Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
My latest thinking is buy the 2WD version and put snow tires on when you plan to go to Tahoe. Hell, maybe even store them in Auburn and have someone put them on up there!
I know that costs money, but not as much as buying the AWD version.
Of course, if you don't have 2WD, you'll be putting chains on to get over the pass - they don't let many 2WD vehicles past chain control without chains.
Sounds like the Corporate GM/Cadillac Road Show is behind this...DOn't think I can make it to the dealer, but I will try.
Tag line is : "The roadster you've been waiting for. You know, the one with 7 seats".
It's a winner!
seat height and the extra leg room in the back seat.
I have always felt that even the largest SUV's lacked the spread out room that the full sizes cars and wagons of the 70's offered.
None of the other manufacture's offer excellent rear seat legroom.
Have you seen how small the backseat is in a Lexus GX470?
I know that the the high seating position of SUV's are one of their main selling points but I have always felt uneasy in them.
Center of gravity issues and the sheer mass of these vehicles has always left me cold.
It seems like they have gotten taller and taller for no reason.
Have you guys ever seen a '99 Tahoe next to a '00 Tahoe?
The new one dwarfs the older generation. It has got to be 5 inches taller. And for what purpose? Marketing maybe?
I personally think the SRX is a winner. The 59K price of fully loaded V8 is a pretty breathtaking, but the base V6 is a bargain in my opinion.
By the way the SRX ads in the car rags are pretty good.
They loved the power of the engine (0-60 in 6.6), beating all but the FX45, although remember this is the RWD, not AWD. They like the handling too. The article makes a really big deal about the door sills being very wide.
What? ALL of the competition can tow at least 3500 lbs. (FX35/45, RX330, Acura MDX). Heck, even my 1992 Legend is rated for 2000 lbs.
I WAS considering the SRX, but I guess I'm forced back to the emperor! (And no, I don't want to drive a gold chained school bus - Escalade.)
Might want to double check the towing rating on the V8. Sometimes the data is inaccurate when it first comes out.
Likes:
Northstar Power & acceleration
Outside Styling
Temp guage (yes they replaced the clock and put it back where it belongs in the Radio)
Decent ride and handling for a SUV
Dislikes:
Too much hard plastics on the dash. However, it didn't seem as bad as the CTS, but maybe I'm just getting used to it.
Under the hood appeared unfinshed. Sloppy hoses and wire harnesses everywhere.
By the way, the key is just like the other. (i.e. Key with seperate fab).
Also, did you drive AWD or RWD?
thanks
"Towing 1000 lbs (base) 3500 lbs (optional)"
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2004&- amp;regionID=1&divisionID=5&type=0&vehicleID=350&- section=trailer_specs&page=&butID=8
..with no mention of 3500 lbs.
The Pacifica and all FWD based Chrysler products are saddled with a extremely inefficient transaxle.
I will guarantee you that a RWD V6 SRX will run rings around a Pacifica.
The CTS is turning 0-60 times of 6.4-6.7 secs with the 3.6L motor.
The SRX weighs more so I would guess that 0-60 time will be in the high 7's.
Well over a second faster than the Pacifica.
I have driven a CTS with the 3.6L and it was born to run. Shifts are at 6700 rpms!
b4z said....
"I will guarantee you ths thing will get at least 21 mpg on the highway."
Update:
And the HWY rating is.......21MPG!!!!
I am so good.
LOL.
True body-on-frame trucks can tow much higher weights because of their frame. With a unibody this is not the case. The strength of the unibody is in its whole, and thus cannot have the same towing capability that a true frame has at any certain point.
http://www.jeep.com/vehicle/vehicleSpec/VspecController
I am pretty sure that they don't sneek a "frame" under the Overland edition to raise its towing capacity.
A unibody CAN be designed to tow just as well as a b-o-f. It is all about where you calculate in the load...
And obviously they don't put a frame on the Overland edition, they strengthen the unibody by adding heavy components with multiple welds and bolting points. These components act as a frame to mount to in the rear. Infact the overland is not the best example of this, the Volkswagon Toureg actually twos somewhere around 7300lbs I think, and it is Unibody. These unibody updates add weight and can degrade handling capability. Not desireable in my opinion, the Overland edition is an interesting compromise though, but the Jeep is not in the class of the Cadillac. It competes best with Acura MDX, GMC Envoy and similar vehicles.
I think 3500 is more than enough for the SRX to tow, I would not want any additional modifications that add weight and degrade handling to tow more weight. I say in that case get a truck based SUV if you need maximum towing.
They DO NOT "add heavy components with multiple welds & bolting points".
Do still think that "adds weight and degrades handling"? Compared to what? A b-o-f vehicle? (Of which the Envoy is one example)
BTW the Overland can tow up to 6500 lbs -- if you need more than that you''re right you do need a "truck"...
I really don't agree with you statement regarding unibodies -- the towing capability of the Jeep GC (and the Toureg, and others) demonstrates that unibodies can be designed to tow significantly heavy loads. There is nothing "magical" about having a full perimeter frame. The loading is definately different, but it is not like towing something with a Toureg or a Jeep GC will make the windshield pop out and doors refuse to open. The design of unibody vs b-o-f is largely one of cost and manufacturing capabilites. It takes more computer power and less steel to make a unibody than a b-o-f. Pound for pound the unibody is going to more rigid and more capable...
I think Caddy may have priced the SRX a bit too high - especially the 2WD version. The more reviews I read the more I like the SRX, but I'm thinking by the time I load up the unit I'd like to have, I will not be willing to pay the $45k - $50k. My 2001 Denali is almost as plush, has most of the SRX options, and I can push 19-20mpg on the freeway. so.... I'll wait a while and see
Chrysler is a joke in the SUV market. No one is fooled. The Pacifica is a glitzed up mini-van and the Darango (Magnum or not) is still a Dodge pickup. Dealers can't give those things away. Do you ever see them on the road? I don't.
I drove the Pacifica and it ISN't a gussied up minivan - I know because I currently have a Dodge minivan, and the Pacifica drives much more nicely, and more fun. When you compare the Cadillac SRX to its com[petition, is it grossly out of whack? It seems that to get decent luxury, 4wd, and seating for more than 5 (granted seats 5, 6 and 7 are lousy), you are gonna be at about 45K, no? (Volvo, Pacifica, SRX) Still, the Caddy can top 50k pretty quick.
ugh
At current exchange rates ($.7186), that puts the V6 close to par on US prices (works out to US$37,547). The V8 is a bit cheaper here (works out to $43,783, compared to $46,300 in the US).
Usually cars are further discounted in Canada, so this is pretty steep pricing.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/030812-1.htm
Do these Detroit folks not know that there are many parts of the country where we feel AWD is not only unnecessary, but not wanted due to the added weight, complexity and lower gas mileage?
Or, in the case of the SRX, is it because there is a projected shortage of the options such as HID lights, navigation and magnetic whatever suspension? Could it be that these, and whatever other options that will be available only on the AWD 8, will be made available later in the model year?
If anyone has the answers to these questions, or theories or opinions, I would very much like to hear them.
Personally, I want RWD 8 if that choice is available with the same options as the AWD 8. If I can't get the RWD 8 with the options available on the AWD 8, then I'll go to the Porsche Cayenne S, which is not much more than a loaded SRX AWD 8 with roughly the same options.
Gas mileage won't be quite as good as the SRX AWD 8, but the Porsche Cayenne is a lot more car, and with a lot nicer cockpit, than the SRX appears to be. If you need a 3rd row, however, which I don't, then the Cayenne is not for you.
And you want the RWD SRX because of its reduced weight, better fuel economy & reduced mechanical complexity...
I am CORN-FUSED!
Won't the Cayenne be heavier, less fuel efficient, & more complex?
Won't it also be a) WAY more money b) susceptible to massive depreciation (see the Cayenne thread to read about both VERY high supplies and likelihood of a 6 cylinder model being introduced).
Yes, I suppose it is "more car" & nicer cockpit, but how does this square with your reasons for wanting a RWD?
If you need to tow something, I agree, buy a real SUV or truck.
If these puppies don't go flying out of the dealerships, spring cleaning will be at hand.
First let me say that I want to get all the worthwhile "toys" on my next truck. My current vehicle is a '92, so there are lots of toys that I've never played with. So, though I feel like I can afford the $66k that the Cayenne S would cost optioned as I want it, and it would be a better handling vehicle in some ways, it too has issues. I have narrowed my choices down to the Cayenne S and the SRX, subject of course to seeing and driving it.
It has roughly the same ---or as interesting--- options as the Cayenne S but I would have to get the AWD to do so, and that puts me at about 56k, so for the 10k difference I would go with Cayenne S, unless of course I'm blown away by the SRX.
The Cayenne 6 cyl won't do it for me. I don't think Cayenne depreciation will be any worse than that of the SRX. And yes I have followed Edmunds Cayenne board, as well as Rennlist and the rest. Don't know what you mean by higher "supplies".
At heart I would rather have an RWD, for its handling, which I consider superior in general to AWD, and especially to FWD, but I want an RWD only if it has the toys I want. That's my particular preference, and it may not make sense to you or anyone else, but se la vie.
But could we get back to the questions I posed in 134? I hope someone can tell us why Cadillac has made their option selections so restrictive for other than AWD 8 cylinders.
Thanks again corn-fused for your interest.
It should also be noted that the motor is the 2.5L 5 cylinder turbo -- a whole different beast than a normally aspirated V8...
Load up the R with everything (add on Dolby Pro Logic stereo, DVD Navigation System, Atacama (upgraded) leather, Volvo Oncall (similar to OnStar) and integrated booseter seats) and you are at $46,625, which is still almost $2K under the base V6 Caddy. Add the similar options to the V6 Caddy (luxury performance package, sunroof and Bose stereo) and you are up to $51,604. The V8 AWD SRX with those options pushes all the way up over $57,000!!!!!
Thus, while I agree that a normal V8 is a completely different animal than an inline turbo 5, it ought to be for $10K more!! The R still has the V6 beat price wise and the Inline turbo 5 would blow away the V6.
nv32, speaking of price, have you considered the V70 R? You could get one loaded instead of the Cayenne S and still have $20K to play with... maybe buy a pickup truck for the really big, dirty loads.
"The unique new Haldex all-wheel-drive system, implemented in Volvo products last year, has recently found its way into all new Volvos built on the corporate "P2" or large car platform. With 2004 availability in examples of the S60, V70, XC70, S80 and XC90, the system is not entirely unique in the product line, however a new aggressive and more rear-biased software program for the system is unique to the R models.
The system itself uses a hydraulically actuated clutch to proportion drive to the front and rear based on slippage. With open differentials at the front and rear, slip from right to left at both ends of the car is controlled by Volvo's DSTC system.
When this new all-wheel drive solution was first introduced in the S60 2.4T AWD, it was lauded as much more flexible and considerably more rapid to react to slip. In normal conditions, it transfers power with only a 15-degree rotation of slip at the wheel. Volvo technicians suggested that the basic use of the system was just the tip of the iceberg, as control of the Haldex coupling is managed by software. The program can be adjusted to control the bias, which is exactly what Volvo did with the new R. We're told that on the R, maximum transfer of power from front to rear requires a slip of the front wheels by roughly 100-degrees."
;-)
I have nothing against the Volvo but I am concerned with what I am hearing about reliability. Of course, buying a Caddy instead may be no better. The V70 is stil lon my list, however. Everyone who knows me assumes I'm a Volvo driver, so I may have to just give in one of these days.
- Electrical system; headlamp socket, wiring and harness issues. Even after a recall still having issues every few months. (Several other Volvo owners we know, different models all have had some electrical system issues.)
- Cheap, I mean Cheap headlamp switch. I've replaced 2 and they are a cheap plastic design based on the old metal pull and twist style phased out in the 70's
- auto climate control settings that are not very intelligent, still have to manually adjust it.
- Alignment has to be realigned about every 20k miles and she drives almost 100% hwy, street. Premature tire wear, scuffing, cupping.
Overall it's never died, In my opinion, the electrical problems and cheap light switch should not be present in an "upscale" vehicle.(Not sure of current pricing but we paid about $38k five years ago ... into today's $$ low 40k.
Thanks,
BJ
that is what I was hoping
On the mirror thing, my info says "power" but not "power folding".