2010 Lexus RX vs 2010 Cadillac SRX

wwest

The RX may be about to meet its match....

The SRX uses a 3.0L V6 w/DFI to match the HP, and probably better FE, of the 3.5L RX. The SRX has a F/awd system that is the equivalent of the best of the best, the Honda/Acura SH/AWD system. Whereas the RX has now adopted, as an improvement, the Ford Escape F/awd system.

houmi

I think the only car that can match the RX350 is the Audi Q5. I wish I had driven the Q5 before purchasing the RX...

jayrider

First model year for audi Q5 -- be very glad you got the Lexus. Stay away from new models of any car -- especially euroimports. The Lexus might be new but is based on a tried and true design. Excellent reliability.

pearl

According to some of the auto mag road tests, the new SRX is getting beat up for being too heavy. Over 4300 lbs and apparently its 3.0L V6 struggles to move it. The RX isn't any lighter, but its V6 is half a liter bigger with more torque. Seems that all the auto makers are going to have to try harder at weight managment as they work to meet future MPG requirements.

la4mead

My take: The SRX with the standard (non-turbo) 3.0 may "struggle" but compared to what? Compared to competing models. It seems the car makers are trying to compete for faster, more powerful (and perhaps crash-worthy) cars. I haven't driven the SRX, but maybe not all drivers test the 0-60 time or standing quarter mile. Maybe it's more than adaquate, but that's hard to tell by engine size. Why not sacrifice some 0-60 points for more engine torque for real-world useful oomph. Because track speed is what auto mags give more points to.

Your point that these "small" or "sporty" light utility vehicles is spot on. Same with "mini" vans, etc. Perhaps when demand for less bulky, more efficient cars goes up, there will be more choices.

drwilsc

The SRX can be had with a 2.8 liter turbo with 300 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque, a much closer match to the Lexus' engine.

rbirns1

Well I have driven the new SRX, and I have to admit it felt sluggish. This is compared to my current Q7 3.6, which is even bigger and just as slow. Just means that you'll have to punch it more if you really want to get moving. 8+ seconds to 60 is not dangerously slow, but it is noticeable.

I know the turbo is coming, but I question how good that will be. First-ever turbo for Cadillac (and first for GM?). Can't understand why they didn't just use the excellent 3.6L V6 from the CTS.

wwest

Turbocharged engines must be run in detuned/derated mode, low CR, 95-98% of the time(***). So you sacrifice the I4's normally good FE for HP. On the other hand if Toyota's extended VVT-i method were to be adopted the engine could be run with normal CR or 10:1 (12:1 with DFI) off-boost and then modulated to 8:1, or less for intercooled BOOST.

*** Just ask Ford, even with DFI their V6 TwinForce (EcoBoost being simply a marketing SHAM) doesn't improve DFI over their non-DFI/turbo V6 engine.

Ford...IDIOCY.

pearl

My point is not about acceleration but mass. I have never driven the new SRX but have read a number of car mag tests (and Edmunds) and ALL of them say the engine is overmatched for the bulk it has to haul. This will translate into longer stops, poorer fuel mileage as drivers will need to keep their "foot in it", and slower acceleration. The tests have shown that the SRX is about a second slower to 60 than most of its competition. I agree, "so what", but it is not just slower, it gets worse mpg too. Given the increasing requirements for better gas mileage for all manufacturers, I am just surprised that Caddy let this one out of the barn without more efforts to take some of the lard out.

phyre88

I just purchased a 2010 SRX on July 5. I am very impressed with this
vehicle. It rides very comfortably, and is averaging 22 mpg overall. For
a 4300 pound vehicle, I think this is impressive. It seems to incorporate
the best of everything. Styling, ride, handling, etc. It has the 3.0 V-6 and
the power may not be overwhelming, but, I have found it to be very satisfying
in all aspects for my needs. Entering the interstate, cruising, it meets my
expectations.

maximafan

My lease on my '07 RX350 was coming to the end, and I decided to test drive the 2010 Cadillac SRX. It was the Performance model. I loved the interior and exterior of the SRX, but it did feel less powerful than my '07 RX and the powertrain overall felt a little less refined than the '07 RX.

I had driven the 2010 RX a few months ago as a loaner vehicle and knew that that vehicle had good power and the same refined
powertrain. So I ended up purchasing and am leasing a new 2010 RX. I picked it up last week. While there are some things I'm trying to get used to with the new vehicle(i.e., bigger overall inside, and different placement of some controls), I'm really enjoying driving the vehicle. I'm especially enjoying the passive entry/push button start, the adaptive forward HID lights, and playing my iPod through the USB port and the Bluetooth hands-free phone capabilities.

crucial

How's the 2010 and newer SRX sun roof work? Open all the way in one piece or 2 pieces of glass? Only front piece open/tilt and the back piece stationary? Thanks

mrponte

does any know the invoice on the crossover 2011 srx

dnguy1

I purchased the SRX earlier this month. Had owned Lexus for previous ten years. The SRX is far superior to the RX in every regard.

I just drove down to Maryland on the interstate (500 mile roundtrip). I had four full size adults in the SRX and never felt it was underpowered or less responsive than the RX. My average fuel burn was 25 mpg, averaging 68 mph. When driving the same route in my RX last time I averaged 23 mpg under similar circumstances. Also, the SRX burns regular and the RX required premium to operate at an acceptable level with four adults at highway speeds.

The SRX handled far better than the RX- it is a real "drivers" vehicle. The "experts" say the RX has better interior materials but I am very pleased with what the SRX has on the inside and as mentioned above it just handles with far more spirit and confidence than the RX.

GM is also offering some very attractive lease deals which sealed it for me.

22velocity

I am about to lease a 2011 cadillac srx with AWD and the luxury package. I hate the look of the stock 18" alloy wheels. When I talk with the Finance and Lease manager of the local Cadillac dealership, he is telling me they can't put p42 wheels and tires on the luxury awd that I have to spend about $6,000 more and get the performance model. I don't want to jack up the lease payment and get equipment that I really don't need or want just to get the wheels. The price of the 20" wheels and tires through the parts dept is insane. Any thoughts by any members would be appreciated. Thanks, Frank

wwest

GM..???

:sick:

My '01 F/awd RX300 gets FE equal to your SRX and has never had even one take of premium.

"...it is a real "drivers" vehicle.."

My '01 R/awd Porsche is a REAL "drivers" vehicle while my RX makes for a much more relaxing long distance drive.

No one should be pleased with anything coming out of any GM factory, EVER!

Try the newest Porsche Cayenne if you really want a "drivers" SUV.

wwest

Yes, buy a "base" Porsche Cayenne or even an Acura MDX.