: If you DON"T get the FM Inside news..............



dctex99
02-01-11, 11:27 PM
Well, Gm announced they will ONLY have the 3.6 DI engine available for the 2012 model year....... the 2010 and 2011 will be the gutless wonders with all the "New car" problems MAYBE fixed.....so GLAD I waited to get a new :bouncy: That is the GM NEWS>>>>
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/2012-srx-getting-revised-engine-lineup-100038/

Ponyman
02-02-11, 09:17 AM
Actually, I don't consider my SRX a gutless wonder. It has plenty of power for anything that we choose to do, from town driving to acceleration onto the interstate, and crusing at 80 or whatever. I realize that there are a few that feel every vehicle made should have at least 500hp, but others of us are perfectly satisfied with our vehicles. Of course I realize that you are also entitled to your own opinion, stupid as it may be. But, if you don't own one and drive it everyday, are you REALLY qualified to be slamming the vehicle and it's engine?

doctormstein1
02-02-11, 11:21 AM
I have to agree with Ponyman. SRX has plenty of power and drives like a dream

PJ1520
02-02-11, 03:04 PM
Cadillac is in business to sell vehicles, and the sales of the SecondGen SRX is ahead of the FirstGen. On the basis of that alone one may conclude that Cadillac is moving in the right direction. What seems to be at issue in this forum, and among the automotive publications, is the engine choices for the current SRX, particularly in its market niche, premium luxury midsize CUV where BMW, Porsche, Acura, and Lexus reside.

Most point out that a 3.6L V6 as a base engine would have been the better choice at the outset for this iteration of SRX because it weighs in at about the same 4,300 pounds as its slightly dimensionally larger predecessor. It is no secret that the straight line performance numbers of the GenII SRX suffered measureably with the choice of the 3.0 for the base. That cannot be denied. Even the optional 2.8T's in the GenII can't run with the optional Gen I Northstars.

But at the same time the MSRP sticker prices on the SRX came down too and put the price tag of a brand new Gen II SRX in a price range that would appeal to far more buyers.

Is Cadillac interested in competing head to head performance-wise with it's higher priced foreign competitors, or is Cadillac hedging their bets and going after the volume?

You be the judge.

PJ

Ponyman
02-02-11, 03:10 PM
Well said PJ

jcarlilesiu
02-03-11, 02:19 PM
I keep on reading in reviews and from other people that the car lacks power. I don't notice this at all. I am not sure what people expect of this vehicle, but I used to have a 3.0L V6 in a Mitsubishi Eclipse GT, and even with the increased weight, this size engine seems more than adequate in a crossover.

Not once, in over a year of owning the car, have I thought "I need more power!"

PJ1520
02-03-11, 03:59 PM
You don't need more power.

PJ

smiley47
02-03-11, 04:18 PM
You don't need more power.

PJ

Maybe it's more about "want" than "need". None of us "need" an SRX. We just "wanted" an SRX. Same goes with power.

dctex99
02-03-11, 06:24 PM
Exactly; some people are happy with their 94 Hondas too....an SRX deserves a decent engine, that with a full passenger load can get out of its own way.....the two I have driven were slowpokes with just two people in them...we didn't buy these for 34MPG folks!!!

stevec5375
02-03-11, 06:57 PM
Exactly; some people are happy with their 94 Hondas too....an SRX deserves a decent engine, that with a full passenger load can get out of its own way.....the two I have driven were slowpokes with just two people in them...we didn't buy these for 34MPG folks!!!

Ahem.... I had a 10 year old Infiniti QX4 that got better gas mileage than this new SRX and it had a 3.5L 6 cylinder. I was hoping that technology has improved in engines that are 10 years newer. Guess not. :(

Ponyman
02-03-11, 10:40 PM
The SRX does have a very good engine that DOES have enough power for all but those who feel every car must be a drag racer. Again DC, if you don't own and drive one EVERY day you are not qualifeid to speak on the vehicle. As Sube has posted many times, the SRX has to have time to learn your driving style and adjust it's transmission shifts to the individual. A test drive doesn't do that. Go back to the old SRX forum till you have a new one.

wag 42
02-04-11, 10:47 AM
Exactly; some people are happy with their 94 Hondas too....an SRX deserves a decent engine, that with a full passenger load can get out of its own way.....the two I have driven were slowpokes with just two people in them...we didn't buy these for 34MPG folks!!!

You obviously have not driven the turbo model.

Razorecko
02-04-11, 12:05 PM
^ yep. I'm sure the 2.8t will have a better powerband than the new 3.6. I just hope cadillac doesnt do something stupid like raise the price of the srx to the point where you could be a 2.8t now for the same price. Atleast with the 2.8 you get a well known reliable motor w/ a great powerband and a new beefy aisin trans. If you only get the 3.6 in the future for the same price thats kinda a jip.

Ponyman
02-04-11, 01:42 PM
I would be willing to bet that the 2012 with the 3.6 will have a price increase to compensate for it.

Razorecko
02-05-11, 10:50 AM
I would be willing to bet that the 2012 with the 3.6 will have a price increase to compensate for it.

Of course, it just better not be the same increase as it costs now going from the 3.0 to the 2.8t because than you'll be basically getting less for more with the new engine imho.

PJ1520
02-05-11, 06:32 PM
Go back to the old SRX forum till you have a new one.

I did go back to the old SRX forum, but they wouldn't let me back in there when they found out I started posting here on the "Dark Side." :)

PJ

dctex99
02-05-11, 10:39 PM
I would be willing to bet that the 2012 with the 3.6 will have a price increase to compensate for it.

It doesn't seem like a modest price increase would matter that much....we SAY this car starts at $35k,,,but how many of us pay that amount??...Its a 40-50K vehicle and should have the power to get out of its own way....and not NEED a transmission that needs training?? If my wife drives ours 5 days a week, how is it goiing to LEARN my driving and go like a corvette driving it Saturday night....lololol

Ponyman
02-06-11, 12:24 AM
If you need something that goes like a Corvette, then you are looking at the wrong car. Perhaps a Crovetter, or and XLR, or CTS V. The SRX is a crossover, not a rocket ship, and it does what it is supposed to very, very,. well.

Razorecko
02-06-11, 11:39 AM
The adaptive transmission programming was the worst thing ever to happen to an automatic transmission. All to save a gallon of gas or two. I never liked how if you drove leasurely for a long time the trans adjusted to it and than when you need to make an emergency manuever the transmission delays or is just totally confused for a second or two.

TheCaptain
02-07-11, 12:05 AM
The adaptive transmission programming was the worst thing ever to happen to an automatic transmission. All to save a gallon of gas or two. I never liked how if you drove leasurely for a long time the trans adjusted to it and than when you need to make an emergency manuever the transmission delays or is just totally confused for a second or two.

Welcome to SPORT mode. One quick slap of the gear selector, floor it and zoom! Gone.
If a second to reach and slap is too much for you, you can have my 91 Caprice. Maybe its more your school... A go pedal, a brake, and a steering wheel; riding on state of the art (1991) 15" rims and a 265/75 tire.

I love the adaptive Transmission. :D Smooth when it needs to be, and shifting right when i want it to!

2011_SRX
02-07-11, 01:08 AM
I traded my 2010 Camaro SS/RS with 400 HP for my 2011 SRX. The SRX is more practical and comfortable with adequate power. I would buy another SRX before I would ever buy another Camaro. High horsepower isn't everything to everybody.

PJ1520
02-07-11, 01:26 AM
Has anyone posted what the torque and horspower ratings will be for the 2012 SRX V6 3.6L base (and only) engine......and at what rpm the power peaks are reached? The 2010-2011 base 3.0L V6 is rated at 265hp @ 6,950rpm and 223 lb.-ft. of torque @ 5,100rpm.

PJ

wag 42
02-07-11, 09:01 AM
As the 3.6 sits right now, it produces 304 HP @ 6400 RPM and 273 TQ @ 5200 RPM.

Razorecko
02-07-11, 11:15 AM
As the 3.6 sits right now, it produces 304 HP @ 6400 RPM and 273 TQ @ 5200 RPM.

That are the #'s i found also

Ponyman
02-07-11, 11:36 AM
That is assuming they put the DI version of the 3.6 in the SRX. The base 3.6 without DI makes 265.

jcarlilesiu
02-07-11, 01:17 PM
Ahem.... I had a 10 year old Infiniti QX4 that got better gas mileage than this new SRX and it had a 3.5L 6 cylinder. I was hoping that technology has improved in engines that are 10 years newer. Guess not. :(

Infinity 13/17

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16344.shtml

SRX 17/23

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm


You are slamming the car Steve without actually acknowledging facts. At least be fair in your rants.

jcarlilesiu
02-07-11, 01:23 PM
It doesn't seem like a modest price increase would matter that much....we SAY this car starts at $35k,,,but how many of us pay that amount??...Its a 40-50K vehicle

And if power is that important, then buy the turbo model. Why buy the engine size (that works great for me) that you consider "under powered", and not paying the 50K price tag for the engine size you want? You want the turbo for the 'slow poke' cost?


and should have the power to get out of its own way....

My 3.0L has more than enough power to get out of its own way


and not NEED a transmission that needs training??

All late model cars have computerized systems that control the transmission. The car "learns" how you drive so that it can provide smooth shifting while maximizing power while reducing MPGs. This isn't some "new" thing that GM just started doing.

Any car test drove at the dealer is going to feel rougher and less tuned than one that has been driven by somebody on a daily basis.


If my wife drives ours 5 days a week, how is it goiing to LEARN my driving and go like a corvette driving it Saturday night....lololol

Go buy a corvette.

Ponyman
02-08-11, 09:12 AM
Well said J

Razorecko
02-08-11, 10:55 AM
lol, i used to have an '01 qx4 long ago. That thing was indestructbile. 1 bad 02 sensor in all of 50k miles I had it, and those were some seriously hard miles

stevec5375
02-08-11, 11:00 AM
Infinity 13/17

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16344.shtml

SRX 17/23

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm


You are slamming the car Steve without actually acknowledging facts. At least be fair in your rants.

I suppose perception is everything. Perhaps it's the cost of gas that made me feel this way. I stand corrected.

Smokin' SRX
02-10-11, 02:22 AM
I've said it before also...................the 3.0 is entirely adequate, but I wish I had the Turbo only because I have to really step on it, at times, to get the available power, and it's a bit noisier than I care for, and compared to my '08 Enclave (had the 3.6 eng). The turbo's extra torque would eliminate this and just be icing on a delicious cake. The 3.6 almost matches it exactly. (295.0 ft lbs. vs 290, if I remember)

Note the Enclave , at almost 500 lbs heavier (loaded CXL, AWD) 3.6 engine really moved, and was quieter doing it. AND on regular gas ...unlike the turbo. Enclave MPG were same or better too! The 3.6 in the SRX will be a winner!

Just a FYI

SS

PS .............I owned a 2004 SRX with the Northstar V-8 ( 320HP/315 ft lbs) with a 5 speed auto. At 4500 lbs, it FLEW...... on reg gas. MPG about 14/20

Razorecko
02-11-11, 01:27 AM
^ well alot of people need to also understand the power curve. I would rather have 250tq at 2000rpms+ than have 300 at 4500rpm+ because odds are the car is hanging at nearly almost 200 untill that 4k range. Hence why you have to stomp the gas and wait a sec untill it reaches peak power rpms. This also ties in if you drive mostly highway or streets. If its stoplight to stoplight than tq is highly important at low rpm. On the highway you can afford to give up some tq for more hp in the upper range.

Smokin' SRX
02-11-11, 09:45 AM
well stated. Yes, most HP and Torque numbers quoted are at high RPM's, thus the eng racket if trying to reach those levels of power. The larger 3.6 (as the turbo with it's early boost!) reaches more HP/torque, sooner. Especially that turbo! But the 3.6 is a mover. Ask any CTS owner......

And yes, at highway only 60-100 horse is needed to move a sled thru the air, at 60 MPH cruise. My Yukon 6.2L eng has the GM Active fuel Management system, and a readout says "V-4" while just level cruising at highway speeds. The other 4 cyl turn off. Caddy pioneered this (unsuccessfully) in the 70's, with it's 8-6-4 engine. Unfortunately the computer power was not available then, to make it work seamlessly. Love to see my instant MPG readout say "30MPG" in that big sled! Several car brands have it now and it does help MPG's.

SS