: Is the non turbo engine that bad?



flashy09
05-19-11, 07:41 AM
It gets such terrible reviews! Do you find yourself having a hard time passing or acclerating from a red light? I really love these cars but keep reading the bad reviews. I test drove one and thought it was fine, but didn't really do much as the dealership was closing and I felt guilty keeping the salesman at work.

TheCaptain
05-19-11, 08:12 AM
There is nothing wrong with the engine. It is a little small on the torque side, but nothing that hurts the vehicle.

Also, the SRX has an adaptive engine and transmission program that constantly learns your driving pattern, altering how it responds when you do press the gas.

Smokin' SRX
05-19-11, 10:34 AM
dupe.....

Smokin' SRX
05-19-11, 10:35 AM
YOU have to decide yourself. It does move the 4500 lb sled (AWD version) nicely, but tends to need higher rpm's to do it. It revs smoothly but it depends on your expectations. After driving a 3.6L Enclave I wanted a bit more torque. But I like to really move along. G forces make me smile. (no comments pls!)

If you previously drove a Hyundai Accent you'll be very happy. If your other car is a CTS-V series.................well, you know.

So only answer is TEST DRIVE with A/C on and some hills if possible. I guess about 90% of all SRX (non-turbo) owners are very happy with the eng. And with a 0-60 time in the 71/2 sec area, slow it ain't!

Me, I wish I had gotten the Turbo.....LOL

SS

Razorecko
05-19-11, 11:31 AM
having driven both and owning the turbo I also find the turbo is much much quieter since it doesnt have to strain to get moving. The 3.0L can move but you have to mash the pedal to the floor and than you can hear the motor screaming bloody murder

SomeGuyNamedJay
05-19-11, 11:40 AM
I haven't driven the Turbo, but my brother's Acura MDX is faster. I find the base engine in the 2011 to be totally adequate and I would get it again. Yes, you do have to mash the pedal a bit in times of need, and yes the engine does rev up nicely, but I happen to like the sound - it's pretty sporty.

Willo
05-19-11, 11:46 AM
With gasoline hovering around $4 per gallon, it has to be a personal judgment call. The 3.0 delivers respectable mileage both in city and highway driving. I've never felt it lacking in power on any terrain and it pretty much is a state-of-the-art engine plant. If you are a performance person, this may not be the car for you...but then, who buys crossovers for their performance?

PJ1520
05-19-11, 12:27 PM
What floats your boat the most and what can you afford? That is all you need to know.

Put it another way, if the $$$ to get the turbo was a game-breaker for me, I'd buy the 3.0L and not think twice about it. A glass half full is better than an empty one.

Consider the whole. With all the SRX brings to the table, and at it's price, and with it's differentiated appearance (you can pick one out of a sea of competitive vehicles), it is a solid choice, turbo or no.

If you want to know what others think, consider this. 2010 was the first model year for the second generation SRX. Sales for 2010 were up 150+% over the 2009 model year. The 2010 SRX vaulted from also-ran into the #2 position in it's market segment. How wrong could 90%(?) of those 54,000 who bought the 3.0L be?

Sure, car mags wish for more. And a few 3.0L owners may wish for more. That is always the case. But from a practical standpoint who really needs more 95% of the time? 7.5 seconds to 60mph isn't slow.

That's my two cents.......and I drive a GenI SRX with the Northstar V8.

PJ

mrl859
05-19-11, 03:19 PM
YOU have to decide yourself. It does move the 4500 lb sled (AWD version) nicely, but tends to need higher rpm's to do it. It revs smoothly but it depends on your expectations. After driving a 3.6L Enclave I wanted a bit more torque. But I like to really move along. G forces make me smile. (no comments pls!)

If you previously drove a Hyundai Accent you'll be very happy. If your other car is a CTS-V series.................well, you know.

So only answer is TEST DRIVE with A/C on and some hills if possible. I guess about 90% of all SRX (non-turbo) owners are very happy with the eng. And with a 0-60 time in the 71/2 sec area, slow it ain't!

Me, I wish I had gotten the Turbo.....LOL

SSMy other car is a CTS-V! Seriously, though, the 3.0 SRX is underpowered but not to the point where it is undriveable. Just don't race anyone and you'll be fine.

flashy09
05-19-11, 05:53 PM
Thank you!

GMJim
05-19-11, 09:45 PM
Coming from a 1st Gen SRX with a Northstar, I could not get past the gear searching, high revving 3.0L.
Traded for a CTS wagon with a 3.6L ,and it made me forget all about the SRX.

qball
05-20-11, 02:39 AM
I'm guessing the 3.0 will hunt for the proper gear quite a bit...especially in hilly terrain. If you don't mind that it's OK. Personally, it drives me nuts with the transmission constantly shifting up and down on hills (or even in our strong South Dakota winds on the flats). The 2.8 turbo does none of that and puts out tons of torque throughout the RPM range. The 3.0 has plenty of horsepower but a narrow torque range in the higher RPM. More than worth the cost of premium gas in my mind.

Razorecko
05-20-11, 11:19 AM
Thats another thing people forget is the power curve. The turbo has torque through the whole band and the 3.0 has a minimal torque band. Bearable on flat roads, hellish I would presume on hills

Smokin' SRX
05-20-11, 11:20 AM
I haven't driven the Turbo, but my brother's Acura MDX is faster. I find the base engine in the 2011 to be totally adequate and I would get it again. Yes, you do have to mash the pedal a bit in times of need, and yes the engine does rev up nicely, but I happen to like the sound - it's pretty sporty.

I agree. But I like speed and didn't buy a crossover to race so I drive it and grin....besides, the MDX requires PREMIUM fuel. I would get a TURBO SRX if I wanted to buy premium and see the MDX in the rear view mirror....... or wait a couple months and get a 2012 with the Flex-fuel, 308 HP 3.6L eng and still buy only REGULAR gas. Most Import Crossovers need premium, but they don't mention it too much...

FWIW, Onstar saved my daughter after a crash and I'm never going without. Period.

SS

b4z
05-21-11, 05:40 PM
3.0L is a more updated motor than the 3.6L that is in the '10-11 SRX.
It has lightweight connecting rods and the in head exhaust manifold.
It likes to rev,and is smooth when it revs.
the 220-223tq that it has is supposed to have is across a wide rpm band. At least that's what the dyno graph says. I don't feel that in my '11 CTS which is a good 400lbs lighter than the SRX and it has a 3.45 gear and shorter tires.
My experience with various GM vehicles over the last 30 years would tell you that the '12 3.6L has enough improvements that it is the one to chose. It's got lightweight conecting rods which will allow it to rev faster and it supposedly has it's 265 tq peak at only 2400rpms. I am not sure if that is a misprint but that tq peak at 2400rpms is definitely something you feel pulling away from a stoplight vs. the 3.0L and this year's 3.6L.

Ponyman
05-22-11, 09:58 AM
The 3.0 is a fine engine and will do the job well. Is it a racer? Hell no, but I didn't buy my SRX for racing, bought it for comfort and style.

Smokin' SRX
05-22-11, 11:45 AM
The 3.0L eng hits it's 265HP @ 7,000 freakin RPM! And it's barely adequate 223 ft. lbs of torque @ a lofty 5,000 rpm. The discontinued Turbo SRX does 300 HP @5500 rpm and a great 295 ft . @ a deliciously welcome mere, 1850 RPM! Typical Turbo advantage.

The 3.6 in the CTS is stronger all around and in the newest iteration, will make the 2012 SRX fly (not quite Turbo style perhaps, but great ) if my Buick Enclave with 500 additional lbs (w/AWD) was any kind of indicator..... and w/o the Turbos mandatory premium fuel needs.

Yes, the 3.6 L does make a large amount ( about 90%) of it's torque around 2500 RPM! Most welcome...........

SS

stevec5375
05-22-11, 11:50 AM
It just amazes me that GM engineers and test drivers could not figure out that the power of the 3.0L engine was not optimal. It is one of the things that reviewers and a lot of customers from all over took them to task for. Why did it take the 3rd version of the car before they figured this out and did something about it? Furthermore, the stated gas mileage for the 3.6L is better than that of the 3.0L which seems to indicate that the 3.0L is straining and having to work hard to pull the weight of this vehicle.

GMJim
05-23-11, 09:05 AM
You of all people should not be amazed, Mr. Software Engineer extraordinaire.............as I use version 5.2.3.4.5.1.7.8.9.4.5.6.7.8.3.4.5.6.7.8.6.34.23.2. 4.4.34.5.435.6.45.345.34.3.3.34.5.7..999..32354.4. .4.4...7.8.6...5.6.56..6.654..45..5.4.4..4.4.4.43. 4343.2..3.4.5.5.5.5.5.5..34.3.43.237.8.78.789.78.6 7.87.567.45.63.98.765.98754 of Unigraphics NX7 to design these fine automobiles.
Talk about Engineers not figuring chit out.

Smokin' SRX
05-23-11, 01:22 PM
So many rides come with 6/8 cyl or 4/6 cyl options. My daughter's 2010 Malibu (a steal at $25K ,almost loaded!) has a 2.4L , 4 cyl, eng. A V-6 was optional. Many say the 4 cyl is insufficient to motivate the ride with A/C on, 4 people, etc. We test drove and were satisfied it would be safe/drivable and adequate. We bought it.

The SRX has been said to have an inadequate base eng. I love a powerful eng and chose to go 3.0L after a good test drive/much tossing and turning. I do sometimes wish for more ponies, but I do that in my 403HP Yukon too. I coulda got the 300HP Turbo SRX, and almost did! I often regret not. But not for safety/need reasons. The Manumatic tranny gives me all the options I need in a crossover. It's so subjective..............all our opinions not withstanding.

Peace

SS
My daughter loves her Malibu, even with the 10 sec 0-60 with driver only!

Ponyman
05-23-11, 03:05 PM
Same for my 09 HHR. I got the base 2.2 engine, and am entirely satisfied. GREAT for around town where it is driven 80% of the time and on the occasion we take it out on the interstate, it is like you daughter's malibu. Gets to speed in a reasonable amount of time, and drives like a dream.

Ponyman
05-23-11, 03:08 PM
GM, I think I use version 5998.1 to make my car buying decvisions. Amazing the Great software engineer didn't. I have him on ignore, and I can still tell who you are talking about. PS, GM, last week I traded in my 07 Avalanche in on an 2011. Couldn't wait for next year when I orginally was going to trade. A local dealer had just the color/options combo I wanted, and made me a much beter deal than I expected. Just keeping it in the GM family.

PJ1520
05-23-11, 04:03 PM
It just amazes me that GM engineers and test drivers could not figure out that the power of the 3.0L engine was not optimal. It is one of the things that reviewers and a lot of customers from all over took them to task for. Why did it take the 3rd version of the car before they figured this out and did something about it? Furthermore, the stated gas mileage for the 3.6L is better than that of the 3.0L which seems to indicate that the 3.0L is straining and having to work hard to pull the weight of this vehicle.

Steve.......as I stated maybe not so clearly in my previous post, the available base and optional engines for the 2010 and 2011 GenII SRX had all of the bases covered.

The 3.0L V6 engine as the base for 2010-2011 was probably a lower cost but adequate choice for the vast majority of consumers in this (price) market. My bet is that the lower base sticker for the new 2010 GenII allowed a much wider demographic the ability to get into a brand new SRX price-wise.....hence the first year 2010 sales figures over doubling, which in turn vaulted the GenII SRX from a distant also-ran into the number 2 position in this market niche.

It's all about volume and market share (hence profitability) for GM, or for any automobile manufacturer. And the 2.8L turbo was always there for those who wanted more zip and were willing and able to spring for it. You can't argue that the strategy worked to perfection.

Sure, the GenII with the 2.8L turbo is not a GenI V8 Northstar on the track, on the street, or on the highway. But the turbo was close enough to snag repeats from GenI power hungry N* owners looking to stay in an SRX, those looking to move from the GenI V6 into something with more zip, and enough to create excitement in those standing on the outside but thinking of Cadillac as possibly their next vehicle.

Personally, I think that strategy/wisdom was and is paying off in spades for GM.

Now with the new 2012 V6 comes near-turbo performance with the added savings to GM of a single-engined production. Plus the new engine for 2012 will run on both regular gas or flex fuel. My bet is that the gas mileage figures for the 2012 V6 will exceed those of the 2010s and 2011s. CAFE fleet benefit.

Now you and I may observe that the horsepower, torque, and performance figures for the 2012 SRX will still be a tad short of the GenI Northstar, while the competition keeps raising the zip stakes. But they will be better than a GenI V6 better than the GenII 3.0L, and close to the GenII turbo.

But GM is counting their coup at the cash register and will keep their strategy until sales dictate otherwise IMHO.

Can anyone envision the new 2012 GenII 3.6L V6 decked out in twin turbos as an option for 2013? Ala Lincoln? I can.

PJ

GMJim
05-23-11, 08:59 PM
Horsey, There is a HUGE dif between a 07 and 11 lanche!!!! All Good!!!!!
I bet she's a beaut!!
Congrats, And thanks for keeping in the family.

r100rsrider
05-25-11, 03:45 PM
With gasoline hovering around $4 per gallon, it has to be a personal judgment call. The 3.0 delivers respectable mileage both in city and highway driving. I've never felt it lacking in power on any terrain and it pretty much is a state-of-the-art engine plant. If you are a performance person, this may not be the car for you...but then, who buys crossovers for their performance?

+1 We have no problem with ours! You want a "hot rod" buy the CTS-V :-).

PJ1520
05-25-11, 05:05 PM
r100rsrider.......my heart wholeheartedly agrees with you but my bank account is unable. Those CTS-V commercials on TV certainly don't encourage frugality and conservativism in me. :crying2:

PJ

chiefmjk
05-25-11, 09:41 PM
I don't know how bad the 3.0 is, but my 2.8 Turbo is SWEET!!!

Smokin' SRX
05-26-11, 10:49 AM
you're killing me............:crying2:

SS