A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short - Page 2
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 24 of 24
Cadillac SRX Second Generation Forum - 2010+ Discussion, A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short in Cadillac SRX Forums; Originally Posted by conedoctor Not directed to me but coming from a guy who has 5 turbo cars, if it ...
  1. #16
    Lord Cadillac is offline Cadillac Maniac
    Automobile(s): Cadillac Escalade
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Royal Palm Beach, Florida
    Age
    42
    Posts
    13,605

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    Quote Originally Posted by conedoctor View Post
    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...
    Please help us keep CadillacOwners.com online. Become a Site Supporter today. You'll get more than a "thank you" in return.



    In loving memory of Angelo Anthony Quagliaralillo... Rest in peace..

  2. #17
    GlennS87 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    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.

  3. #18
    thebigjimsho's Avatar
    thebigjimsho is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): ZIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In the barrel of a gun...
    Posts
    49,300

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    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...

  4. #19
    1SICKLEX is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): Lexus GS 450h...others..
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    90

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    Quote Originally Posted by GlennS87 View Post
    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?

  5. #20
    dctex99 is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2013 Lexus RX350, Satin Cashmere Metallic
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    341

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

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

  6. #21
    dctex99 is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2013 Lexus RX350, Satin Cashmere Metallic
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    341

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    Quote Originally Posted by dctex99 View Post
    Yes, thats true; it was covered alot in car magazines..
    http://cadillacenthusiastmagazine.co...dillac-rumors/

  7. #22
    tweeter81's Avatar
    tweeter81 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2004 CTS-V
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Gillette, WY
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,622

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    Quote Originally Posted by jdavis View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    Cadillac Tony's Avatar
    Cadillac Tony is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Leesburg, Florida
    Posts
    2,190

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    Quote Originally Posted by GlennS87 View Post
    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.
    Tony Pagano
    Sales Manager
    Plaza Cadillac
    Leesburg, FL
    (352)787-1323

    www.cadillactony.com



    The views and opinions of this poster are solely his own and do not represent those of Plaza Cadillac

  9. #24
    thebigjimsho's Avatar
    thebigjimsho is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): ZIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In the barrel of a gun...
    Posts
    49,300

    Re: A Redesign Aims Lower and Yet Comes Up Short

    Quote Originally Posted by Cadillac Tony View Post
    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...

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting