Back in early 1999, I was inside the Cadillac design studio conducting an interview as part of my Ph.D. research. At the time, the people charged with developing a crossover for Cadillac were trying to decide what the SRX should be. How much should it resemble an SUV, and how much should it resemble a wagon? They didn't have much to go on, since back then the only luxury crossovers on the market were the Lexus RX 300 and, more of a true SUV, the Mercedes ML the Lexus aesthetically resembled. Would future crossovers continue to resemble SUVs, or would they assume a form more like that of a tall station wagon? The Buick Rendezvous, whose design was nearly complete at that time, looked much like the Lexus. For the SRX, which arrived in 2003 as a 2004 model (my review here), Cadillac ultimately opted for a different direction.

The SRX has won numerous comparison tests and awards, but has not been a winner with customers. It is among the slowest selling models in the luxury crossover segment, trailing the Lexus RX 350 by a wide margin. Perhaps people wanted a less wagon-like look. And the price was initially too high, nearly even with the BMW. But the interior, largely borrowed from the CTS sedan, no doubt deserved much of the blame. With materials that looked hard despite being soft to the touch and an unusual, tech-themed design, few people liked the cabin, and many people strongly disliked it.

For 2007, Cadillac has given the SRX a mid-cycle enhancement. The largest change is an all-new interior. I recently took one for a test drive soon after driving the new Acura MDX to get a sense of whether the updated SRX now has what it takes to compete in this difficult segment.

Styling

Except for a new Sport Package with 20-inch wheels, the exterior remains the same (or at least so much the same that I cannot tell the difference). I suspect the exterior styling has also been to blame for the SRX's lack of sales success. The appearance is at least as much station wagon as SUV, with a relatively long hood, low roofline, and raked windshield. As with Chrysler's Pacifica and Ford's Freestyle, car buyers seem to want their crossovers to look more tough and rugged, i.e. more like an SUV.

The appearance does benefit from the larger wheels, but would benefit even more from a design with fewer spokes. Like with the STS sedan, I'd like to see headlights that zig into the front fender, like those on the CTS. As they are, the front corners look overly square.

The original SRX interior was shared with the CTS sedan. I kind of liked the high-tech concept (like the stealth exterior, the idea was to draw themes from areas where the United States is second to none), though the materials and overall execution left me a bit cold. Most people flat out hated the interior.

For 2007, the interior is totally redone. The instrument panel is a much more conventional design, and it's covered with top-notch materials: stitched upholstery, real wood with a thin chrome underline (with the Luxury Package), and a thick band of chrome around the center stack and around the outboard HVAC outlets. I liked the upholstered instrument panel in the Mercedes GL-Class, and I like the similar treatment here. The whole is very tasteful.

And yet I'm not entirely happy with this new interior. Although I saw the faults of the old interior as much as anyone, I admired the risks it took, and its distinctiveness. In comparison, the new design is generic. While a match for the interior in a Mercedes or BMW--the former might have been the target here--the interiors in Asian competitors are more imaginative, and contain more interesting details. Upon sitting down in the driver's seat of the 2007 SRX, there's no doubt I'm sitting in a premium vehicle. But not a special one.

Accommodations

Cadillac has supposedly redesigned the rocker panel to reduce its tendency to soil pant legs (because the SRX was based on the narrower CTS, the rocker panel is further than usual from the seat). Without comparing the two back-to-back, it's hard to say.

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 STILL only tilts, but telescoping pedals are available. Even with the seat raised it remains significantly lower than in the typical SUV.

The large, moderately firm front seats are generally comfortable and supportive in all directions. Unlike last time, power-adjustable lumbar is now available in the SRX, and it helps.

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 2007 I drove lacked this option, but I've experienced it in previous years.) 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 third row seat (part of the $1,500 Utility Package) 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 Q7's and XC90’s third rows are not much better. Only small children will be able to sit back there for more than a few miles.

The third seat includes a power-folding mechanism. Still, stowing it 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 any competitor) 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. A multi-paneled sunroof for all three rows is also offered. Given the limited utility of the third row, this $2,250 option seems of dubious value. So that an entertainment system may be ordered with these sunroofs, said system (which has been on none of the vehicles I've driven) 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 350, and XC90, 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

Like last time, I found the 255-horsepower 3.6-liter V6 more than adequate, but less than thrilling. Working harder than in the 850-pounds-ligher CTS, the 3.6 is much more audible here, and the sound though not unrefined is a bit pedestrian. The 300-horsepower V6 in the 2007 Acura MDX feels stronger and makes more sophisticated noises.

Three years ago I also sampled the 320-horsepower 4.6-liter V8, and found its power and sound much more satisfying.

Both engines are available only with a manually shiftable five-speed automatic. 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 knew from my previous test drives not to expect entertaining handling from the base suspension. 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 feels overly soft and safe.

More than this, I felt I was driving a modestly enhanced station wagon. The lower seating position doesn't provide the feeling of command that in the Acura MDX does. And yet the noise levels are higher than in the MDX and other competitors, suggesting to the subconscious that the SRX isn't a premium vehicle on the same level as the others.

The standard suspension's ride is comforable but not as tightly controlled as in a German car. And its moderately soft settings allow a bit much roll in hard corners.

A fix is offered for these issues: a $1,650 set of magnetically-controlled automatically adjusting shocks. I sampled these last time in the V8 and was amazed at the size of the difference they made. With them, handling is tighter and the ride is better damped. I highly recommend them. Larger, 20-inch wheels, a new option for 2007, might also improve the handling.

Cadillac SRX Price Comparisons and Pricing

Optioned up to the standard featuer level of the Acura MDX, the SRX lists for about $6,400 more. But adjusting for remaining feature differences cuts this to about $3,200. In terms of transaction prices, the gap is likely to be smaller still, as it should be much easier to get a large discount on the Cadillac.

Compared to a Volvo XC90 3.2, the Cadillac SRX is about $1,000 less, and nearly $2,000 less after justing for features.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Cadillac SRX:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/SRX.php

Last Words

The Cadillac SRX's new interior should enable it to appeal to far more people. The problem is getting them into the vehicle to experience the interior, as the exterior has apparently not been a major draw and it remains unchanged.

Then there's the way the SRX drives. In short, Cadillac has given the SRX sporty proportions, but not a sporty demeanor. To break through the clutter they need to follow in Infiniti's footsteps and offer an edgier-than-average product. Quicken and firm up the steering. Fit a firmer suspension as well. Add heavily bolstered seats, and maybe even the option of a manual transmission. Okay, I know that list bit will never happen. But I can dream, can't I? An SRX tuned for drivers, that would be special.

Finally, sportier version or not, the SRX isn't quite as refined as its leading competitors. The various sensations reaching your ears, finger tips, and pants seat aren't as carefully filtered. As a result, it feels like a cheaper vehicle despite in many cases being more expensive.

So, while the interior is a very welcome upgrade, the overall package still isn't as compelling as it needs to be to make much headway in the competitive premium crossover segment.

A Note on Cadillac SRX Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an SRX rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Cadillac SRX reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need reliability data on all cars--not just the SRX--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Acura MDX review
Audi Q7 review
2004 Cadillac SRX review
Infiniti FX35 review
Lexus RX 350 review
Mercedes GL-Class review
Volvo XC90 V8 review