Be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it.
The 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo is the range-topper for the company's recently overhauled station wago- er, crossover. We've driven several examples of the base SRX with its torque-thin normally aspirated V6, and one of our biggest grumbles is its lack of any kind of urgency in day-to-day driving.
We're all for modern, all-aluminum direct-injected V6s, don't get us wrong. But when you plop one in a bloated 2-ton people mover, something's gotta give. And that something is acceleration.
Note we didn't say that the base SRX is underpowered. Really, it's under-torqued. It needs some sauce, some noogins to pop it around town. It needs grunt, and the SRX Turbo answers this call.
Boost. It's What's for Dinner
Enter the turbo. The 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo trades the 265-horsepower 3.0-liter V6 for a 2.8-liter V6 that's equipped with a twin-scroll turbocharger. This heart transplant puffs the SRX Turbo's peak power to a nice round 300 hp while torque rises to 295 pound-feet, a figure that is, crucially, available from 2,000-5,000 rpm.
That latter bit is what we're talking about. It's a torque plateau that broadens the shoulders of the SRX Turbo. Though it hasn't turned this big crossover into a rocket, the turbocharged 2.8 delivers exactly the kind of meat the SRX needed. When you dip the throttle, the SRX Turbo responds with a linear shove that belies its artificial aspiration, as the turbo engine produces meaningful progress even at low-ish revs. You'll be hard-pressed to catch this engine off boost.
There's news elsewhere in the powertrain, too. The Aisin six-speed automatic gearbox found in Turbo models is less stingy about delivering downshifts than the SRX 3.0's Hydra-matic box, and so makes the whole powertrain a lot more agreeable in daily use, as long as that use doesn't include driving up hills.
Grade logic, which holds a lower gear when ascending hills, could be better — this gearbox hunts endlessly on long grades. That's when the transmission's manual gate comes in handy, as Sport mode didn't seem to help with the hunting. Eco mode is something that should be selected only if you want your soul sucked out.
A Difference You Can Feel
Pore over the acceleration results we measured at the test track and you might end up scratching your head. The 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds (7.7 with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and quarter-mile performance of 15.9 seconds at 88.7 mph is just 0.2 second and 2 mph better than the SRX we tested last year. Keep in mind that the SRX 3.0 we tested was a FWD model that weighed nearly 330 pounds lighter than this 4,619-pound Turbo.
The SRX Turbo's suspension calibration feels unfinished, as if an early test build escaped the proving ground intact.
So just order the SRX Turbo without the heavier AWD stuff and call it a day, right? Unfortunately, Turbo models are only available with all-wheel drive, continuously variable dampers, 20-inch wheels and a variety of other accoutrements that plump up the Turbo's price of entry and introduce some compromises.
The Quandary of Fancy Dampers
The 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo rides over most roads with grace, but the suspension is at times flummoxed by surface disruptions such as speed bumps and the seams of a repaired freeway. Blame lies with the compulsory continuously variable dampers that simply can't respond quickly enough to the inertia of its 20-inch wheels and 235/55 all-season Michelins in said conditions.
As a result, its ride can become clumsy and underdamped — one of our road trips included tarmac pocked with small high-frequency bumps, and the SRX Turbo skittered around and lurched within its lane in a way we've only experienced in an unladen pickup on this very stretch. Here, the SRX Turbo's suspension calibration feels unfinished, as if an early test build escaped the proving ground intact: unfortunate considering that the base SRX doesn't exhibit this nonsense.
Smooth pavement reveals the upside to the Turbo's rejiggered underpinnings. On the test track it comported itself well to the tune of 0.78g on the skid pad and a slalom performance of 63.7 mph. This is quicker through the cones than the SRX 3.0 despite the Turbo's additional avoirdupois and reduced grip. As in the SRX 3.0, the Turbo's firm brake pedal is a boon to confident braking, and it pulls itself down from 60 in 129 feet.
Its steering is quick and linear and body motions are kept in check more effectively than in non-turbo SRXs, lending more precision to its handling. It may not quite be Acura MDX sharp, but the SRX's reflexes are definitely quicker in Turbo guise than in base form. This remains true even when driving sedately — you don't have to wring out this tall wagon to reap the rewards.
All the Toys in a Fine Cabin
Our $53,980 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo tester is a Premium trim level and sports just one option, a $1,295 Rear Seat Entertainment package. It's amply equipped in this trim level — one of just two offered in Turbo guise — complete with navigation, heated leather seats front and rear, three-zone climate control, a back-up camera, power liftgate, keyless entry and ignition, and parking alerts, plus one of those enormous sunroofs that's all the rage.
Even as its edgy sheet metal is in peril of becoming prematurely dated, the cabin's contemporary styling ought to hold up quite well over time. Center stack controls à la CTS look sharp and work well, and the satin-finish brightwork livens up the view forward. The front seats are spacious and comfortable and score points for their adjustable thigh bolster. Though the engine isn't exactly melodious when you lay into the loud pedal, motoring on the freeway is quite serene as the engine hushes away, and there's minimal road or wind noise.
Forward visibility is aided by a tall windshield and then hampered by colossally wide A-pillars, while the D-pillars promise to obscure entire subdivisions. This is one of those situations where the back-up camera is more than a luxury; it's a necessity. While we're griping, rear passengers enjoy good legroom, but is it so unreasonable for 6-footers to expect decent headroom in the backseat of a modern, 4,600-pound lux-oriented crossover?
Fuel economy on the sticker is 15 city/22 highway mpg. We managed 18.5 mpg in 1,800 miles of mixed driving. Premium fuel, of course, is required.
The Right Engine at a Price
The addition of the turbocharged 2.8-liter six provides the motivation needed by the SRX. However, the associated heaping-on of equipment results in an SRX that is simply too compromised to make the most of the situation. Acceleration and fuel economy suffer, and the entry price is hard to swallow. Our test vehicle came with a $53,980 sticker price. That's about the same as a BMW X5, and nearly $10K more than the Acura MDX, both of which deliver better handling.
For the formula to click, the 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo needs to shed some weight or some digits off the sticker. The option to select the higher-horsepower engine with or without AWD would be nice, too, although funneling that much torque through the front wheels only might be a bit unruly.
In other words, the SRX Turbo needs to be more like a CTS Wagon. We know which one we would rather have.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
charlesb says:
10:13 PM, 07/31/2010
This thing is a pile of dung. General Motors needs to get some competitive products out in hot segments, like luxury SUVs, and this new SRX was D.O.A. from the word go.
rsxs says:
09:01 PM, 07/30/2010
Should have stuck of the V8 like the last generation.
rsxs says:
08:56 PM, 07/30/2010
.2 seconds quicker than the very slow standard SRX. That price is just way too high for a low tech(decade old tech) turbo 6 engine.
bimmerjay says:
11:43 PM, 07/22/2010
"let me know when you can prove that. Nothing is the same except the 3L V6/tranny. That's it. Totally different dimensions, weights, capabilities, features and styling. They are related, but this isnt based on the Equinox."
The Nissan 370Z and Infiniti FX are both based on the same FM platform, yet they have vastly different dimensions, weights, capabilities, features and styling as well. So just because 2 models are fairly differentiated doesn't mean they don't share underpinnings. Your statement says nothing about the SRX and Equinox other than you just can't say with certainly what their relationship is.
""OTOH the SRX is the SAME platform as the Equinox.
get your facts straight.""
You left out the key part of that quote, which was that you were completely wrong about the RX being related to the RAV4 and the MDX being related to the CR-V. See, even your "facts" can be wrong too.
"Meanwhile I suppose a stripped down X5 for the same money would be a bargain in your book. "
Haha... man you make up a lot of sh!t. No I don't think of the X5 as a bargain at all. In fact, I'd say the X5 is quite expensive - there are many other alternatives that give you just as many "features" if not more for the money. Not everybody just wants features though. The X5 is a premium product - a lot of expensive parts and R&D went into the chassis/suspension and powertrain of the car to make it what it is. It is supremely refined and impeccably built. I'm actually helping a colleague right now who's in the process of choosing between a Range Rover HSE Lux and a well-loaded X5 50i. The funny thing is the Range Rover costs thousands more and has considerably fewer features - and I'm still recommending she get the RR.
1487 says:
11:24 AM, 07/22/2010
"OTOH the SRX is the SAME platform as the Equinox.
get your facts straight."
let me know when you can prove that. Nothing is the same except the 3L V6/tranny. That's it. Totally different dimensions, weights, capabilities, features and styling. They are related, but this isnt based on the Equinox. No one has proven otherwise since and GM has already said the SRX is on a new hybrid platform created for SRX and 9-4x.
"Oh wait wut, this Turbo weighs 4619 pounds????! Thats more than Caddy claims and DEF more than RX350 AWD, so I take that back, RX is heavy but not THAT heavy LOL, neither is that p.o.s. MKX."
You can only compare manufacturer curb weights or as tested curb weights. The manu curb weight for the new MKX is about 4550lbs vs 4387 for the SRX turbo. They have almost identical dimensions. The manufacturer # for the Lexus is about 4400lbs.
"WHY IS PRICE BEING MENTIONED IN THIS DEBATE WHEN IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN PROVEN THE SRX IS PRICED IN LINE WITH THE COMPETITION!?!?"
Logic escapes many who post here. They believe that you establish value strictly on their personal views of the brand. Since they feel Cadillacs are inferior to comparable models from Japan and GErmany they say the SRX is overpiced. Nevermind the fact that its actually cheaper than numerous competitors comparably equipped. If you are calling a model that undercuts the competition too expensive you aren't too bright.
"Because a lot of people in this thread appear to feel that it should be priced lower than its competition based on its merits (or lack thereof). If you perceive lower value, why would you pay the same?"
What merits? That it wont win a drag race vs an X5? Acceleration is its only weakness. The MARKET (you know, the people who actually make car payments on lux crossovers) has already determined its not overpriced. That's really all that matters. If you hate Cadillacs and only respect European vehicles you would call this overpriced at $40k or $30k. Meanwhile I suppose a stripped down X5 for the same money would be a bargain in your book.
"It's slow and gets poor mileage. What's the reason for anybody to buy it?"
Poor mileage compared to what? The MDX at 16/21? How about the FX35 at 16/21? Or maybe the GLK at 16/23? Please.
"If a vehicle outsells the competition, is comparatively priced (again) and the biggest demerit is slower 0-60 times in NON-performance vehicle why is their so much HATRED against said vehicle? "
Basically it boils down to trying to defend IL's review by a bunch of people who have never driven this model. They hate it because its a Cadillac, they hate it because IL told them to, they hate it because I've pointed out its outselling vaunted Audi and MB models. They hate it because it doesn't accelerate like a sports sedan. People get mad when they've made up their minds that something or someone is inferior and then they find out its really popular. Much of this vitriol is based on the auto press' attitude towards this crossover and the fact that its no longer built on a RWD platform. The auto press (at least the enthusiast serving press that disregards practical concerns when reviewing) has hated this vehicle from Day One because its not RWD. That's why most reviews of this vehicle focus on acceleration, FWD and its weight as opposed to its styling, interior quality, features, utility, etc.
magbarn says:
06:42 AM, 07/22/2010
1487 says:
01:20 PM, 07/21/2010
The SRX is an Equinox in the same way that an RX is a $50k RAV4 or the MDX is a $50k CR-V.
Ummm... The RX is based on the CAMRY platform, the MDX is based on the Pilot. RAV4 is based on the Corolla and the CRV is a civic based crossover. OTOH the SRX is the SAME platform as the Equinox.
get your facts straight.
paulvincent1 says:
07:24 PM, 07/21/2010
It's slow and gets poor mileage. What's the reason for anybody to buy it?
half_ton says:
04:49 PM, 07/21/2010
How much of this debate is REALLY about the vehicle in question being a Cadillac? I echo some others; it is hard to read some of these posts without thinking some of you will be MUCH more skeptical/critical of a GM offering just because it's GM.
If a vehicle outsells the competition, is comparatively priced (again) and the biggest demerit is slower 0-60 times in NON-performance vehicle why is their so much HATRED against said vehicle? There's more to it than marginally worse fuel economy either but sadly I doubt the GM haters will step forward . . . the truely ironic part is that 128 posts later there is STILL so much debate over a vehicle that most people here aren't even interested in buying let alone driving.
I personally wouldn't buy one because of my INTENSE HATRED for the entire crossover segment but enough about me . . . as much as 1487 is criticized for being a "GM fanboy" there are an equal number of "GM haters" who live to hate GM and it clearly shows.
And in case anyone is wondering I am a CAR guy . . . I owe allegience to no specific brand.
bimmerjay says:
03:59 PM, 07/21/2010
"While reading ALL of these posts over the past two days I see a recurring theme that I would like to question . . . WHY IS PRICE BEING MENTIONED IN THIS DEBATE WHEN IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN PROVEN THE SRX IS PRICED IN LINE WITH THE COMPETITION!?!?"
Because a lot of people in this thread appear to feel that it should be priced lower than its competition based on its merits (or lack thereof). If you perceive lower value, why would you pay the same?
ant14 says:
03:57 PM, 07/21/2010
There's a saying "If your explaining yourself, your losing"...