A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

[Lord Cadillac]

Originally Posted by conedoctor

Not directed to me but coming from a guy who has 5 turbo cars, if it is boosted people will find more power aftermarket or not.

That being said I think demand will drive parts so what shares this engine?

That's good news.. The 2.8T already has 300hp as it is.. I wonder what's capable and SAFE...

[GlennS87]

While I agree that they could have done better, the blame falls on GM's woes. The new SRX is what was originally going to be called the BRX and go after the X3/RS market. GM couldn't justify the development money on an all new from the ground up SRX.

[thebigjimsho]

Good or bad reviews aside, they will sell FAR MORE of these than the old ones. The old one should've been compared directly against the X3 price-wise with the X5 practicality-wise...

[1SICKLEX]

Originally Posted by GlennS87

While I agree that they could have done better, the blame falls on GM's woes. The new SRX is what was originally going to be called the BRX and go after the X3/RS market. GM couldn't justify the development money on an all new from the ground up SRX.

Is this true?

[dctex99]

Yes, thats true; it was covered alot in car magazines..

[dctex99]

Originally Posted by dctex99

Yes, thats true; it was covered alot in car magazines..

http://cadillacenthusiastmagazine.co...dillac-rumors/

[tweeter81]

Originally Posted by jdavis

If GM can produce a 28 mpg 430 hp Corvette, why wasn't that technology applied to the Cadillac to produce a higher mileage SRX?

Sorry about the threadjack here, but I wanted to answer a question that was posted earlier in the thread. The answer to the question of why the mileage in the SRX isn't like the Corvette is this: The C6 Corvette weighs 3200 lbs, has a coefficient of drag of 0.29 (conversely the new SRX has a Cd of 0.36 and the old SRX had a Cd of 0.40+) and is much sleeker and lower to the ground. There is no magic technology that makes the Vette get such great highway mileage, just physics, plain and simple. An SUV is never going to get better mileage than a light car, unless the engine is a hybrid or purely electric.

To add somethining to the discussion: I really like the new SRX design and hope that GM makes some different powerplants available in order to cater to the broadest possible market. Due to the heavier nature of the platform that the SRX is built upon, more torque is needed, IMO.

[Cadillac Tony]

Originally Posted by GlennS87

While I agree that they could have done better, the blame falls on GM's woes. The new SRX is what was originally going to be called the BRX and go after the X3/RS market. GM couldn't justify the development money on an all new from the ground up SRX.

Not really. The SRX was a sales flop because it was too sporty and big for the crossover crowd, and too top heavy and slow for the enthusiast crowd. it was also WAY overpriced for the segment, mostly because of the expensive Sigma chassis underneath.

Lexus is the runaway sales king in the crossover segment, partly because they took bits of a Camry, combined them with a Highlander, gave it a nicer interior, called it the RX300 and sold them for $35k nicely equipped. Cadillac is simply following suit and giving the market what they want- a stylish, fuel efficient, smooth riding crossover that doesn't cost a fortune.

One could argue that the the new SRX isn't a product of GM's financial woes, but rather that the old SRX was one of the many causes of GM's financial woes.

The current vehicle may have begun life as a smaller stablemate to the old SRX, which was a dud and destined to die anyway, so they chose to keep the established name and attach it to the new vehicle instead of spending millions teaching the public what the heck a "BRX" is. You don't throw away name recognition unless it's associated with a junk vehicle (like Nova, Cimmarron or Audi 5000), a lesson which Ford learned all too well with the Taurus/500/Taurus naming fiasco.

[thebigjimsho]

Originally Posted by Cadillac Tony

Not really. The SRX was a sales flop because it was too sporty and big for the crossover crowd, and too top heavy and slow for the enthusiast crowd. it was also WAY overpriced for the segment, mostly because of the expensive Sigma chassis underneath.

Lexus is the runaway sales king in the crossover segment, partly because they took bits of a Camry, combined them with a Highlander, gave it a nicer interior, called it the RX300 and sold them for $35k nicely equipped. Cadillac is simply following suit and giving the market what they want- a stylish, fuel efficient, smooth riding crossover that doesn't cost a fortune.

One could argue that the the new SRX isn't a product of GM's financial woes, but rather that the old SRX was one of the many causes of GM's financial woes.

The current vehicle may have begun life as a smaller stablemate to the old SRX, which was a dud and destined to die anyway, so they chose to keep the established name and attach it to the new vehicle instead of spending millions teaching the public what the heck a "BRX" is. You don't throw away name recognition unless it's associated with a junk vehicle (like Nova, Cimmarron or Audi 5000), a lesson which Ford learned all too well with the Taurus/500/Taurus naming fiasco.

Couldn't agree more...

And I LOVED the old SRX...