always doing Cheers and Jeers

We are pretty much saying the same things now. I've said the interior and pricing were weak points, but I'll emphasize now that the three things I believe that killed the SRX were interior styling/quality, pricing/early availability, and exterior shape. My bottom line point is this: a front fascia redesign would cause a spark in sales, but renewing the whole car using the existing formula but a different formula for exterior design would bring the SRX to the lead of the pack. That's at least 4k-6k sales we're talking about. As for the launch of the vehicle, when FX and RX were released, well RX wasn't as bizarre since it had the first gen lead in that set the mold for crossovers so to speak, and then FX was a total departure. FX and SRX were total departures you could say, but FX took it the right way, imo. Here are the facts Porsche sold 1598 Cayennes for November Infiniti sold 1979 FX for November 06 compared to 2040 for 05 BMW's X5 last month of sales for the current gen sold 1449 compared to 3648 for November 05 Land Rover sold 1216 Land Rovers and 1827 Range Rover Sports Volvo sold 2776 XC90s Cadillac sold 1492 SRXs in the first or second month of the MCE Lexus sold 8052 RX in its second to last year on the market Acura sold 6086 MDX in its first month of sales of the new gen Audi sold 2019 Q7s [!!!] MB ML class sold 3183 sales Granted, not all of these cars are direct competition for the SRX, according to statistics and dimmensions. But this is the luxury class of SUVs, and comparison shopping occurs with many of these. X5, MDX, XC90, ML may all be traditional SUVs, but they are definitely cross shopped with the SRX, at least to some extent. What's most alarming to me here is that SRX is just as old as most of these, and Cadillac's dealer base is larger than most of these brands, yet it is still outsold by pretty much all of them. From my experience selling cars, I know that it takes two things to get a person to walk into a dealership: brand reputation and the vehicle itself. Regular people don't have an idea of what the interior looks like, much less feels like, until they get to the dealership. The interior experience is also one that augments the feelings for the car. If the car has a great interior with sumptuous leather and nice materials, say like the Cayenne, then that is a big bonus in that car's favor. However, the customer who was looking at the car, went there because they thought the car was interesting, and that was based on thier image of the brand and the car itself, seeing it rolling down the street or parked somewhere or at their local auto show. We can talk semantics all day long about why people didn't choose SRX over the competition, going down to details like dealership experience and that would takes us nowhere. Bottom line, it is the car itself that pulls people into the dealerhip. SRX has failed to do it, yet the competition has shown steady sales or great improvements over thier life spans. At this point, the SRX is a loss leader, Escalade is Cadillac's bread and butter, at the dealership level especially. So, the average salesman is going to try his damndest to wheel and deal SRX intenders with hardline negotiating. So, at this point at least, price can be thrown out the window. MSRPs, according to your statements, still seems to be an issue, though. Also, the interior has now been dramatically improved, and that clearly hasn't helped sales, at least for the last two months. To address your comments-- overlap with the Escalade I cannot deny was a big issue. Escalade was a powerful presence in the showroom, but that was augmented by the SRX's weaker presence. The Lexus and Acura do much bigger numbers, but are also cheaper to begin with--the rest however are not any cheaper and still do bigger numbers. I beleive SRX begins around 36k now and CTS can be had for up to 44k now. For options to the Escalade- you had the bigger but less bold Navigator and the Land Rovers starting in 2003- all had much better interiors, but yes, SRX had stronger competitors in the form of FX [whose quality really wasn't any better than SRX], RX [better design/quality], MDX [worse design/quality], X5. Escalade and Land Rovers really are prime competition, since they are all about personal transport, these vehicles really aren't used in the way thier bodies and frames would have you believe.

Nissan does at least have relevant car products that are turning the sales chart around. Look at Altima and how it has turned around completely from where it used to be--this generation of that car will only help maintain and improve on that position. The new Sentra seems to be at least a dramatic improvement from before, and stylistically it makes a statement, more than can be said of Cobalt and Malibu. The truck side for GM has always been gangbusters, but the car side needs to prove its worth too, outside of CTS. Cars must be sold without incentives, and have less reliance on fleet sales, and be an attractive proposition to the majority of the market, like the Aura and Malibu are shaping out to be. Small cars need a gigantic rethinking, as thier fuel economy seriously lags, along with perceived quality issues, and of course styling that looks fit for the late 1990's.

I'll concede that both the pricing and interior were weak points. HOWEVER,!!!!!, Escalade proved it doesn't take a good interior'd Cadillac to win sales and conquests. Same story with the CTS, so both you and evok are wrong if you believe the exterior shape had nothing to do with it. Ask enough people what they think about the design. Ask enough people what they like, then observe why they like what they like. When people say it just doesn't feel right to them, it doesn't suit them, they're just not in love with it, their is somehting wrong with it; they are talking about design design design. You may think only your opinion on the exterior look counts, but you are wrong fella. Escalade and CTS proved there was an audience waiting for Cadillac to release some truly worthy cars that made people say, wow that is a nice Caddy. SRX just could not evoke those same feelings. I STILL love the SRX, and think all its inherent goodness overshadows the percieved design drawbacks, but the first impression people get on a car still is the exterior, not the interior, busta. A great interior is very important, especially when the competition is sooo good, BUT even more important is an exterior design that successfully appeals to its intended market. Just why is all the SRX's ocmpetition so different looking from the SRX? And just why are they all sooo successful, even a Volvo sells more. An Acura sells triple!!! at the same price levels, and with the same equipment levels!! Acura!!! [many will say, where the hell did they come from, this year they are riding on Caddy's cotails in the sales numbers] A BMW with less cargo space and less people space sells almost triple!!!! WHY??? The look. And then comes the rest. People subconsciouly pick cars based on design. They will not admit it, but part of thier draw is the exterior look. People are also very general when it comes to design. It either works, or it doesn't. A car like the Civic coupe can be described in one word: weak/girly. To a woman, it would be nice/elegant. To a Honda fan, it would be cool. A car like the CTS is masculine, mean. People, in general, are very simple, and think independently, they either like something or they don't, for very simple reasons. EDIT: In the initial launch phase of the SRX, interior quality/design and pricing had a lot more to do with its success. The design was polarizing, and this was good, and there wasn't as much good looking competition as there is today [i.e. XC90, Touraeg/Cayenne]. The fact that the design was different was good, as it usually takes people some time to get used to a design and grow to love it. The problem was this never happened with the SRX, even after the pricing issues were changed and cheaper models/trims were made available. [initial availability was heavy on the top end models] Over time, SRX sales should have increased like the Escalades and CTS before it. What happened? The design failed. PEople grew to appreciate and love the look of CTS and Escalade, whereas SRX withered and died. And now it sells even less than when it came out, whereas CTS and Escalade went on to sell better well in thier life cycles. My bottom line in all this is give the exterior another shot, and the SRX would be a giant competitor. However, in the landscape of cool luxury SUVS, like the Land Rovers, X5, FX, Cayenne, XC90, etc, SRX just fails. I know you know that. EDIT 2: Remeber that Cadillac's dealer base is greater than Acura's, Volvo's, Porsche's...and my point about the competition is stronger. Those cars succeded first on the shoulders of a good car, second on the merits of the brand.

each trim level gets tapshift 3.6 or the 4 cyl. that's terrific. what about stick, is that available at all? It's not a big deal in this car, but it would be cool. I still love the look of this car; better looking than any other midsize sedan, save the Jetta and Aura, and also the Altima is probably equally good looking [haven't seen one in person yet].

they're playing catch up...it's only natural that this car makes all other GM sedans irrelevant [sans Aura, imo]. Including more expensive Lucernes, Gran Prixs, even the DTS.....to me seem to offer little more overall than this car. Why? GM finally shot for the big guys and packaged and bundled the car right. In those cars' cases, styling, powertrain, platfrom differences would all help to truly make those cars distinct to this new Malibu.

everything underneath the skin and everything that truly matters is about perfect on the SRX. it's the styling that put them behind the game. Cadillac had no reason for the SRX not to be a success. Similar to the CTS and Escalade, they would finally offer a new competitive vehicle in a burgeoning segment where they could conquer some sales territory. Unfortunately, the look confused. When you categorize what the SRX is just based on the look, it's for: a woman, older person, and is a station wagon. These were truly things to get away from at that time, and even moreso now, when there have been very successful intrepretations of the SUV/crossover look. My verdict is they should never give up on a vehicle that could potentially add 4000 units [on the low end] of volume. It's not too big. It's the perfect size.

I'm sure it'll be nothing like what has been described here, and indeed very hot. It sounds like the old X5 with a more FX-like silouhette. Cheaper, too? Sounds like it could be a winner already.

except interior design and comfort is relevant to today's consumer

I can just imagine what the toned down version for production will look like. Just like the Sebring is an accurate representation of the Airflite concept. This is Malibu Maxx DCX style, but it's really not as good looking as some of thier other themes have been. This seems to indicate DCX believes some of the trends they introducedon Sebring work and should progress. No. No.

you also make it seem like STS won't be too much of an issue there either. Makes one wonder on that product's future too...

well, I guess GM must know what it's doing. I hope the BRX can compete effectively with leaders MDX, RX, X5, etc.... MDX had 6000 sales last month, that is an awful lot to just give up and not try and compete. SRX was always a wonderful product with the wrong look for the market. It wasn't understood. The hearse comparison made by one of the first C&D articles on it was accurate. And that is how most people saw it, a station wagon. Meanwhile, segment leaders like the FX and X5 were praised for their sporting looks. They didn't look geriatric, meanwhile the themes on SRX seem bold, but the shape was all wrong. The shape on the FX is still attractive. Every other SUV/crossover in the category pull the hatchy look better, especially the XC90, MKX, FX, and X5. Pretty much the whole segment has a shape that is more universal than the SRX. Most people I know look at it, and acknowledge it's a very nice car, but it looks too much like a station wagon to them, and it turns off. The most successful long wagon that pulls off the crossover look/shape are the X5 and XC90, imo.I just remembered the Vizon concept, it's shorter length pulled off the look better too

I think the rear end is fantastic. It's very distinctive and very attractive, a fine connection to Chevy's past, with luxurious intentions. This is supposed to be mainstream, I think I get that. I am slightly underwhelmed because of all the praise that was heaped on it, however, with this design GM has blown past the competition [love the new editing controls in fast reply ]. So what more can be expected of it? Well, I hoped it would knock my socks off, but it really just says hello to my socks. It's a great looking ride, sophisticated, one an owner can be proud of. And that is ultimately what matters the most, a Chevy someone can be proud to say is thier own. This will easily win customers of Impala over, bar none. This is infinitely more attractive than almost any GM intermediary sedan produced so far [in my lifetime], except for Aura. Of the interiors, the base combo looks very base, but the two tone and the black interior look great.

it's ugly from the side view, from the front, and the back. yuck, but at least the interior has the details right, and it's a nice looking place too.

are you saying SRX won't be produced anymore?

this is a tough one my winners are based on significance and what I liked the most Saturn Outlook MB GL Cadillac Escalade

for every yes there's a no.....i happen to like the taillights. i think they're better done than your average alteezas and not as wearing on the eyes. this design is classy and brutal...it's cool, it'll work for the 30k family set. above that middle price range it would not work.

This thing is unbelieveable. Where has Ford gotten these talented designers all of a sudden. First the XK vert, then the Lincoln concept, now this? Amazing, this will sell and help establish Jaguar into the next decade as a major player rather than also ran. It is hot. I see the Gran Prix reference thegriffon made, but I think the themes combined with the better resolved lines make this infinitely infintely better.

have you seen it in person yet? I love it in pictures.....................but they say it's even better in person. quoted for emphasis

It's almost too much--Mercedes keeps figuring out new ways to pamper its customers, new niches to define luxury in. I know Cadillac and Lincoln started this segment decades ago, but look how far lost they are, that MB has taken this segment into the new generation. And it's the ultimate definition of pimp but it looks thoroughly modern, austere, and intimadating. It's a good idea from MB...not the kind of car I would ever own though.

can't wait. your comments are refreshing.

Magazine comparison tests and where it actually fits in customer needs are two totally different things. This market has proven many different successful formulas can co-exist. The one primary factor is style and attention to detail/sophistication, another determinant in this class is performance, but it is farther behind than the first two.The CTS engine is only .1L in displacement size larger than the competitors who have over 300 hp engine, and the 335 has a turbo [3.0]. The size disparity you claim really isn't all that much. I would like to see the DI engine with more than 300 hp available at launch, though. I think it's necessary to establish an image from the get-go, and the more powerful the engine the better statistics can be on the car from launch. The IS offers a powerful engine and similar performance characteristics as the CTS[great handling/composed ride], but it is a much smaller car. The G35 offers similar packaging as the CTS [might even be roomier, in the back at least] and similar handling, and has that wonderful 300+ hp engine, but it isn't nearly as good looking as this next CTS is shaping up to be, which is subjective of course. The TL is powered similarly, and has similar packaging, but it has a highly regarded FWD chassis and isn't as distinctive as the CTS. The 3-series costs a lot more money for the same power, and isn't as roomy. For the CTS to launch with 270hp wouldn't result in a sales failure or anything near to an underwhelming experience, but it would be disappointing not to come out of the gate with the best they can do.

what I think is funny is how that same wheel design and derivatives of it are still with Pontiac [on the Vibe I think], and up to a few years ago was on a lot of their cars. Shows how forward the thinking is at GM that a conceptual wheel design can stay with them over a decade.

For the G6 the concept initially was referred to G6 in reference to the sixth generation of the Grand AM. The "G" naming scheme means nothing else on the rest of the car lineup. I don't like the Grand AM name, but Gran Prix, Solstice, GTO all work for me....but in the future I would like to see less reliance on retro names at Pontiac. You can keep your Catalinas, Tempests, Bonnevilles, and Le Mans, thank you very much.