This past Friday I drove my daughters 2013 bmw x3 model with the 2.0 litre turbocharged 4 cylinder. I was amazed at how much better the performance of her car was taking off than was my Srx. There are so many things that I like much better with the Cadillac than the Bmw. Exterior styling, hands down the Cadillac is way ahead. The interior is much better in the Cadillac, instruments are easier to use,seat comfort and ride quality much better in the Cadillac. Pulling away from a dead stop the Cadillac is lame, If only the performance was better We would have it all, JUST SAYIN, Frank
sluggish performance with a 2013 performance model
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Seat of the pants is one thing, but you need actual data like 0-60 times to truly compare. That 2.0 liter makes 260 ft/lb of torque at only 1,250 rpm. That's one reason for your seat of the pants diagnosis. Any modern turbo engine is going to throw you back in your seat more from a stop. Did you drive it out on the highway? That's where the SRX should be as good or better since the BMW only has 240 horsepower vs 308 for the SRX.
Mi-srx, I wasn't in the eco mode ,thanks for the suggestion. Adam jeeps, this wasn't just seat of the pants this was real time performance. I drove daughters car in traffic and up to about 50 mph. I don't doubt that at highway speeds and at passing speeds the 3.6 Cadillac will outperform the Bmw. Most of my driving is around town,stop and go and under 50 mph. Even when you are first in gear you have to put your foot in to it just to get moving. I love this car other than the performance or should I say lack of it,
I have no complaints with the acceleration of my 2014 SRX performance. The 3.6 is a good engine, but can only do so much when paired to the weight of a SRX. I wouldn't even consider the SRX when it had the 3.0 engine.
The SRX is about 300 lbs. more then similar cross overs. I had looked at the 335i X3, which has better performance, but thought the SRX was a better overall package.
Tom
The SRX is about 300 lbs. more then similar cross overs. I had looked at the 335i X3, which has better performance, but thought the SRX was a better overall package.
Tom
Check the vehicle weight. SRX is 4300 or 4400 lb. A lot more than it needs to be, in my opinion. BMW might be less. Also acceleration is all in the drive train. As an example, an 8 speed transmission will rocket you from a dead stop, in most cases, while one with fewer speeds needs to gear each one higher making "dead stop" acceleration more sluggish. Still my money's on the weight issue. You might be dismayed to see the same result from a Honda Civic coming in at about 2400 lb.
So true. My wife drives an '02 Civic (she refuses to get a new car, and to be fair it still looks showroom new) and it blows my SRX's doors off from a stop.
GM is famous for "torque management", which keeps power down on takeoff and attempts to keep powertrain warranty repairs low. The BMW is tailored to give the feel of being fast. That's the main reason people buy them (or lease in 60% of cases). That 2.0 in the BMW also requires premium fuel if I recall.
Adamjeeps you are right my daughters car does require premium fuel,but can I tell you something , cost is not even an issue both her and her husband have executive positions in the banking industry, fuel availibilty means more to them. This past weekend my silver SRX was parked next to her car in her driveway and from a looks standpoint,the Cadillac outshines her Bmw. Frank
I found that in stop-and-go traffic ECO mode actually makes for a 'smoother' driving experience - not as lively but more controlled.
If your SRX is 2013, doesn't it have any factory warranty? or am I missing something...
2013 SRX FWD Performance - Xenon Blue / Shale-Brownstone
Joined
·
296 Posts
The SRX is ~400 lbs heavier than the X3 2.0T. It also tested ~1.1 sec and 4 MPH slower than the X3 in the 1/4 mile, and a full second slower 0-60 than the X3 (7.2 vs 6.2 per C&D). Also, BMW does not use SAE Certified HP ratings like GM does for their engines, so while the 240HP rating of the BMW might seem significantly less than the 308 HP rating of the 3.6 SRX, its actually much closer. Finally, the 2.0T provides 260 ft-lb of torque, only 5 less than the SRX's 3.6, so you really have to wind out the 3.6 to feel its power (one big advantage of turbo-charging, despite a smaller displacement...... a broad torque curve). So its not surprising that the X3 feels much peppier than the SRX.
Its also funny seeing a 73 y/o use the word "lame". Thanks, I needed that.
Its also funny seeing a 73 y/o use the word "lame". Thanks, I needed that.
Johnnybzsrx, the reason this 73 year old relates to performance, is that when I was in college I used to drag race my 1959 fuel injected corvette then my 1962 and in my senior year I raced my 1964 corvette Daytona blue coupe. From 1987 till 2006 I had a 22 Velocity boat with a 300 hp merc outboard that did 85 mph. Performance has been a way of life. Now its the Cadillac and a 1990 reatta convertible that I take to car shows . My life now is TAME. Frank
2013 SRX FWD Performance - Xenon Blue / Shale-Brownstone
Joined
·
296 Posts
Age ain't nothing but a number. Seems not too long ago a 73 y/o was my grandpa, now its closer to my older brother. And in terms of relativity, the SRX probably does feel quite tame to those early 'Vettes. 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
