According to a recent Wall St. Journal article (10-8-03), here are Sept03's Top Ten hottest vehicles:
Honda Pilot, 9 days on the dealer's lot Mini Cooper, 10 days Sienna, 11 days MB SL Class, 12 days RX330, 12 days CR-V, 13 days Acura TSX, 14 days MDX, 15 days Odyssey, 15 days Quest, 16 days
So 7 out of 10 hottest vehicles are SUVs or Mini-Vans. Only the low-production Mini-Coopers and MB SL Class (average price, $99k) and the brand new Acura TSX break the mold.
by killed the market, i mean that the stigma that used to only be associated with minivans and other older wagons has now officially been granted to the SUV genre, especially the girlie types like the highlander and such.
The SRX should avoid this stigma I think as it has a good performance emphasis and caddy's new image tend to sidestep the appeal that a traditonal 'mommie' would have for the vehicle.
i.e. your typical suburban mom doesn't have a penchant for cadillacs so i think they will steer clear of the SRX.
In fact, any performance SUV like the X5, SRX, Cayenne, FX...should do a good job avoiding soccer mom status because their performance traits don't sit well with that customer base. Although some Cayennes with a v6 and many Toauregs will get nailed with that stigma.
Volvo wagons manage to avoid SM stigma but the XC SUV from Volvo has SM written all over it. The Lexus RX and GX are the new classic SM vehicles.
The SRX has enough attitude to avoid being lumped into the same group as those.
Carguy, RX, Highlander and ML are the girliest. They're the SUV equivalent of a guy driving a VW Beetle.
The SRX is manly. The others are also manly in varying degrees and sizes. Some people like big SUV's for whatever reason.... it's their money, they can buy whatever they like, just like the guy can buy the Girliewagen if he (or more likely his wife) likes.
uhm, I'm not saying specific cars and suv's don't tend to appeal more to one gender or another. I just don't make a deal over it. I don't think what you buy threatens your masculinity if you're secure with yourself. One should buy what one likes with impunity.
This site documents and allows visitors to vote and comment on TV shows past and present that "jumped the shark", that is, the moment your favorite show began to go downhill. In the case of Happy Days, the shark jumping episode is widely regarded as the beginning of the end, although there are other reasons why a show heads south, and people spend a lot of time explaining why on this site. It's a really funny read. Check it out.
ah, thank you. I guess in some way that is what I meant. Now the big push is to 'sport wagons' and I think they will become the 'new hot thing' SM vehicles.
Anyways, if y'all want utility at a great price I just have 4 words....
Chevy AWD Express van.
Sorry to digress a bit, but in some wierd way the SRX seems to escape all those niches......I think the SRX really has appeal now but is tradtional wagon enough so it will also be appealing to people long after the SUV craze has died down.
Remember the old Suburban ads with Tom T. Hall back in the '70s? They called it the "Superwagon".
I have always like wagons and never understood the backlash. They generally got better gas mileage than the truck based vehicles. Their downside was the length. Harder to manuever and park.
The '70s Suburban was the same length as the full size wagons of that time, but offered much more interior room.
The buying public was driven into SUV's by CAFE. Automobiles couldn't pull their boat or haul their stuff so they turned to trucks.
Still don't understand the comments here that the SRX is too long. My reponse is that it is too narrow.
the Volvo wagons aren't driven by soccer moms? Volvo wagons were the FIRST soccer mom vehicle. Dirvn only by reasonably affluent folks in the suburbs - often used for toting kids around. The Volvo wagon was a soccer mom vehicle in the mid-70s, well before anyone was driving a "minivan" and certainly before suburban women were driving SUVs.
as to SUVs being "manly" - don't you realize what every non-SUV driver think when they see a guy step out of an SUV? It's not "man, that car is manly" - it's "that guy must have an inferiority complex, probably about some part of his anatomy"
just like what all non-Camaro/Firebird/Corvette drivers used to think when a guy pulled up in a Camaro/Firebird/Vette, etc.
that's the reality, folks
and that reality is WAY more true than what people think when they see a guy step out ofthe driver's side of a Highlander or Lexus RX.
But the problem is Cadillac is trying to sell it as an SUV which I think clearly it isn't. Personally, I prefer a powerful AWD station wagon like an Audi S6 Avant than a typical body on frame SUV. I think the guy who called this a CTS wagon said it best.
I haven't seen any Caddy commercials yet. If it is as much of an SUV as the Volvo XC90, I will be happy. (I just wish the thing was 10 grand less - well, that's what we all said aboutthe Pacifica)
I'd like to see sales numbers for the SRX, the Pacifica and the XC90 WITHOUT fleet sales figuring in. (Pacificas are being sold into company fleets, which I wouldn't expect for the SRX or XC90)
If they can keep the price south of 50Gs I think it has a good chance of outselling the A6 Avant. GM's quality in general has greatly improved (better than Audi) in the last two years and Cadillac is making a great comeback. Personally, if it were my money I would buy the CTS-V the best bang for the buck four door sedan out there.
I drove both the V8 and V6 models this weekend. The V6 was more than adequate in power, but a bit "throaty" at takeoff. This could have been due to the fact it had 7 miles on it and had yet to be driven out of the lot. The V8 was simply amazing. Stayed planted at any speed. The spaciousness and utility of the interior was better than my RX 300 and former e320 wagon. No comparison in the ride either -- the RX is a pillow, and the MB doesnt have the performance "edge" that the SRX does. The SRX is one of the best all around cars that I have driven, in either form.
I question though, GM's decision to market this against SUV's. It would be much better positioned against the euro and japanese "sport wagons" of which there is no real US alternative. For north of 45 or 50 large ones, the SUV competition is mighty stiff, and may suffer in comparison to those. I have seen the sales education materials and think that GM is not positioning this correctly.
But up against the Audi A6, MB 320, BMW 5...it more than holds its own, except for gas mileage.
I think that Caddy/GM will have to rethink the marketing or slap some incentives on this to really get it moving.
This is like the CTS thread where it took I think 2 months before more than 1 person was an owner. I need to drive the SRX but I think it will be out of my price range. I was looking to stay in the mid 30k range but that seems impossible unless they start offering rebates.
I dropped into a local dealership to see and test drive the SRX (I own a 2003 CTS LuxSport). For a CTS owner, the SRX cockpit is familiar....in fact, a little too familiar. If the SRX is supposed to be a "S" class vehicle as opposed to a "C" class vehicle in terms of the interior, then I would have expected to see something different.
Other interior observations include the adjustable pedals (cool), the dead pedal (wider, very good), wood trimmed dash (ok), and the chrome shift gate (ok, not great). The amount of room for the front seat passengers is literally identical to the CTS except for headroom, which was better. 2nd row room was a lot better than my CTS, but not enough that I could sit behind the seat position I normally use (I could sit behind my wife if she was driving).
But the drive and the ride were really wonderful. I took the V8 AWD out for a short spin and for a current CTS owner, there's a lot to like. The torque of the V8 makes my car seem quite wimpy. And the magnetic suspension allowed for a much smoother ride than I'm used to while still allowing for pretty spririted driving, especially for a wagon/SUV. Yes, you could tell that you had more mass, more ground clearance and a much longer wheelbase so I couldn't quite do all the things I can do with my CTS, but you can do more than any SUV has a right to do.
hey, sevenfeeto: are you really 7 feet tall? And we're supposed to listen to you when you complain about the space in the back seat of the SRX? It's a little tight for you? No duh.
I found the backseat legroom to be excellent due to the fact the seat was so high off the floor. There is noticeably more legroom back there than in a Tahoe/Escalade size vehicle.
Dropped into a Caddy dealer the other day as we're looking to replace our Subie Forester. While waiting for the sales guy I sat in the CTS and was impressed with how far back the driver's seat went. We get in the SRX, V6 and I questioned the salesman about the fact that the CTS sticker said "3.8 liter V6, 260 HP" but the SRX said 3.8 liter V6". "It's the same engine" he said. I asked "is it 260 HP though"? "It's the same engine. So I still don't know. On the test drive he wouldn't let me take it on the freeway, (they're located on the Interstate), but had me keep it on side streets with a maximum speed limit of 50. Coming away from 2 lights I goosed it a bit and he said "lots of pick-up, huh?" Actually it was about equal to our Forester. Was it just me, or just this car?
Also I noticed the driver's seat didn't go back as far as the CTS. I didn't try all heights to see if I could get my right leg really comfortable. Their V8 demo was out on an extended test drive, I offered to wait but he said it would be over an hour. I said well I guess I'll go check out the Audi instead, he seemed pretty disinterested in selling me a car. BTW I'm mid 50s so I'm pretty close to the typical Cadillac demographic. What gives? Bad salesman, bad car, bad seat switch? I really want to like this car, even though it's a bit pricey IMO.
Usually on SUV's the seat travel is less because the seat is higher off the floor, making up the difference. CTS and SRX numbers are about the same although the SRX may have a few tenths less. I usually rock the seat bottom up and angle the seatback back a little. Gets me extra legroom and more thigh support.
Should say 3.6L. 260 hp in SRX, 255 hp in CTS. Good low end and midrange torque. SRX weighs over 400lbs more than CTS so it will be slower.
We have had our SRX three days. I am 6'2" and have never had so much leg room in a vehicle. In fact, I have to move the seat forward a bit before I programmed in my automatic seat settings. Also, plenty of headroom. My wife has had at least five previous Caddies (Devilles and Eldorados}{all leased for three years)and this baby rides as smooth as all the aforementioned. It does take a bit of patience to get used to all the computerized settings that are available. I read the manual, the salesman took over a half hour showing her how everything can be programmed.,.. and we are still trying to figure out some of it.I am certain that in a few more days we will have everything under control. I feel like I am looking at the cockpit controls of a 747. All in all, after 500 miles or so, we are completely satisfied with our SRX.
Bz4 is right, I'm 6'11" tall (I played bball at Yale 20 years ago). With a 40" inseam, my legs are more like someone who's about 7'1", so leg room and knee room in a car is crucial. For example, I can't drive an Escalade since I don't have enough knee room to properly use the column mounted shifter.
My comments about the rear seat room of the SRX should be taken in the context of how tall I am. I would not like to spend any time in the rear seat of my CTS, but I can be confortable in the rear seat of an SRX, especially with the seat height advantage. The only comment I was making is that I still can't sit behind the driver's seat if I adjust that seat for how I normally sit. But since it's highly unlikely I'd be sitting behind someone else my height in a vehicle these days (unlike 20 years ago), this point shouldn't be over-emphasized.
And I found the leg and knee room of the driver's seat to be pretty much identical to my CTS, which is fine by me, although I would have enjoyed a little more seat travel. The instrument cluster and dash is virtually identical to the CTS except the upscale wood-trimmed version. The center console has the new chrome finish and the center cup holders and storage are different. The car seems to have a tad more shoulder room at the doors.
The Ultraview sunroof was way cool and I had it open for the entire test drive. There is a large air dam that flips up to prevent the air from dropping into that massive space too quickly. It's a sunroof that front and rear passengers can equally enjoy.
I agree with Edmunds writers that stepping out of the vehicle in bad weather is bound to dirty your pants leg since it's almost impossible not to hit the side of the car while exiting the vehicle. This is the one place where it's obvious of the difference in width between the SRX and the CTS. I'm not sure what can be done about this outside of reducing the flare or creating a step board, something few if any vehicles in this car as saddled with.
seven: I hope you didn't take any offense at my comments. None was intended.
I just got back from a test drive of the V6 SRX. First, let's be clear. The SRX is not a 3 (or even a 5 series ) BMW. It does feel like a larger car. Not a boat, but certainly not a nifty little roadster. But we all knew that.
The V6 I drove was basic, in that it did not have a sunroof, third seat, nav system or magneto suspension. Still, it was a great drive. I preferred the drive to the XC90 (though there may be other reasons to choose the XC90 over the SRX).
Pickup was excellent. Hard to imagine that Windy's Forester has better pickup. Why anyone needs more pickup than the SRX has is beyond me, however. I had no trobule getting from 0-30 quickly; from 30-50 quickly; etc. This is not your daddy's cadillac (actually, MY daddy's Cadillac was a mid-70s rocket - the first second or two it sort of hung around the launch pad, but after that you got into orbit pretty quick).
I drove some twisty hills and found the handling very good. Not excellent, but I didn't expect it to be a sports car. It certainly is better than any truck-based SUV. It felt better on the twists than the XC90 did. I haven't driven the XC70 or the V70R, so I can't compare it to those.
The drive was stiffer than I expected. I hit a drainage gully (peculiar to the western states, I think) and it did feel a little "trucky" going over it - not smooth and "boaty" as I would have expected. I believe the magneto suspension will help over things like that. It's not like I bottomed out, however, and I did not bounce up off the seat. It was just stiff going down and coming up.
Fit and finish inside were excellent. I crawled around three on the lot (to check out the sunroof; to check out the third seat) and everything seemed well put together. No loose knobs. No lousy seams on the leather. No rattles while I drove.
I must admit that the third seat is a joke. There is no place for your legs to go. Literally, you sit approx.'ly 3 inches higher than the floor. Not that I expected to, but there's no way a 6 foot adult is sitting back there. I doubt whether my 5' 7" wife will sit there, but we'll try that next week. Smallish kids shoudl be fine, at least around town. Even the XC90 third seat is not big enough for a kid for more than an hour drive. And even that might be tough. Looks liek the only way to get a decent third seat is to go the SUV route. Oh well.
And when you use the third seat there is little room behind it for stuff. 7 or 8 brown bags of groceries, or maybe two typical sports duffles. Again, this is NOT an SUV or minivan, so there isn't much room left over if you are in three-seat mode.
Head room is generous. But Seven told you all you need to know on that score.
As to luxury, I need to sit in more Mercedes and BMWs before I weigh in on that. I found the interior to be just fine. Certainly a nice step up from my Chrysler Sebring Convertible. Am a little worried that the very cool looking plastic grid-patterned stuff on the dash will colelct dirt/dust and start looking poorly. We'll see. Otherwise, very clean lines.
I'd really like to take a test drive in the snow.
I drove it in Menol Park, CA. The dealer there suggested we go tot he freeway, but I wanted hills and twists and turns. I am sure any Caddy is gonna be great on the highway, so I didn't need to check that on the first drive.
While in the show room I saw an XLR. THAT is a sweet ride. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I found it way sexier than my buddy's Porsche.
seven: ditto on the door sill - very odd. Tehre must be a lot of stuff in that door to warrant such a large sill. If you are having trouble with it, imainge someone who is 5' 7" or so.
I looked at the SRX the other day and really liked just about everything but the width. My golf clubs will not fit in the back any way but diagonally with the second row seat up. This will probably stop me from buying this vehicle.
Between the V6 and V8 powered versions? Since I am a horsepower junkie, I would probably end up buying the V8. How much should I expect to pay for a decently loaded V8 (RWD) with Magna ride and Nav system after all the wheeling and dealing? Btw, even though many people call it a station wagon it is a good looking station wagon in my opinion.
You can't get Magnaride or Nav with RWD, according to Edmunds. You can't get 'em with the V6 either. Another example of the crazy option package restrictions we're seeing these days. Actually, the V8 RWD with NO options looks pretty attractive to me, although my wife would demand a sunroof, which is pretty pricey.
I've put 1000 miles on my V8 AWD loaded SRX and I love my car! My 2000 Corvette has not left the garage for 30 days now, I'm sure it will be back, but I look for reasons to drive places! The car does so many things well, but it's so smooth and strong feeling, the stereo sounds so good, it just is fun to drive. My biggest gripe is the dumb way you have to toggle through 9 or 10 other things to read any single information item...like trip odo, or clock, or any gage besides fuel...it's just really mind boggling how dumb that design decision was...that complaint aside, this is a very satisfying car. The nav system works well and is simple to use, I'm getting 15 mpg in the city and I nail the gas regularly. I love the growl it makes from 5000 to 6500 rpm where it shifts, I also like that it downshifts two or even three gears when you ask for full power. I have a three year lease so when the "new and improved" and hopefully V series is ready, I will be also.
Just bought mine today, but won't pick it up until Monday. One curious comment: I chose the V8 AWD Luxury Performance Package which includes the Ultraview power moonroof. I wanted the XM satellite radio which was listed as being a part of this package, but the dealer said that Cadillac hasn't figured out how to mount the XM antenna system on the moonroof models. They are currently only offering XM on the models without moonroofs! Anyone know anything more about this?
My understanding is that you CAN get XM satellite radio if you DON'T get the back 3rd-seat sunroof. Here on Edmunds under pricing options it states quite plainly that U2K (the code for XM Satellite Radio) is "NOT AVAILABLE with C3B."
If you then look up C3B, you'll find it's the UltraView PLUS (all caps mine) Power Glass Sunroof. However, if you just select CF5, or "UltraView Power Glass Sunroof" you can get XM Satellite Radio.
The only difference between the two sunroof options is that the PLUS simply includes that window over the 3rd-row seat. Presumably, that's where the XM antenna goes.
For my own part, I don't much care about a 3rd-row sunroof, so I'll take XM.
By the way, if this news has surprised you and you feel misled by your salesman, let him know first thing and maybe he'll make good (in some way, at least).
Hope this was helpful. I don't own this car, by the way (I'm just looking), but that's what my study has turned up. Perhaps people who actually DO own the car will answer differently?
Comments
Infiniti FX35/45 vs VW Touareg vs Porsche Cayenne vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX
Steve, Host
I see all those guys in the wife's highlander and think, "dude, that can't be what YOU wanted to buy!".
SRX is macho enough so the man can still be the man.
The SUV market is alive and well with sales now up to 27% of all new vehicle purchases.
I would have thought and hoped, however, that the demeaning and offensive "soccer mom" label would have been put out of its misery.
tidester, host
Not gonna happen when it comes to SUV's, which are always shown doing manly things in commercials.
I think the same thing as Reg when I see a guy driving a girlie SUV like the Highlander, RX and ML... "Dude must have had a testosteronectomy."
Honda Pilot, 9 days on the dealer's lot
Mini Cooper, 10 days
Sienna, 11 days
MB SL Class, 12 days
RX330, 12 days
CR-V, 13 days
Acura TSX, 14 days
MDX, 15 days
Odyssey, 15 days
Quest, 16 days
So 7 out of 10 hottest vehicles are SUVs or Mini-Vans. Only the low-production Mini-Coopers and MB SL Class (average price, $99k) and the brand new Acura TSX break the mold.
The SRX should avoid this stigma I think as it has a good performance emphasis and caddy's new image tend to sidestep the appeal that a traditonal 'mommie' would have for the vehicle.
i.e. your typical suburban mom doesn't have a penchant for cadillacs so i think they will steer clear of the SRX.
In fact, any performance SUV like the X5, SRX, Cayenne, FX...should do a good job avoiding soccer mom status because their performance traits don't sit well with that customer base. Although some Cayennes with a v6 and many Toauregs will get nailed with that stigma.
Volvo wagons manage to avoid SM stigma but the XC SUV from Volvo has SM written all over it. The Lexus RX and GX are the new classic SM vehicles.
The SRX has enough attitude to avoid being lumped into the same group as those.
....not that there's anything wrong with that (station wagons).
RX, Highlander and ML are the girliest. They're the SUV equivalent of a guy driving a VW Beetle.
The SRX is manly. The others are also manly in varying degrees and sizes. Some people like big SUV's for whatever reason.... it's their money, they can buy whatever they like, just like the guy can buy the Girliewagen if he (or more likely his wife) likes.
You're welcome.
I don't think subjectivity comes into it at all when comparing the manliness levels of a H2 vs. a Highlander. It's pretty darn obvious.
Anyway, in the question of station wagon vs. SUV for the SRX... IMO it looks the SUV part as well as any of the others in its class.
"jumped the shark."
You mean like Happy Days was never quite the same after the episode in which Fonzie jumped over a shark with water skis?
tidester, host
http://www.jumptheshark.com
This site documents and allows visitors to vote and comment on TV shows past and present that "jumped the shark", that is, the moment your favorite show began to go downhill. In the case of Happy Days, the shark jumping episode is widely regarded as the beginning of the end, although there are other reasons why a show heads south, and people spend a lot of time explaining why on this site. It's a really funny read. Check it out.
Anyways, if y'all want utility at a great price I just have 4 words....
Chevy AWD Express van.
Sorry to digress a bit, but in some wierd way the SRX seems to escape all those niches......I think the SRX really has appeal now but is tradtional wagon enough so it will also be appealing to people long after the SUV craze has died down.
They called it the "Superwagon".
I have always like wagons and never understood the backlash.
They generally got better gas mileage than the
truck based vehicles.
Their downside was the length.
Harder to manuever and park.
The '70s Suburban was the same length as the full size wagons of that time, but offered much more interior room.
The buying public was driven into SUV's by CAFE.
Automobiles couldn't pull their boat or haul their stuff so they turned to trucks.
Still don't understand the comments here that the SRX is too long.
My reponse is that it is too narrow.
as to SUVs being "manly" - don't you realize what every non-SUV driver think when they see a guy step out of an SUV? It's not "man, that car is manly" - it's "that guy must have an inferiority complex, probably about some part of his anatomy"
just like what all non-Camaro/Firebird/Corvette drivers used to think when a guy pulled up in a Camaro/Firebird/Vette, etc.
that's the reality, folks
and that reality is WAY more true than what people think when they see a guy step out ofthe driver's side of a Highlander or Lexus RX.
Now, that said, I also wonder about "compensating" when I see a woman driving one of the behemoths.
I'd like to see sales numbers for the SRX, the Pacifica and the XC90 WITHOUT fleet sales figuring in. (Pacificas are being sold into company fleets, which I wouldn't expect for the SRX or XC90)
I question though, GM's decision to market this against SUV's. It would be much better positioned against the euro and japanese "sport wagons" of which there is no real US alternative. For north of 45 or 50 large ones, the SUV competition is mighty stiff, and may suffer in comparison to those. I have seen the sales education materials and think that GM is not positioning this correctly.
But up against the Audi A6, MB 320, BMW 5...it more than holds its own, except for gas mileage.
I think that Caddy/GM will have to rethink the marketing or slap some incentives on this to really get it moving.
just a theory
Other interior observations include the adjustable pedals (cool), the dead pedal (wider, very good), wood trimmed dash (ok), and the chrome shift gate (ok, not great). The amount of room for the front seat passengers is literally identical to the CTS except for headroom, which was better. 2nd row room was a lot better than my CTS, but not enough that I could sit behind the seat position I normally use (I could sit behind my wife if she was driving).
But the drive and the ride were really wonderful. I took the V8 AWD out for a short spin and for a current CTS owner, there's a lot to like. The torque of the V8 makes my car seem quite wimpy. And the magnetic suspension allowed for a much smoother ride than I'm used to while still allowing for pretty spririted driving, especially for a wagon/SUV. Yes, you could tell that you had more mass, more ground clearance and a much longer wheelbase so I couldn't quite do all the things I can do with my CTS, but you can do more than any SUV has a right to do.
I found the backseat legroom to be excellent due to the fact the seat was so high off the floor.
There is noticeably more legroom back there than in a Tahoe/Escalade size vehicle.
I am 6'8".
the leg room, not your height
though that is impressive, too, of course
:-)
I just found it funny that a really big guy would complain about the leg room/head room, when of course it is likely to be tight for a man of his size
that data is not very relevant to most folks
now, if he fond the leg room to be good (as you did) THAT is relevant data to the rest of us
We get in the SRX, V6 and I questioned the salesman about the fact that the CTS sticker said "3.8 liter V6, 260 HP" but the SRX said 3.8 liter V6". "It's the same engine" he said. I asked "is it 260 HP though"? "It's the same engine. So I still don't know.
On the test drive he wouldn't let me take it on the freeway, (they're located on the Interstate), but had me keep it on side streets with a maximum speed limit of 50. Coming away from 2 lights I goosed it a bit and he said "lots of pick-up, huh?" Actually it was about equal to our Forester.
Was it just me, or just this car?
Also I noticed the driver's seat didn't go back as far as the CTS. I didn't try all heights to see if I could get my right leg really comfortable.
Their V8 demo was out on an extended test drive, I offered to wait but he said it would be over an hour. I said well I guess I'll go check out the Audi instead, he seemed pretty disinterested in selling me a car. BTW I'm mid 50s so I'm pretty close to the typical Cadillac demographic.
What gives? Bad salesman, bad car, bad seat switch? I really want to like this car, even though it's a bit pricey IMO.
CTS and SRX numbers are about the same although the SRX may have a few tenths less.
I usually rock the seat bottom up and angle the seatback back a little.
Gets me extra legroom and more thigh support.
Should say 3.6L. 260 hp in SRX, 255 hp in CTS.
Good low end and midrange torque.
SRX weighs over 400lbs more than CTS so it will be slower.
My wife has had at least five previous Caddies (Devilles and Eldorados}{all leased for three years)and this baby rides as smooth as all the aforementioned.
It does take a bit of patience to get used to all the computerized settings that are available. I read the manual, the salesman took over a half hour showing her how everything can be programmed.,.. and we are still trying to figure out some of it.I am certain that in a few more days we will have everything under control. I feel like I am looking at the cockpit controls of a 747.
All in all, after 500 miles or so, we are completely satisfied with our SRX.
My comments about the rear seat room of the SRX should be taken in the context of how tall I am. I would not like to spend any time in the rear seat of my CTS, but I can be confortable in the rear seat of an SRX, especially with the seat height advantage. The only comment I was making is that I still can't sit behind the driver's seat if I adjust that seat for how I normally sit. But since it's highly unlikely I'd be sitting behind someone else my height in a vehicle these days (unlike 20 years ago), this point shouldn't be over-emphasized.
And I found the leg and knee room of the driver's seat to be pretty much identical to my CTS, which is fine by me, although I would have enjoyed a little more seat travel. The instrument cluster and dash is virtually identical to the CTS except the upscale wood-trimmed version. The center console has the new chrome finish and the center cup holders and storage are different. The car seems to have a tad more shoulder room at the doors.
The Ultraview sunroof was way cool and I had it open for the entire test drive. There is a large air dam that flips up to prevent the air from dropping into that massive space too quickly. It's a sunroof that front and rear passengers can equally enjoy.
I agree with Edmunds writers that stepping out of the vehicle in bad weather is bound to dirty your pants leg since it's almost impossible not to hit the side of the car while exiting the vehicle. This is the one place where it's obvious of the difference in width between the SRX and the CTS. I'm not sure what can be done about this outside of reducing the flare or creating a step board, something few if any vehicles in this car as saddled with.
I just got back from a test drive of the V6 SRX. First, let's be clear. The SRX is not a 3 (or even a 5 series ) BMW. It does feel like a larger car. Not a boat, but certainly not a nifty little roadster. But we all knew that.
The V6 I drove was basic, in that it did not have a sunroof, third seat, nav system or magneto suspension. Still, it was a great drive. I preferred the drive to the XC90 (though there may be other reasons to choose the XC90 over the SRX).
Pickup was excellent. Hard to imagine that Windy's Forester has better pickup. Why anyone needs more pickup than the SRX has is beyond me, however. I had no trobule getting from 0-30 quickly; from 30-50 quickly; etc. This is not your daddy's cadillac (actually, MY daddy's Cadillac was a mid-70s rocket - the first second or two it sort of hung around the launch pad, but after that you got into orbit pretty quick).
I drove some twisty hills and found the handling very good. Not excellent, but I didn't expect it to be a sports car. It certainly is better than any truck-based SUV. It felt better on the twists than the XC90 did. I haven't driven the XC70 or the V70R, so I can't compare it to those.
The drive was stiffer than I expected. I hit a drainage gully (peculiar to the western states, I think) and it did feel a little "trucky" going over it - not smooth and "boaty" as I would have expected. I believe the magneto suspension will help over things like that. It's not like I bottomed out, however, and I did not bounce up off the seat. It was just stiff going down and coming up.
Fit and finish inside were excellent. I crawled around three on the lot (to check out the sunroof; to check out the third seat) and everything seemed well put together. No loose knobs. No lousy seams on the leather. No rattles while I drove.
I must admit that the third seat is a joke. There is no place for your legs to go. Literally, you sit approx.'ly 3 inches higher than the floor. Not that I expected to, but there's no way a 6 foot adult is sitting back there. I doubt whether my 5' 7" wife will sit there, but we'll try that next week. Smallish kids shoudl be fine, at least around town. Even the XC90 third seat is not big enough for a kid for more than an hour drive. And even that might be tough. Looks liek the only way to get a decent third seat is to go the SUV route. Oh well.
And when you use the third seat there is little room behind it for stuff. 7 or 8 brown bags of groceries, or maybe two typical sports duffles. Again, this is NOT an SUV or minivan, so there isn't much room left over if you are in three-seat mode.
Head room is generous. But Seven told you all you need to know on that score.
As to luxury, I need to sit in more Mercedes and BMWs before I weigh in on that. I found the interior to be just fine. Certainly a nice step up from my Chrysler Sebring Convertible. Am a little worried that the very cool looking plastic grid-patterned stuff on the dash will colelct dirt/dust and start looking poorly. We'll see. Otherwise, very clean lines.
I'd really like to take a test drive in the snow.
I drove it in Menol Park, CA. The dealer there suggested we go tot he freeway, but I wanted hills and twists and turns. I am sure any Caddy is gonna be great on the highway, so I didn't need to check that on the first drive.
While in the show room I saw an XLR. THAT is a sweet ride. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I found it way sexier than my buddy's Porsche.
just about everything but the width. My golf clubs will not fit in the back any way but diagonally with the second row seat up. This will probably stop me from buying this vehicle.
If you then look up C3B, you'll find it's the UltraView PLUS (all caps mine) Power Glass Sunroof. However, if you just select CF5, or "UltraView Power Glass Sunroof" you can get XM Satellite Radio.
The only difference between the two sunroof options is that the PLUS simply includes that window over the 3rd-row seat. Presumably, that's where the XM antenna goes.
For my own part, I don't much care about a 3rd-row sunroof, so I'll take XM.
By the way, if this news has surprised you and you feel misled by your salesman, let him know first thing and maybe he'll make good (in some way, at least).
Hope this was helpful. I don't own this car, by the way (I'm just looking), but that's what my study has turned up. Perhaps people who actually DO own the car will answer differently?
Very best,
David G.