Topic: CD Article: 2010 Cadillac SRX

[DockMan]

They will go for the SUV because SUVs are cool

exactly.

[Mattesa not logged in]

Horrible. Cadillac takes a proper N/S engine config that is RWD biased and replaces it with a torqueless, transverse minivan with no cargo carrying ability.

You guys notice what they did there?  They blacked out a foot of body work all around the bottom of the car to make it look like it has more ground clearance (and hence more SUV like).

That is so so lame! 

Or with a black out body work show less stone chips

Cynical me says not very likely.  Every other car out there doesn't worry about protecting itself against showing stone chips.

This is the same type of styling parlour trick they did with the Venture minivans with the truck face refresh.

[Cord]

Horrible. Cadillac takes a proper N/S engine config that is RWD biased and replaces it with a torqueless, transverse minivan with no cargo carrying ability.

You guys notice what they did there?  They blacked out a foot of body work all around the bottom of the car to make it look like it has more ground clearance (and hence more SUV like).

That is so so lame! 

Or with a black out body work show less stone chips

Cynical me says not very likely.  Every other car out there doesn't worry about protecting itself against showing stone chips.

This is the same type of styling parlour trick they did with the Venture minivans with the truck face refresh.

That sounds a little too cynical to me. Every manufacturer styles their vehicles in ways they think makes them look better - whether it's a useless spoiler to project sportiness, a big grille to project toughness, or chrome trim to project luxuriousness. To cast it as a nefarious plot to deceive consumers is a little extreme.

[sailor723]

I have to agree with Cord. I suspect it's as simple as somebody at GM liked the look and the focus groups didn't shoot it down.

[inco]

More than likely they did it so it doesn't look too big.

[Flinter]

I agree with other here that the new 3.0L V6 is probably not very well suited to a SUV like this. The 2.8 Turbo seems like a better match to me.

Kinda sucks that the older style SRX is gone, to be replaced with a smaller SUV platform. However,  IMO with the availbility of the new CTS Sport Wagon, it not as big of a loss as it first seems. I guess the big loss is the V8 option... the CTS Sport Wagon looks to be available only with the 3.0/3.6L V6.

 

[sailor723]

I agree with other here that the new 3.0L V6 is probably not very well suited to a SUV like this. The 2.8 Turbo seems like a better match to me.

Kinda sucks that the older style SRX is gone, to be replaced with a smaller SUV platform. However,  IMO with the availbility of the new CTS Sport Wagon, it not as big of a loss as it first seems. I guess the big loss is the V8 option... the CTS Sport Wagon looks to be available only with the 3.0/3.6L V6.

 

So,is the CTS wagon bigger than the new SRX?

[Flinter]

I agree with other here that the new 3.0L V6 is probably not very well suited to a SUV like this. The 2.8 Turbo seems like a better match to me.

Kinda sucks that the older style SRX is gone, to be replaced with a smaller SUV platform. However,  IMO with the availbility of the new CTS Sport Wagon, it not as big of a loss as it first seems. I guess the big loss is the V8 option... the CTS Sport Wagon looks to be available only with the 3.0/3.6L V6.

So,is the CTS wagon bigger than the new SRX?

I thought it would have more interior space but actually, it's slightly smaller in most dimensions. My bad. 

Check out this crazy link below to take you to the Cadillac comparison tool that will show the 2010 CTS wagon vs. the 2010 SRX vs. the 2009 SRX.

http://bit.ly/VRLLP

None the less, I think many here were lamenting the switch from the 2009 SRX which was built on the Sigma architecture used for the CTS, to the new 2010 SRX based on premium version of Theta platform that underpins the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox, 2010 GMC Terrain, Saturn Vue.

I mentioned the CTS Sport Wagon because I think it's another way to get a AWD Cadillac with some utility and more sporting personality.

[Iso Octane]

To cast it as a nefarious plot to deceive consumers is a little extreme.

It is a little extreme but "nefarious plot to deceive" are your words, not mine.  I merely said it was lame.  If the SRX had nostril-like faux hood scoops, gill-like faux fender vents, Altezza style tail lights, 22" donk rims, a Type-R badge... and... wait for it... the latest trend... a row of LED DRL's (henceforth known as the Audi bandwagon) then I would be calling all of those things lame too.

[G0dspd]

I mentioned the CTS Sport Wagon because I think it's another way to get a AWD Cadillac with some utility and more sporting personality.

more! 

Cadillac CTS-V Sportwagon Is Go!
http://jalopnik.com/5362602/cadillac-cts+v-sportwagon-is-go

[DockMan]

Check out this crazy link below...

http://compare.autodata.gm.ca/compare/frameset.asp?comps=CAC00CAS042A0&comps=CAB90CAS042A0&YearComp=C00&BrandComp=&SuperMakeIDComp=&ModelIDComp=&compVeh1=CAB90CAS042A0&compVeh2=CAC00CAS042A0&compVeh3=&Year=B90&BrandID=CA&MakeID=&SuperMakeID=CTS&BaseAcode=CAC00CAC114B0&Lang=en&ModelID=&Internal=N&adv=&dealer=&ds=&dc=&includeGMNavs=True&DeleteAcode=&Type=&returnToUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gm.ca%2Fgm%2Fenglish%2Fvehicles%2Fcadillac%2F%3Fadv%3D14238

Dude, use the force internet. 

http://bit.ly/

[safristi]

 works on my Commodore 64.........................

[Cord]

To cast it as a nefarious plot to deceive consumers is a little extreme.

It is a little extreme but "nefarious plot to deceive" are your words, not mine.  I merely said it was lame. 

No, you described it as a "styling parlour trick."

My point still stands.

[safristi]

....MAGIC WAGON redux....................watch me change this Tranny into a ball of fire...................

[Iso Octane]

No, you described it as a "styling parlour trick."
My point still stands.

Parlour tricks are not really nefariously deceiving are they? More... cheap trick for your amusement then boardwalk con artist.

My point stands as well.  It's a tacky styling sleight of hand (here come the magic analogies again.)  If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you.  With GM's recent stylistic turnaround, I was expecting better.

[Flinter]

Check out this crazy link below...

http://bit.ly/VRLLP

Dude, use the force internet. 

http://bit.ly/

Thanks for the link DockMan... I knew there must be a better way than that horrible link I posted. 

[initial_D]

Check out this crazy link below...

http://bit.ly/VRLLP

Dude, use the force internet. 

http://bit.ly/

Thanks for the link DockMan... I knew there must be a better way than that horrible link I posted. 

... you are only a bit, like 1/2 ... of an hr off ... in the link. 

[Flinter]

... you are only a bit, like 1/2 ... of an hr off ... in the link. 

[inco]

Finally got around to catching up on some reading and in the Globe last week they did a comparison of the SRX and the CTS SW (Sport Wagon). Comments were favourable for both except for one area - the AWD.

It seems that the better Haldex system is only available of the SRX.

Here is a link for anyone interested.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/auto/a-lot-more-bling-for-your-buck/article1280985/

[Benhaze]

My wife would say it looks good and has all the features she would want 

I guess maybe that is the target market. SRX driving soccer Mom's

It doesn't look bad.....I'm just disappointed that they took a great car and turned it bland. May wife on the other had couldn't care less. Is this vehicle more marketable than the version it replaces?

I guess the problem is if you are only selling 20 a month in Canada of the old style,
Why would you keep it around.
They probably should call it something else, so it would not get compared with the old SRX

The SRX was also a sales flop in the US so the fundamental design change is understandable sales wise. But what a waste! The old SRX was truly unique; I find the new one pitiful. I too would rather buy a 1-2 year old SRX and would never consider buying the new one...