The perfect blend of performance, comfort, and utility? (V6 and V8 reviewed)
Written: Oct 03 '03 (Updated Jun 22 '05)
Product Rating:
Pros: Power (V8), Handling (magnetic shocks), ride, first and second row comfort
Cons: Option packaging, handling could be sharper, third row comfort, pricing
The Bottom Line: An excellent all-around vehicle, but I'd personally prefer firmer steering and quicker handling. Especially with options the prices are too high.
Are you a driving enthusiast with a family? Then a high performance European station wagon is probably the way to go. But maybe a station wagon just isn’t your style. Then you’re going to have to compromise. Either stick with a sedan, or give up a great deal in the handling department with an SUV.
That is, until the recent appearance of “crossover” vehicles combining the chassis dynamics of a sport sedan with the utility of an SUV. At least that’s the claim. In the performance realm, the BMW X5 was arguably the first of these, owing to its 5-Series roots, but it has the height, upright driving position, and trucky character of a true SUV. The Acura MDX that appeared about the same time drives more like a minivan than a sport sedan. The suspension of Volvo’s XC90 is even soggier, with copious lean and understeer in hard turns. Chrysler’s Pacifica leans less, but feels a bit ponderous when pushed. This brings us to the first crossover with the character of a sport sedan—Infiniti’s FX, introduced halfway through the 2003 model year. Well, the Infiniti stands taller than a car, is available with all-wheel-drive, and has a rear cargo area, but utility isn’t exactly its long suit. If you want to haul a bunch of stuff, or simply need a third row of seats, then you can cross it off your list.
This leaves one last hope: Cadillac’s new SRX. With a standard 260-horsepower 3.6-liter V6 and available 320-horsepower 4.6-liter V8, the SRX promises strong accelearation. With the same chassis as the CTS sport sedan, it promises entertaining handling. And, a third row is optional.
To find out if the SRX is the best choice yet for a driving enthusiast with a family, I took two for a test drive: a moderately equipped rear-wheel-drive V6 and a fully loaded all-wheel-drive V8.
Cadillac SRX Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Cadillac SRX rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
The SRX looks much like what it is, a tall CTS wagon with a mild suspension lift. That said, I do not care for Cadillac’s stealth fighter aesthetic as much here. Draped over a tall wagon package, it simply looks boxy from any angle, and especially from the rear. Not at all ugly, but bordering on plain, especially compared to the FX and even the Pacifica. The proportions also don’t seem right. To obtain a weight distribution near 50/50, the passenger compartment sits significantly further aft on the chassis than the typical SUV, and the front end as a result appears unusually long. A very fast A-pillar that curves gently into the roof enhances this effect and generally looks out of place on such a boxy design. Maybe it will grow on me over time?
The V6 comes with 17-inch alloys, the V8 with 18s. Either looks okay, though with such tall flat bodysides bigger is better. A nursery I drive past often always has an SRX with aftermarket 20-inch five-spoke alloys parked out front. (I assume it's the owners.) I never fail to be impressed by how great this SUV looks with those wheels. GM should offer similar wheels from the factory. I'm guessing that when the SRX was being designed the designers had such large wheels in mind.
Inside the resemblance to the CTS is even stronger. The CTS’s instrument panel, complete with its prominent, PC-like center stack, has been carried over with only one significant alteration: the face of said center stack is now trimmed in wood. Myself, I prefer the lesser amount of wood in the CTS. I like the high-tech character of this instrument panel more than most people. My major issue with the SRX’s interior, as with the CTS’s, concerns the door panels. The pebble-textured material that covers these is actually soft to the touch, but looks like cheap hard plastic. Overall, the materials are roughly in line with those you’ll find in the Infiniti FX and Volvo XC90, but well behind those in the Lexus RX 330 and BMW X5.
Accommodations
Unusually for an SUV, the SRX’s instrument panel is mounted high relative to the driver’s seat. Usually I prefer the latter in its lowest position, but here I raised it an inch or two to avoid feeling buried in the car. The steering wheel only tilts, but telescoping pedals are part of the luxury package (standard on the V8). Even with the seat raised it remains significantly lower than in the typical SUV, lending the SRX a sportier feel while still providing a less obstructed view in traffic than in a typical car. The console-mounted gear shifter is a bit low for optimum comfort. The knob that tops it could be more comfortably shaped.
The large, moderately firm front seats (also much like those in the CTS) are generally comfortable and supportive in all directions. However, after a few miles my lower back put in a request for more lumbar support—and this is not adjustable. The CTS only gained the adjustable lumbar—as an option—in its second model year. In a few months this feature will become optional on the V6 and standard on the V8.
The second row seat is a pleasant surprise. In sharp contrast to traditional GM practice, it is mounted very high off the floor. This provides two benefits: excellent thigh support and a view forward unobstructed by first-row headrests. In this age of huge headrests, the latter is increasingly rare. The second row seat can be adjusted fore-and-aft about four inches to potentially add to cargo room or third row legroom. Even fully forward I had enough knee room when the front seat was adjusted as I like it. Fully rearward knee room should be plentiful for even large adults.
Third row residents are not so lucky. The SRX is about half a foot longer than most competitors to provide space for this seat, but it is not significantly taller. To provide even marginal headroom the optional $1,000 third row seat is mounted flat on the high rear load floor. If you’ve reached puberty count on a good view of your own knees. Getting back there is not easy, as the space between the roof and folded second row is not minivan-large. However, the Pacifica and XC90’s third rows are much the same. Only small children will be able to sit back there for more than a few miles.
The grand includes a power-folding mechanism. Still, folding the seat could be easier. The key must be in the ignition. Then the headrests must be removed and stowed in an underfloor compartment that is not quite large enough for the task. Finally, the seatback goes through a complicated seat of motions in the process of folding, and this takes far more time than I would have expected, about twenty seconds. Manually folding a seat (as in the MDX, XC90, and Pacifica) requires more physical effort, but it is also much quicker.
A large fully opening sunroof that covers both the first and second row is an $1,800 option. Later in the model year a multi-paneled sunroof for all three rows will be offered. Given the limited utility of the third row, this $2,400 option seems of dubious value. So that an entertainment system may be ordered with these sunroofs, said system (which was on neither of the vehicles I drove) is mounted to the center console rather than the roof.
Cargo space is very tight behind the third-row seat. You cannot both fill every seat and take along luggage for everyone. Otherwise cargo space is about average for this sort of vehicle, meaning less than in more comfort-oriented alternatives such as the MDX, RX 330, XC90, and Pacifica but more than the FX and much more than the X5. A number of interior storage compartments are provided, but all are on the small side.
On the Road
I found the new 3.6-liter DOHC six plenty powerful in the 2004 CTS, and thus expected it would be more than adequate in the SRX. I had, after all, found Nissan’s 3.5-liter six sufficiently powerful in the Infiniti FX. In the SRX this was not to be. The SRX’s additional 700 pounds (add another 150 for all-wheel-drive) take the edge off the 3.6’s performance. In the SRX this engine is easily adequate, but well short of thrilling. Flooring the throttle in turns did not invite the attention of the standard traction control. Working harder, the 3.6 is much more audible here than in the CTS, and the sound quality though not unrefined is a bit pedestrian.
Even burdened with 350 additional pounds (150 for the all-wheel-drive, 200 for the larger engine, for a total around 4,600) the V8 acquits itself much better. This second-generation Northstar is equipped with variable valve timing, which GM pooh-poohed for years as not worth the additional cost and complexity. As a result, it is less peaky than past Northstar engines, with a stronger mid-range. Even well below the redline stabbing the throttle produces a pleasant push in the lower back. Better, the V8’s voice is much fuller and richer than the six’s. Past Northstar’s have roared much like traditional American V8s to my ear. The revised engine’s note is more sophisticated, in keeping with its competition. Overall, the V8 makes a much larger difference than I expected, in terms of both performance and character.
Both engines are available only with a manually shiftable five-speed automatic. In both aspects of the transmission GM is playing catch-up, having stuck with conventional four-speed automatics much longer than most luxury brands. The manual shift feature uses the most common approach: a second short longitudinal slot to the right of the main slot. I don’t especially care for this system; for me it does not even approach the experience of a true manual. Among manumatics, I prefer the wheel-mounted panels found on the 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix (and before that on some Italian exotics I have not had the good fortune to experience). The Grand Prix’s transmission in manumatic mode reacts much more quickly, while the SRX’s reacts more smoothly.
I am not aware of the V6 transmission’s gear ratios. The V8, however, has significantly taller gearing than most competitors, blunting acceleration to boost fuel economy. The EPA ratings, which range from 18/23 for the rear-drive V6 to 16/20 for the all-wheel-drive V8, are not bad considering the SRX's weight and performance. Among similar vehicles the Infiniti FX comes closest to these figures, with ratings of 17/23 and 15/19 for the same drivetrains. A V8 BMW X5 earns a 13/17 rating. On the other hand, the less performance-oriented Acura MDX (17/23) and Lexus RX 330 (18/24) do a bit better than the SRX V6 AWD (17/22).
The SRX V6 does not handle nearly as well as I had hoped. As in the CTS, the steering is precise but is too light and does not react as quickly as I'd like up to about forty miles per hour. Above this speed it begins to firm up, and at highway speeds it has a pleasant firmness. Beyond the steering, the V6’s handling generally felt overly soft and safe. The SRX feels lighter and much more maneuverable than it size and weight suggest it should, no doubt a priority for many potential owners, but I expected a bit more fun, especially with rear-wheel-drive.
Cadillac mentions how the SRX was tuned at five different race tracks. It is quite possible that even the base SRX, like some BMWs, feels great on a race track despite feeling a bit dull in normal driving. Problem is, I don’t drive on race tracks.
For better or worse, the V8 feels more firm and precise, with less lean in turns and quicker, sharper responses. I would have like responses to be quicker and sharper still, as in the Infiniti FX, but the SRX V8 is a definite improvement over the V6. Credit is likely due not to the all-wheel-drive on the V8 I drove—all-wheel-drive tends to dull the character of a car—but to the “magnetic ride control” shocks included in the “luxury performance package” on this particular vehicle. These shocks, a GM exclusive, are capable of adjusting to road conditions up to 1000 times a second, easily the quickest available. Their firmness can be varied over a very wide range. This might explain why the V8 both rode and handled better than the V6.
The V6 did not ride poorly. Its suspension absorbed both minor and major pavement imperfections well in most cases. Unlike the Infiniti FX, the ride never approached being busy or harsh. But the ride did not feel as tightly controlled in the V6 as it does in the best German cars. It did in the V8.
This suggests that an SRX equipped to be most fun to drive would be rear-wheel-drive with the magnetic shocks. Sadly, this is not offered. The fancy shocks are only available as part of a $7,145 option package that includes all-wheel-drive, as well as a Bose sound system, navigation system, and xenon headlamps and on the V6 also requires the $3,095 “luxury package.” In other words, getting these shocks requires spending at least ten grand over the base.
Road and wind noise are moderate in either SRX, higher than the quietest luxury sedans but typical of this sort of vehicle. The V8 seemed a bit quieter to me, but I have nowhere read that it includes additional sound insulation so this was likely my imagination.
Overall, the rear-drive V6 is easy but not especially fun to drive. The V8 with the magnetic shocks handles and rides better, and generally feels like a more upscale vehicle. It remains significantly less fun to drive than the Infiniti FX, but its ride quality is far superior. I suspect most buyers in this segment will prefer the Cadillacs ride-handling tradeoff. Owing to their higher stance neither the Cadillac nor the Infiniti can be mistaken for a station wagon from behind the wheel, which for me ends the current debate over whether crossovers are just stations wagons with a fancy new name. They’re not.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The base prices ($38,690, $46,995) seem a bit high to me, and the option package prices seem very high to me. In both cases Cadillac is attempting to emulate BMW’s pricing. However, the right to charge such prices must be earned over time. Also, while the X5 is actually a bit less expensive than the 5-Series on which it is based, the SRX is roughly $7,000 more than the CTS. The end result: unlike the CTS the SRX does not underprice the competition. Japanese competitors are even lower in price.
$3,095 of the V8’s higher price is accounted for by the luxury package standard on it but optional on the V6. Frankly, given my wants this package is not worth what it costs, but without it you cannot purchase most other options. Not so long ago Detroit only charged a few hundred dollars for an additional pair of cylinders. With the SRX Cadillac is adopting the import brands' practice by charging over five thousand dollars.
Aside from the prices themselves I hope that Cadillac eventually reverses course and permits options such as the magnetic shocks and the large sunroof to be purchased by themselves. Grouping options into large practices might push some consumers to spend more, but it will dissuade others from buying the vehicle at all.
Last Words
A driving enthusiast with a family, I could use a fun-to-drive vehicle with three rows of seats. The SRX is not it. Even the V8 owing to its tall stance, light steering, and safe suspension tuning did not thrill me. I’d much prefer a high performance station wagon such as the Volvo V70R. I’m not especially fond of Volvos, but I prefer a manual transmission and the Volvo wagon is one of two three-row vehicles available with one (the other being the Audi Allroad). However, many people absolutely will not buy a wagon and could not care less about the availability of a manual transmission. Many others are less interested in handling and more interested in ride quality than I am. For either group the SRX could be the best choice.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.