Interactive Review: 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo AWD Premium

[Drew Dowdell]

This Just In:

2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo AWD Premium

I just turned in the GMC Acadia SLT-2 and in turn received a 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo AWD Premium. One of the first things I noticed as I was getting into the car were the door sill plates with the Cadillac script lite in white with brushed stainless surround. Very classy looking. The interior looks mostly lifted out the the CTS on first glance. I took it for a quick run around the highway. I was disappointed when I put the hammer down as it didn't feel like much of anything.... then you look down and you're at 80mph. I'll have more for you later, but in the meantime, line up your questions for this Interactive Review of a 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo.

[smk4565]

15/22 mpg? The V8, rear drive SRX could manage that. 35% US/Canadian parts content? Since when did Cadillac become a V6, front drive foreign car?

[regfootball]

if the SRX had kept the last chassis, but added the new ones interior and exterior styling theme........with a 3.6 twin turbo........

personally i don't like how high it rides now but it is par for the course in crossovers these days. ANd there is a CTS wagon now.

i just am curious if the tranny lag that has been mentioned in road tests is really true. aside from that, is the interior as nice as it looks, how is the handling, how is the cargo hold.

[CanadianBacon94]

how does it compare to the CTS SportWagon

[ocnblu]

I honestly believe this vehicle is a step backward from the first-gen. All it needed was a jazz infusion to the styling and maybe some powertrain refinement. The proportions on this new one are just ungainly to my eyeballs.

[David]

Sadly, no matter what anyone says, this car will be successful to those that want a clone of a Lexus or any other Asian luxury crossover.

With that sad, this car just like the CTS Sports wagon fall short in many things. Interior room sucks, at 6'6" tall I can drive my 2004 SRX and still have someone of my size sit behind me. In the New SRX or Sports wagon, you have maybe 2" of room from the back of the seat to the front of the bottom seat cushion. No way anyone can sit behind tall people in this vehicle. In both trying the New SRX and the New Sports wagon at Dougs NW Cadillac / Hummer dealership, I sadly have to say I noticed that the tranny is slow to respond.

Interior was Fine on the sportwagon as it does mirror the CTS, but sadly I found many fit and finish issues with the SRX. My parents were thinking of adding a new SRX to their 2005 SRX they have and found the lack of Head Room, Hip Room, over all interior room to be sadly lacking. As such they have given up on having a 2nd Cadillac and found that the Lincoln MKT has way more room and is very nice.

NOT SURE WHO THE HELL AT GM THINKS EVERYONE IS SMALL. The new Escalades have less interior room, especially headroom in comparison to my 2006 ESV Platinum I bought. You cannot have a sun roof in the new Escalades if you are over 6 feet and even then forget to have the seat back up straight if you like to sit up straight like I do. Not enough room. Yes I did have the seat all the way down to the floor. The caddy sales Rep who has sold me all 4 of my current caddy's took pictures to email back to GM HQ as he was shocked to see that I could not sit in the Escalade with out laying back or tilting my head to the side.

I feel that all the progress that Cadillac did with their cars ended with the Current CTS2006 /2007 model years and they have forgotten that there are many Americans who are big and want the driving german machine detail but with room of an american machine. I am not FAT, 275lbs at 6'6" tall. I work out all the time in the gym.

Caddy wake up, you are going down the WRONG ROAD in size, interior space and questionable fit and finish.

[loki]

dfelt... but more room means bigger and heavier... even though the average height from 1900's till now surely has gotten higher...

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm gonna say that those who think they'll miss the Northstar... shouldn't. The engine is very smooth and is very fast. The highway rating of the previous gen with the Northstar might have been a little higher, but I don't think people were ever getting that in the real world. Driving this around tonight after stepping out of an Acadia last night, one thing came into very clear focus. Cadillac has left room between the SRX and the Escalade for a reason. If Cadillac isn't doing a Lambda, they should be.

Some of the prior posters are right, this car is a lot smaller than the previous model. I too was surprised by the minimal back seat room. It is not, however, an MDX/RX clone. The SRX rides firm, probably too firm for my softly sprung tastes. Steering feel is best I've felt on a GM.

You guys really need to try this engine before you take your black dress to the cleaners for the Northstar funeral.

The only negative so far? 65 feels like 45.

[turbo200]

I'm gonna say that those who think they'll miss the Northstar... shouldn't. The engine is very smooth and is very fast. The highway rating of the previous gen with the Northstar might have been a little higher, but I don't think people were ever getting that in the real world. Driving this around tonight after stepping out of an Acadia last night, one thing came into very clear focus. Cadillac has left room between the SRX and the Escalade for a reason. If Cadillac isn't doing a Lambda, they should be.

Some of the prior posters are right, this car is a lot smaller than the previous model. I too was surprised by the minimal back seat room. It is not, however, an MDX/RX clone. The SRX rides firm, probably too firm for my softly sprung tastes. Steering feel is best I've felt on a GM.

You guys really need to try this engine before you take your black dress to the cleaners for the Northstar funeral.

The only negative so far? 65 feels like 45.

but I'm trying to understand....who does this appeal to. If GM chose to sacrifice practicality yet again, ie rear seat space, interior roominess in general....who does this get marketed to? the whole point of a crossover should be its practicality, ease of use, and going forward at least priority on passenger comfort. This is where this car should excel, along with the areas of performance and style. I do like that it performs well and is styled reasonably well [though not good enough for my tastes there is still a big portion of the buying audience who hasn't spend their time thinking of the different versions of this design theme that are possible].

I don't like your recommendation for a Lambda Caddy. It's one thing to tune a compact crossover to handle well, but tuning Lambda would be altogether another challenge, even if it's proven itself somewhat capable. No, please go on with some semblance of exclusivity for Cadillac and base a larger crossover on Zeta. that would be the smart and courteous thing to do for enthusiasts. zeta needs to be used more anyways, and Cadillac needs to focus on smartly efficient RWD vehicles that are capacious and bring a marvelous sense of luxury.

I am very excited to hear overall how this one turns out. I do like the turbo SRX.... It would be great if you'd take some time to test other $50k lux suvs, if you had the time, and posted on those experiences as well.

Edited February 24, 2010 by turbo200

[Drew Dowdell]

It will appeal to DINKS mostly. It's aimed more at X3/X5 drivers than the RX/MDX crowd, but it'll happily take those customers too. This is the crossover for people who need an SUV "because it might snow in Austin this year" but have everything they buy at the furniture store delivered rather than put it in their vehicle. It won't fit our friend Dfelt, but you can put those of us in the 5'10" - 6'1" range in all four seats of the car comfortably.

but I'm trying to understand....who does this appeal to. If GM chose to sacrifice practicality yet again, ie rear seat space, interior roominess in general....who does this get marketed to? the whole point of a crossover should be its practicality, ease of use, and going forward at least priority on passenger comfort.

X6, Crosstour, ZDX

I should restate my position on the Lambda Caddy. Cadillac needs a Lambda sized vehicle... not necessarily on that specific platform.

I am very excited to hear overall how this one turns out. I do like the turbo SRX.... It would be great if you'd take some time to test other $50k lux suvs, if you had the time, and posted on those experiences as well.

I was thinking about this from a different point of view today. I need to make some dealer connections so that when I get a test vehicle I can go and compare it to the competition or even it's previous versions. I was thinking of trying to find a V8 AWD 2009 SRX to drive back to back with this one to compare differences. I think I need to at least go re-look at the X3/X5.... I wasn't impressed with the X3 when I was in one a few years ago... but maybe the years have changed things. Any others you suggest I wheel the SRX up next to?

[pow]

Does it feel like a $54,000 vehicle? Or a $24,000 vehicle gussied up to $54,000 levels? How would you compare it to the Terrain?

Edited February 24, 2010 by pow

[jwbouch]

Does it feel like a $54,000 vehicle? Or a $24,000 vehicle gussied up to $54,000 levels? How would you compare it to the Terrain?

I took one out for short test drive about 3 weeks ago (I am pretty sure it just had the 3.0 in it though, not the turbo), and I wasn't highly impressed. I thought it felt like a glorified Equinox - which isn't a bad thing, just not as nice as I thought a Cadillac should be. Plus, I prefer the styling of the Equinox. It has a lot of features that I personally don't see the point in. Cooler (ice chest) in the cargo area? I did like that it has the option of posting the speed limit of the road you are on by the speedometer! I am the king of not having a clue what the speed limit is (nor caring) until I see a cop! It isn't a bad vehicle, but I wouldn't be tempted to buy one.

[Drew Dowdell]

Does it feel like a $54,000 vehicle? Or a $24,000 vehicle gussied up to $54,000 levels? How would you compare it to the Terrain?

$54k? probably a stretch until you look at all of the options it's got. But there are plenty of small details that really put it over the top as a premium vehicle. There really is no comparing it to the Terrain. The GMC, as nice as it is, is still clearly in CR-V territory.

[regfootball]

I'm gonna say that those who think they'll miss the Northstar... shouldn't. The engine is very smooth and is very fast. The highway rating of the previous gen with the Northstar might have been a little higher, but I don't think people were ever getting that in the real world. Driving this around tonight after stepping out of an Acadia last night, one thing came into very clear focus. Cadillac has left room between the SRX and the Escalade for a reason. If Cadillac isn't doing a Lambda, they should be.

Some of the prior posters are right, this car is a lot smaller than the previous model. I too was surprised by the minimal back seat room. It is not, however, an MDX/RX clone. The SRX rides firm, probably too firm for my softly sprung tastes. Steering feel is best I've felt on a GM.

You guys really need to try this engine before you take your black dress to the cleaners for the Northstar funeral.

The only negative so far? 65 feels like 45.

all the research i have done on the old srx suggested that the v6 was good for about 16-17 mpg typical and the northstar about 15 on a good day. i would guess the new srx will at least be closer to 20 than 15mpg in the real world.

[Crazy]

how may of this car?

in china ,the Audi Q5 is out.maybe SRX's sell will face strongly Competition!

just see appearance , i think the SRX is more smart than Audi Q5,but the power.....

of course, if price is as same as Q5,i also like SRX.

[turbo200]

I was thinking about this from a different point of view today. I need to make some dealer connections so that when I get a test vehicle I can go and compare it to the competition or even it's previous versions. I was thinking of trying to find a V8 AWD 2009 SRX to drive back to back with this one to compare differences. I think I need to at least go re-look at the X3/X5.... I wasn't impressed with the X3 when I was in one a few years ago... but maybe the years have changed things. Any others you suggest I wheel the SRX up next to?

those are great! definitely make it in to try and drive the old SRX. would be nice to also compare to technical class leader and class sales leader, Q5 and RX350. a bmw in a comparo mix seems like it should be automatic. i agree on x3/x5.

[ocnblu]

Having driven neither, I prefer the looks of the Q5 to the Cadillac.

[David]

all the research i have done on the old srx suggested that the v6 was good for about 16-17 mpg typical and the northstar about 15 on a good day. i would guess the new srx will at least be closer to 20 than 15mpg in the real world.

Not sure who is saying the old SRX with the V6 only gets 16-17MPG. My parents SRX is the V6, they average about 25MPG on their SRX. Yes unlike mine with V8 and AWD, theirs is only RWD and after last winter wish they had an AWD auto. This is why they were looking to add a 2nd SRX until they tested the new SRX and found out how small the interior was in comparison to the old SRX and the Fit and finish did not seem to be any better.

[ZL-1]

Having driven neither, I prefer the looks of the Q5 to the Cadillac.

^^This.

And I prefer the looks of the 9-4X to the SRX.

[pow]

those are great! definitely make it in to try and drive the old SRX. would be nice to also compare to technical class leader and class sales leader, Q5 and RX350. a bmw in a comparo mix seems like it should be automatic. i agree on x3/x5.

X3 is on the way out. The X5 will be replacing its NA 3.0L inline-six with a turbocharged version in a few months.

X5, Q5, and MDX seem like the obvious targets, though they all vary in price and size.

[Satty]

Outward visibility and cargo space compared to the CTS wagon.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, I never really had any problem with rear visibility in the CTS Wagon. Rear visibility in the SRX is a little small through the center mirror, but the large side mirrors make up for it. The SRX has more cargo room than the CTS wagon, trunk area is wider and deeper.

[Robert Hall]

I feel dumb. This is the first I think I've heard of this 2.8 V6 Turbo engine. Didn't realize GM had such an engine. Is this the 2.8 that is a smaller version of the 3.0/3.6? What else uses it?

[Drew Dowdell]

It's a smaller displacement version of the 3.0/3.6, but tuned for 300hp and 295 ft/lbs of torque. It was originally developed for the Saab 9-3x and will also be used on the Saab 9-4x.

It's got a lot of grunt down low.

Regarding the transmission lag questions: Could you describe what you're talking about? I've not experienced anything like that, however the Turbo version does use a different transmission than the 3.0 version.