Cadillac News, Concepts, Future Models, Rumors and more Discussion, Cadillac News: Edmunds praises Volvo XC60, pans Cadillac SRX in new entry-lux CUV com in Current Cadillac Vehicle Discussion; Filed under: SUV , Audi , Cadillac , Mercedes-Benz , Reviews
2010 Volvo XC60 - Click above for high-res image ...
2010 Volvo XC60 - Click above for high-res image gallery
Volvo's new XC60 sits at the top of the pack when it battles head-to-head against the Audi Q5, Mercedes-Benz GLK350, and Cadillac SRX, says Edmunds in its latest four-way comparison. The entrants, each new members of the expanding Compact Luxury Crossover segment, were all selected for the battle based on size and their less-than-$40,000 starting prices. Veterans such as the Acura RDX, BMW X3, and Infiniti EX35 were left home as they aren't rookies to the field.
With a resolutely last place finish, the Cadillac SRX was clobbered over its outward visibility, weight, lack of overall space (despite being the largest of the bunch), and cramped second-row seating. The fact that the Edmund's test car was a base FWD model didn't help either.
Tied for second place were the GLK350 and Q5, both praised for their power, ride, and handling. The Mercedes came up short in overall utility, while the Audi took some hits for its electric power steering.
According to the testers, the XC60 "won by a hair" thanks to its generous cargo capacity, second-row comfort, and "safety features galore." While the Swede offered plenty of power, it suffered from poor fuel economy and less-than-satisfying handling. So, how did a not-fun-to-drive Volvo CUV climb to the top of the comparison (one that Edmunds says, "none of our editors would personally choose")? You'll have to read their story to find out.
Automobile(s): 04 CTS-V, 05 STS, 07 SRX- All sold :(
Re: Cadillac News: Edmunds praises Volvo XC60, pans Cadillac SRX in new entry-lux CUV
Yet another review that bases it's scores completely on acceleration, and has nothing to do with how people use a vehicle in the real world. From their wrap up:
Originally Posted by Edmunds
The SRX also took top honors in EPA fuel economy ratings at 18 mpg city and 25 mpg highway, though the all-wheel-drive Audi was right on its heels at 18/23, and an all-wheel-drive SRX returns 17/23.
Additionally, the Cadillac had some nifty items that the competition lacked, including a "U-rail" cargo containment system for securing loose items and a height-adjustable power liftgate that's perfect for tight garages. We liked the interior design and materials, too, which are certainly class-competitive, as well as the circular trip computer's colorful and sharp graphics, which are leaps and bounds beyond what the monochromatic dashtop dot-matrix display has to offer. Furthermore, the SRX was a pleasant surprise on our handling drive, where its responsive steering and satisfactory body control earned it our collective nod over the more capable but softer Volvo.
So it has a class competitive interior, lots of nice features the others lack, the best fuel economy in the test and good handling- but they hate it?
GM has been ripped non-stop for the last 2 years because they are building "dinosaurs and gas guzzlers" that focus on performance instead of economy. This is a class of vehicles that, let's be honest- aren't known for their performance, and mostly will be driven gently by soccer moms and suburbanites. So GM de-tunes the engine and recalibrates the transmission to achieve best in class fuel economy, and what happens? They get ripped for not being fast enough.