Cadillac SRX Second Generation Forum - 2010+ Discussion, I got mine... in Cadillac SRX Forums; I still really like it. There are so many articles, and people that state it doesn't have enough power (how ...
I still really like it. There are so many articles, and people that state it doesn't have enough power (how much is enough?) If you were looking for a "performance" vehicle, you wouldn't be looking at an SRX anyway, or it doesn't have third row seating, good - I'm really glad that it doesn't, I most likely would not have looked at it if it did. I think that Cadillac really did it's homework on the design/features. I have not had any problems with acceleration, and I have taken it over mountain ranges to and from Las Vegas, multiple times. The gas mileage is about what they said it would be, better than my X5, and regular gas. It has plenty of cargo room, we just hauled a new water softener in it the other day. I love the passive entry, and push button start, although it took a little getting used to, I kept reaching up to the column for the ignition key, or into my pocket for the keys...
Seeing a lot of them, as well as the CTS wagons around. I think the wagon looks better, but the SRX has some neat new features and is a bit more practical if you need to have cargo room. Again, I think the SRX is going to be a GM winner, just not my personal cup of tea. Perhaps though, the unit I drove (AWD) needed some of the re-programming discussed. Honestly, I was not expecting a performance vehicle, but that thing just felt plain slow to me. Maybe it was not so much power issues, as the tranny seemed to upshift to too low a gear on hard acceleration, resulting in the "lots of noise and high RPM, but no equal acceleration" phenomenon.
The wagon is definitely a winner, but for some reason I'm liking the SRX better. Fans of the 1st Gen SRX will likely prefer the CTS wagon. Of course, I haven't driven either one yet so I'll have to defer the final judgement. I'm thrilled that GM has apparently produced a winner in the SRX/Equinox, one that will truly give the RX a run for it's money. Oddly, I don't care for the Terrain (GMC version); it tries too hard to maintain a "truck-ish" look that just doesn't work, IMO.
Oddly, I don't care for the Terrain (GMC version); it tries too hard to maintain a "truck-ish" look that just doesn't work, IMO.
I did not like the Terrain in print, but in person driving on the road, it is not bad. Of the three, I like it visually the most. Maybe that is because I like boxy trucks though. Loved my 92 4 dr. Cherokee (NOT Grand Cherokee). That was a box with a hood.
One thing that I notice is that psychologically the MPG meter at the top of the guages makes me drive more efficiently. With my CTS I used to go off the line pretty quickly at lights. With the SRX I'm much smoother and try to keep that needle in the middle or right, pretty silly but I'm getting about 20 mpg city which isn't too bad.
^^ I did like that as well as the HUGE option of the digital speedo. I can't change the size of the digital speedo on my Lade or SLS. With the 2010 SRX, if you forego other information on the screen, the digital speedo takes center stage and is quite big.
Well. I think it's a looker. It's got great fit and finish and feels very tight and solid. I'm hating the wimpy exhaust note and I forgot how much I dislike FWD...but overall... I LIKE IT!!
We got back yesterday from our 500 mile trip to northern Michigan. My wife and I both found the vehicle to be more comfortable than my CTS, and my 4 year old son LOVED the sun roof. He said he didn't mind not having a DVD player because the roof was his dvd player (pretty awesome to hear from a little kid). No problems with it what so ever and averaged about 25 mpg highway.