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.
Options

Cadillac SRX

1356716

Comments

  • libertycatlibertycat Member Posts: 593
    I would have to say no. If you have all-weather tires, chains aren't required in most snow areas. Plus the traction control and ABS will help you.
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    johnrbrooks - I am int he same boat as you. Have you gotten any word from a Caddy dealer as to availability? Please post some Bay Area info when you get it.

    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.
  • mjmorrowmjmorrow Member Posts: 15
    Does anyone have any updates on the SRX. Just wondering if anyone has seen one or two out and about.
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Member Posts: 380
    Claims they will have an SRX on hand SATURDAY for a "look see"...

    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.
  • johnrbrooksjohnrbrooks Member Posts: 9
    Adp3 - Thx for advice. I guess all weather tires doesn't get me past chain control? As to timing, my local Marin dealer says mid August for demos (not for sale). They'll have about a half dozen shipped by late Sept (V8 only) and when they are sold out they'll get another 5-6 "in a few months". They don't expect V6's until 2/04. This is fairly consistent with what I've heard from Cadillac except they say V6's "toward the end of 03". I put down a deposit for the first batch (what the hey, they said they wouldn't cash the check). Expect a dealer markup. I was in Detroit recently and saw about 5 different SRX's on the road driven mainly by engineers to check on last minute QC issues.
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    I think the only way to get past chain controls on 80 is (a) chains (duh) and (b) 4wd. If you have a 2wd vehicle, they are gonna make you slap chains on, even if you have all-season tires. I'm not even sure that dedicated snow tires will get you past controls, but I have to check the tires board as I recall getting some advice on that.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Saw the first SRX ad in the paper today (National Post). Clearly they must be available in Canada now. I will check the local Caddy dealer this week and see.

    Tag line is : "The roadster you've been waiting for. You know, the one with 7 seats".
  • raybearraybear Member Posts: 1,795
    Paid us a visit last week.

    It's a winner!
  • b4zb4z Member Posts: 3,372
    For me, two of the SRX's attributes are the lower
    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.
  • jbgrahamjbgraham Member Posts: 34
    The "Build Your Own" feature is now on the Cadilac web page. Gets expensive quickly. I'm not sure it's a bargain even in V6 form, unless it's just done beautifully. I hope GM was VERY careful with the interior materials quality, as they apparently were with the XLR. I would like to see this vehicle be an unqualified success or "breakthrough" even.
  • odmanodman Member Posts: 309
    The September issue of C&D just arrived and it has a positive road test of the SRX. It was the V8 RWD model and with few options hit US$48,520. That's a lot of coin!

    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.
  • daschtickdaschtick Member Posts: 63
    I have an 18 foot boat that weighs 2400 lbs, and I am looking for a smaller luxury/sport SUV/crossover vehicle to tow it with, and the SRX really had me excited. But to my MAJOR disappointment, the SRX (V6 or V8) is rated to tow ONLY 1000 LBS!

    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.)
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Why is the Escalade a "gold chained school bus"?? Seems pretty nice to me. I see quite a few on the road these days.

    Might want to double check the towing rating on the V8. Sometimes the data is inaccurate when it first comes out.
  • auzivisionauzivision Member Posts: 8
    Had an opportunity to drive the new SRX over the weekend. It's very nice. Members of this board I'm sure know more about this vehicle then I do. Following are a few likes and dislikes:

    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).
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    Did you drive the 8 or the 6? Am curious if the 6 will have more power/be a better drive than the Pacifica.

    Also, did you drive AWD or RWD?

    thanks
  • ilovestsilovests Member Posts: 16
    Below information is taken from the Cadillac website.

    "Towing 1000 lbs (base) 3500 lbs (optional)"
  • daschtickdaschtick Member Posts: 63
    Thanks for the towing data. I received the 1000 lb limit from this site:

    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.
  • b4zb4z Member Posts: 3,372
    Don't get caught up in trying to compare Chrysler HP to GM HP.
    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!
  • b4zb4z Member Posts: 3,372
    "No way this thing will get 21 mpg."

    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.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Sounds better. I could not imagine the V8 could not pull more than 1000.
  • ilovestsilovests Member Posts: 16
    The tow rating doesn't have anything to do in this case with the motor it has everything to do with the Unibody construction.

    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.
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Member Posts: 380
    You might want to tell that to Jeep:

    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...
  • ilovestsilovests Member Posts: 16
    rerenov8r, I never once said that it wasn't possible for a Unibody to tow more. I said that a Unibody will is not as strong at any certain point along its surface as a frame is.

    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.
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Member Posts: 380
    Up the tranny to a 5 speed, up the motor to a the max output, install the HD brakes, coolers and suspension (which is just revalved shocks, HD springs & roll bars).

    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...
  • orwoodyorwoody Member Posts: 269
    I read that Dodge won't offer the HP of the concept and may have a struggle getting sales on the Magnum - but they may have learned a hard lesson on the Pacifica, so it'll be interesting as this new mrkt segment grows.
    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
  • joey2brixjoey2brix Member Posts: 463
    The rap stars will buy every one off the floor.
    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.
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    I agree that the Cadillac is pricey, decently equipped, especially if you want the AWD, even if you take the smaller engine.

    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
  • odmanodman Member Posts: 309
    ...is finally out. $52,250 for the base V6 model, $60,930 for the V8 RWD.

    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
  • odmanodman Member Posts: 309
    A Canadian reviewer recently noted that the loaded Pacifica AWD tested at CAN$52,000 or so. That's about the same price as a base V6 SRX. I know which one I'd take!
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    I like the Pacifica a lot, but I think it's over priced, especially with the SRX in range. Lets face it, it's a Chrysler not a Mercedes.
  • nv32nv32 Member Posts: 35
    Cadillac heavily favors the SRX AWD 8 by not making many of the options available on the AWD 6 or on the RWD 6 or 8. It's the same for the Escalade, where if you want RWD you must take a smaller engine.

    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.
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Member Posts: 380
    If you can't get a RWD SRX then you going for a Cayenne???

    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?
  • shieattshieatt Member Posts: 75
    I didn't realize just how much the SRX was going to cost. I was just recommending to my friend adp3 on another board that the new Volvo V70 R would be a much better buy. Slightly more interior room, a 300hp turbo, 6 speed manual transmission, AWD, 18" wheels, giant Brembo brakes, a state-of-the-art "4C" computerized suspension that interacts with stability control, the electronic AWD system and the ABS system. It will do 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, top speed of 148 mph (electronically limited), and it gets 18/25 mpg. Plus you get legendary Volvo safety all for MSRP of $38K. The optional third seat in the V70 is rear facing, but who ever puts anyone besides kids in a third row anyway, and it's not like the SRX will have any meaningful cargo space behind its third seat.

    If you need to tow something, I agree, buy a real SUV or truck.
  • jeffmust2jeffmust2 Member Posts: 811
    ...it's a lot easier to come down in price... than go up in price.

    If these puppies don't go flying out of the dealerships, spring cleaning will be at hand.
  • nv32nv32 Member Posts: 35
    I can underestand how you might be.

    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.
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Member Posts: 380
    And the hi po Volvos are pretty much NEVER available stripped -- that 38K will ballon up to 43K++ with just the sunroof/radio/auto options...

    It should also be noted that the motor is the 2.5L 5 cylinder turbo -- a whole different beast than a normally aspirated V8...
  • shieattshieatt Member Posts: 75
    I don't know about stripped... the base R is pretty well loaded. But add on a moonroof, climate package (heated seats, rain sensing wipers) and a touring package (grocery bag holder, air filtration, cargo net) and you are still at $41,305. That's a lot of car for that much money. The base price for a V6 AWD SRX is $48,535.

    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.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Base model is very well equipped, I suspect it will make up the majority of sales.
  • raybearraybear Member Posts: 1,795
    Does the AWD shut off like the XC? Or is it full-time?
  • shieattshieatt Member Posts: 75
    I'm not sure what you mean... the XC AWD system is full time and the R version is as well. Here is a description I found:

    "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."
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    shieatt is no friend of mine

    ;-)

    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.
  • orwoodyorwoody Member Posts: 269
    We have owned our 98 XC since new. It's my wife's daily commuter and mechanically has been reliable for the 90K miles it's been driven. But... Biggest gripes:
    - 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.
  • raybearraybear Member Posts: 1,795
    Just check JD Power's reviews.
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    Raybear: Will they tell me good things or bad things about Caddies?
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Cadillac initial quality, customer satisfaction and long term reliability are all quite good and getting better every year.
  • bjassinbjassin Member Posts: 5
    Does the SRX have a GVWR greater than 6000 lb??

    Thanks,
    BJ
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    thanks dindak

    that is what I was hoping
  • drivenowdrivenow Member Posts: 45
    Does anyone know if the SRX has power folding mirrors?? When will the dealers have SRX's in stock?
  • raybearraybear Member Posts: 1,795
    I've been promised only two for September, one is to be a demo.

    On the mirror thing, my info says "power" but not "power folding".
Sign In or Register to comment.