Topic: Test Drive: 2012 Cadillac SRX AWD

[Erik]

Just another SUV/CUV in an overflowing sea of the things.  This one is, in my humble opinion, uglier than most, though.  The CTS Sport Wagon, on the other hand, is a hot looking CAR, low and sleek rather than tall and ungainly like the SRX. 

So true. But sadly, not what most of the buying public wants. They want an automotive appliance where the driving experience doesn't matter, but the list of toys for the dollar is paramount. Witness the success of Hyundai in the market.

[Mike]

I hear ya, but the X3 is actually nearly identical inside    I was surprised when looking up the figures.  I just assumed they should compete, mid-size, 5 seat, $55-$60-ish price tag, luxury, 300HP, AWD, similar features.

Here is an excerpt from the X3 article:

While on the topic of length, the X3’s dimensions allow for decent cargo capacity with 781 L of storage behind the rear seats and 1,792 L with the rear seats folded down.  Those numbers are right on par with last week’s test vehicle, the slightly longer Cadillac SRX.

SRX dimensions are 826.8 and 1732.4


and I agree about the demographic, there is a reason it is selling 2-1 compared to the X3.  Oakville loves the SRX

[Ex-airbalancer]

As far as the enthusiast side, that is my slight slant I take in reviews (for better or worse)

Explain this to me please

It sound like the way you drive I would throwing up all the time in passagenger seat with you.
Are you hard on the gas and then braking hard , weaving all over the place 
Because if you are not on a track , there is not many place around the gta that you can have fun driving a car

Southern Ontario road are mainly flat and straight , give me a car that matches those condition  and I will be happy now

[Jaeger]

So true. But sadly, not what most of the buying public wants. They want an automotive appliance where the driving experience doesn't matter, but the list of toys for the dollar is paramount. Witness the success of Hyundai in the market.

Now who's "damning with faint praise"? 

Mike - your review wasn't "biased" at all.  For some, any criticism of their pet brand is necessarily labeled as such, because valid ciriticsm is not something they believe to actually exist.

CTS wagon freakin' rocks.  You ever get one of those rockets, call me ASAP. 

Jaeger

[Mike]

AB, I actually drive most the time very smoothly as I have a better half that can get carsick if I take an on-ramp too fast (no exaggeration).

As for Southern Ontario roads you are right, they do suck.  Worst in the country for 'fun'. However, there are a few roads on the escarpment in burlington/milton that are a blast to drive...ask snowman.

I still take every opportunity to drive 'fun' legally when solo.

As I stated before the new SRX is perfect for those who it was designed for; that isn't me.

[nsmyhte]

There's no way I would get this over an X3 or Q5 or FX.  I consider it pretty close to the bottom of it's class.  Ugly exterior, gaudy,  poor interior packaging, heavy, thirsty, fwd-based, boring to drive, and poor value.

Fail.

[whaddaiknow]

There's no way I would get this over an X3 or Q5 or FX.  I consider it pretty close to the bottom of it's class.  Ugly exterior, gaudy,  poor interior packaging, heavy, thirsty, fwd-based, boring to drive, and poor value.

Fail.

+1 (minus FX which I consider a poseur's car because of very limited "utility")

SRX 
CTS Wagon 

[Ex-airbalancer]

AB, I actually drive most the time very smoothly as I have a better half that can get carsick if I take an on-ramp too fast (no exaggeration).

As for Southern Ontario roads you are right, they do suck.  Worst in the country for 'fun'. However, there are a few roads on the escarpment in burlington/milton that are a blast to drive...ask snowman.

I still take every opportunity to drive 'fun' legally when solo.

As I stated before the new SRX is perfect for those who it was designed for; that isn't me.

Thanks for the answer, we have some nice roads out here
if your head east get off at Newcastle and go south to lakeshore rd, for a nice drive out to Port Hope

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Here are the dots. Not bad. One hell of a lot better than the previous generation.

[sailor723]

Not very encouraging...even my 07 was getting better CR scores than the new ones are at one-two years old...and it turned out to be a piece of junk! 

[Mozeby]

There's no way I would get this over an X3 or Q5 or FX.  I consider it pretty close to the bottom of it's class.  Ugly exterior, gaudy,  poor interior packaging, heavy, thirsty, fwd-based, boring to drive, and poor value.

Fail.

Really you consider the X3 as being that much more useful or fuel efficient?  And the FX isn't gaudy?  That should be in the Webster's dictionary next to gaudy. None of these others you listed are good value.  When you consider that in anyone of them, once you have 4 people in them, you have slightly more cargo space than you would in most midsize or large cars.  My brother in law has a 2010 FX35 and with 2 small kids it's bloody useless.   Same goes for the X3.  My mother in law has had 2 since 2005 and they're way over priced for what you're getting.  In typical BMW fashion, they rob u blind on the option list, charging for things that come standard on 20K Hyundai's and Fords.

[zat_xela]

Did my review really seem this biased?  I thought I gave the SRX a lot of praise where deserved

I made the comment on Facebook and I'll explain why.  If you are going to compare one car to another, let's see some hard numbers and/or head to head comparisons, not just seat of the pants "feelings".  I haven't bought a North American car since the 1980s because they were simply not competitive.  I believe the SRX is now competitive (in it's price range) and, for me, it beats out the competition.  BMWs do handle nicely and have some nice features but they are not as reliable as they would have us believe.  They are expensive to buy and to maintain.  The X# similarly equipped is about $10,000 more expensive...even the smaller X1 costs more. How about some comments regarding real world ownership experience.  You did not mention the fact that the SRX has a Sport setting that firms up the magnetic ride suspension and changes the engine/transmission mapping.  It makes a noticeable difference.  I agreed with your comments about the fuel economy and the blind spot warning system.

[Mike]

Welcome to the boards!  The new SRX is competitive in the segment and is crushing most others in sales (as I mentioned).  However, the new SRX is not 'sporty'.  I did not find a sport setting on the 2012 and may have missed it.  I drove the X3 right after the SRX (same day even) and the review can be found Thursday.    Performance wise most magazines who do instrument testing had the X3 had 5.5 seconds 0-60 and the SRX in the 7.0 range 0-60.

The as tested price of the SRX was north of $55,000 and the as test price of the X3 was $62,000 (although the turbo starts at $49,990)

[zat_xela]

Welcome to the boards!  The new SRX is competitive in the segment and is crushing most others in sales (as I mentioned).  However, the new SRX is not 'sporty'.  I did not find a sport setting on the 2012 and may have missed it.  I drove the X3 right after the SRX (same day even) and the review can be found Thursday.    Performance wise most magazines who do instrument testing had the X3 had 5.5 seconds 0-60 and the SRX in the 7.0 range 0-60.

The as tested price of the SRX was north of $55,000 and the as test price of the X3 was $62,000 (although the turbo starts at $49,990)

Thanks Mike.  From the BMW website, I just used their "build and price" option, selected roughly equivalent equipment (although hard to do exactly) and the price came to $62000 for the X3 vs. about $52000 that I paid for the model (equivalent to the model you tested but without navigation and DVD players).  The X1 was priced closer to the SRX but was too small for us.  The Sport setting in the SRX is found by pushing the shift lever to the left...a nudge to the left applies all the sport settings but keeps shifting automatically until the driver pushes the lever forward or back which then engages the manual shift mode.  It's a 2 step process which is not obvious unless you're told.  It's too bad you didn't get to try it.  There is also an ECO mode which is supposed to save about 1mpg by adjusting shift points.  The big difference in the 2012 model is the new 3.6 engine which now has decent power for the heft of the vehicle.

[Mike]

Welcome to the boards!  The new SRX is competitive in the segment and is crushing most others in sales (as I mentioned).  However, the new SRX is not 'sporty'.  I did not find a sport setting on the 2012 and may have missed it.  I drove the X3 right after the SRX (same day even) and the review can be found Thursday.    Performance wise most magazines who do instrument testing had the X3 had 5.5 seconds 0-60 and the SRX in the 7.0 range 0-60.

The as tested price of the SRX was north of $55,000 and the as test price of the X3 was $62,000 (although the turbo starts at $49,990)

Thanks Mike.  From the BMW website, I just used their "build and price" option, selected roughly equivalent equipment (although hard to do exactly) and the price came to $62000 for the X3 vs. about $52000 that I paid for the model (equivalent to the model you tested but without navigation and DVD players).  The X1 was priced closer to the SRX but was too small for us.  The Sport setting in the SRX is found by pushing the shift lever to the left...a nudge to the left applies all the sport settings but keeps shifting automatically until the driver pushes the lever forward or back which then engages the manual shift mode.  It's a 2 step process which is not obvious unless you're told.  It's too bad you didn't get to try it.  There is also an ECO mode which is supposed to save about 1mpg by adjusting shift points.  The big difference in the 2012 model is the new 3.6 engine which now has decent power for the heft of the vehicle.

Damn, I should heave researched that sport mode