Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Cadillac SRX



  • arennarenn Posts: 35
    I was reading the Journal today and saw a GM article pitching $4000 cash back or 5 years @ 0% financing. However, I noticed that the Cadillac division was not represented here. I consider this a good sign, though I hear that there are all sorts of "conquest discounts" and the like you can pick up on the CTS. Holding the line on retail is one of the things you've got to do to boost resale value, which is something Caddy has to address if they want to be competitive with the likes of BMW. Although I think Caddy should look to boost sales, I'd keep output on some of these cars at least somewhat restricted to avoid inventory and discounted dumping problems.
  • wulf007wulf007 Posts: 20
    Talked to the manager of the local dealership where I have been dickering over a new Escalade. I wanted an SRX but when the projected price hit $50k with V8 and AWD I decided I'd rather have the Escalade for a little more $, bad mileage and all. Anyway the Manager echos rerenov8rs post #27. Cadillac wants to position itself in the high end market and would rather sell less cars at a higher price if it helps get them there. Thanks to good reviews and the new JD Power survey, they plan to move Escalade prices closer to the Lexus Gx470 and drop the SRX in the Escalades old price range. Since they are two different types of vehicle I don't know how that would work. Cadillac plans on pricing the new CTS-V also around $50k to compete with BMW M-3 and 545 and MBZ E55. Again, not sure about this strategy because not too many G35 buyers will want to spend an extra $15k or more to trade up and I don't think enough BMW or MBZ buyers will switch over. Cadillac has made great strides, but I'm not sure they are quite at the higher end BMW-MBZ level yet. But they are apparently willing to wait a couple of years to see if the strategy pays off. So unfortunately for all of us they plan to start high and stay there. Now if the economy tanks that would be another story.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Cadillac is the jewel of GM, and the only think sparkling in their display case, IMO, but moving that far up-market (and they really are, by the way) may backfire. However, this is a typical GM strategy.....

    How much sense does it make to re-price your cars dramatically up, in a soft economy, while running ads that say, "We're sorry for our past" ?
  • adp3adp3 Posts: 446
    Cadillac has no prayer of selling 30,000 50K cars unless the economy makes some significant strides in the positive direction. Two years ago, Cadillac would be ramping up to sell 60,000 of these easy.

    I am hoping for a positive ecnonmic turn, but if that causes Cadillac to stick to its 50k price target, I think I'll take "mild recession" for another 6 months. (Sincerest apologies to any of who might be having trouble finding work these days.)
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Posts: 380
    The link I posted earlier in the thread (to the GM Medi Room announcement on SRX pricing) only mentions that the SRX will start at $37995 for RWD V6 & $46300 for RWD V8(plus $695 freight on either).

    Concievably they could add A LOT of accessories/options to 37995 and keep it a) under the competition & b) under $50K... The V8 is supposed to come out first though, and I think that is a HORRIBLE strategy...

    It will be very very very interesting to see what the mix of V8/V6/awd/rwd comes out to & what the totals look like 30000/52 weeks/ 6 selling days/1551 dealers = .06 car per day per dealer OR 360 days /year * .06 c/d/d == 1 car every 22 days at every Caddy dealer -- seems VERY VERY VERY achievable.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    "the driving experience alone should make it a desirable choice among midsize luxury SUVs"

    First Drive: 2004 Cadillac SRX

    Steve, Host
  • arennarenn Posts: 35
    Perhaps it's a bit unfair of me to rail on Edmunds for a column that is a review of a particular car instead of a comparison of cars in a particular class (particular a review that was generally very positive), but it seems to me that this article is emblematic of the "can't buy a break" attitude the auto press gives to American manufacturers. In particular, anywhere the SRX is inferior to some other vehicle in any respect (including vehicles not even in its class, such as the Lincoln Aviator), that's treated as a ding against Cadillac. OTOH, when Caddy is clearly superior to a competitor, that's rarely treated as a ding against the competing vehicle. Indeed, we're rarely ever told if Caddy is superior to any other vehicle.

    The first exhibit is how the interior materials of the Caddy are not up to par versus BMW or Lexus. Fair enough. I don't doubt that it's true, given the history of poor quality interiors in GM cars. It's disappointing, but we can face the harsh reality.

    But where the Caddy shines, we don't see where it really stacks up against the competition. For example, the Lexus RX 330 is front wheel drive. Imagine for a minute if the SRX were front wheel drive. The rags would be raking Caddy over the coals for not getting it and showing how the X5 kicks its tail. What does Edmunds have to say about the SRX versus the front wheel drive Lexus? "Those accustomed to the soft ride of a Lexus RX 300 or 330 may find it a tad stiff over bumps, but such is the payoff for the Cadillac's handling acuity" I doubt anyone would ever compare a BMW to a Buick by saying those used to the latter's "soft ride" might find the Bimmer "a tad stiff". It's impossible to say from this review if the SRX even out handles the Lexus, Infiniti BMW (or any other car) because Edmunds doesn't tell us. It only tells us that the Cadillac is very good. You can bet that if it fell short versus one of these models, we'd be hearing about it, just as we heard about the lack of hip room versus the Lincoln Aviator (???????)

    The general tone of the article is the same throughout. Where Caddy is lacking, versus any vehicle the writer could dredge up, we are told so. When Caddy scores well, it is simply said how the Caddy is good, without reference to superiority versus any other vehicle. (The third row seating is a notable example).

    I would have preferred more consistent treatment and a real analysis of how the SRX stacks up against competition in its class.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    Try the feeback form.

    tidester, host
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Well, reviews are reviews, but sales are sales. Now some people are totally influenced by what the magazines say, like those who think the sun rises and sets on Consumer Report ratings. Others of us, make up our own mind by trying the car out. If the car sells, it's good. If it doesn't last, the initial review doesn't deal with that anyway. I've seen some great reviews on cars that were junk. GM & Ford can't please the auto mags, no matter what they put out. It's just not possible these days.
  • libertycatlibertycat Posts: 593
    That is very cool you got to see a SRX. I guess I don't understand how the dealer convention thing worked. Did it have lots of wood trim inside? Also, does anyone know if the SRX has a third row seat. I really hope it does as this is an important feature to many including me.
  • rerenov8rrerenov8r Posts: 380
    It is power operated ala the Lincolns. I believe one or two reviewers have said the motor/gearing of the seat stow/deploy was a bit poky and not manually overridable -- I wonder if they will make an effort to change this before full production...
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    The vehicle isn't out yet so you won't likely see a direct comparison test yet. That said, I have seen many reports stating that initial feelings are very good so we will see. The CTS has sold way ahead of projections and continues to do so. I think it boads well for SRX.
  • carnaughtcarnaught 'zonaPosts: 2,404
    Yes, the SRX seemed to have more wood decor in the interior than the CTS, for example. In general, the interior textures were interesting and well done and appeared higher level than the CTS. The only thing that might be holding me back on one is that the car looks too much like a station wagon, rather than an SUV or crossover. In fact, it specifically looks like a CTS station wagon. Nothing "wrong" with that other than the fact that wagons are not "in" now.
  • adp3adp3 Posts: 446
    I'm not sure about that. In the SF Bay Area, it's been pretty tough to buy the Passat wagon (though the economic slow down has made it easier, I'm sure). And the A6 wagon appears to be "in." Still seem to be seeing lots of Volvo wagons around. I think it's just a (slight) return to sanity from the SUV crzae. "oh, yeah, we never went off-road, barely used the 4wd capacity, it drove like a truck, and we paid how much more for it than a nice wagon?" OUCH! I wonder if one of these days Subaru will come out with an ad that features all the "cross-overs" and says "they're all trying to be like me - the original cross over - just as comfortable on road as off-road - and for $20,000 less"


    of course, you couldn't get leather in a Subaru five years ago, could you
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    There's leather in my '97 Subaru.

    I'm not crazy about it, but it's there. Nice to know my Outback is now a cutting edge crossover vehicle too!

    Steve, Host
  • arennarenn Posts: 35
    I just noticed that above I should have written that the third row seating was a notable exception, not an example.

    BTW: I agree the SRX looks a lot like a wagon, at least in photos. I've yet to see one up close.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    The SRX is very much a crossover, it's much taller than an average wagon. I saw it at the Toronto Auto Show in February. It looks less like a wagon than the Pacifica but yes I do see some wagon in the SRX also.
  • drivenowdrivenow Posts: 45
    Does anyone have a link to ordering guides on this fine vehicle...I'm surprised that my dealer knows very little about this vehicle which is reported to appear in showrooms in late summer!
  • carnaughtcarnaught 'zonaPosts: 2,404
    and SRX in person, they BOTH look equally like station wagons......more than SUV's. The SRX is fairly low to the ground. IMHO, the Volvo XC90 looks more SUV in comparison.
  • adp3adp3 Posts: 446
    Carnaught: that's "good" in my book - I want the lower center of gravity, better driveability, better ingress/egress for me and my passengers.
  • carnaughtcarnaught 'zonaPosts: 2,404
    Then I believe it has what you want......
  • adp3adp3 Posts: 446
    not sure yet - we'll see what happens after it hits the road. I'm not sure I'm ready to drive a Cadillac. ugh. It seems to scream "conspicuous consumption" but it does seem to offer more of what I want. If only the Rendezvous had better reliability ratings.

    I have not seen any mpg ratings on the SRX, though the claims for the RWD version were very good (over 26 highway, if I recall right). If the AWD version cracks 21/22, I'd be happy.

    And I still need to see how good the third seat is. Am hoping it is equal to the Volvo XC90. I don't need a full blown third seat. I'd rather have a smaller car than a full third seat, but I want more than those rear-facing Volvo seats.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    No way you'll get 21 MPG out of this thing....
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    I will guarantee you it will get at least 21 mpg highway.
    It weighs about the same as the trailblazer, but is lower to the ground and has a smaller frontal area.
  • crj1crj1 Posts: 70
    I am new to this forum but not edmunds, my wife is a manager at GM and got a SRX as her test vehicle for the next 3 months, let me just say after driving it for 2 days that it is Awesome! Probably the best vehicle I have ever driven, and I have driven a bunch because I work in the auto industry also. Its very quiet and refined, she has the AWD V8 and its black. It has the power 3rd row seat, Bose stereo with DVD and indash Lcd screen, power adjustable pedals, Onstar, real wood trim, HID headlights and much more. It drives much better than the Escalade that she had and it is very fast also, there is quiet a bit of room inside.

  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    But what powerplant? My brother in law has a trailblazer BTW, and he gets 17 max in town.
  • orwoodyorwoody Posts: 269
    Our 1993 Lsi came std with Leather. It also had adjustable lift. We bought it because it had all the options of the Camry/Maxima(my wife was certain she had to have) plus AWD, adj height... for $3k-$4k less. We got it for $5k off it's MSRP. ($18000 in 1993 when loaded C/M were $25+ to $28k)
    The Caddy SRX and XLR are the first two caddies I've wanted to sit in since the 59 Coupe DeVille a neighbor bought used when I was much younger. I'm still quite a ways from Cadillac's avg buyer's age; but I may be tempted to trade the Denali in a year or two.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    trailblazer is only available with the 4200Vortec.
    with 275 hp. 17 mpg in the city is pretty good and what I would expect from a 42-4400 lb vehicle.

    Trailblazers are available with 3 different axle ratios which will also effect mileage. 3.42, 3.73 and 4.10. And if it is 4wd gas mileage will be worse.

    The CTS will be rated at 26 mpg on the highway and weighs 3600lbs. The SRX weighs 6-800 lbs more and has the same engine. So it should be able to do 21 mpg no problem on the highway.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Keep us up to date on how the test run goes.
Sign In or Register to comment.