I peeked underneath the hood of our 2007 Cadillac SRX this morning. Imagine my surprise in seeing that it's powered by what looks like to be a large grey Lego block. Ah, wait, check that. Silly me...
Anyway, the point of all this is that I'm quite pleased with our Cad's 3.6-liter V6. Previous to driving the SRX V6, I might not have thought that 255 horsepower would be all that great in a 4,230-pound (base curb weight) vehicle. But as we reported in the introduction, our SRX posted a perfectly adequate 0-to-60 mph time of 8.2 seconds. This crossover never feels slow around town and there's generally enough thrust to make highway on-ramps an uneventful affair.
Just don't think you're saving much on gas with the V6. It doesn't require premium like the V8 does, but its combined EPA estimate is just 2 mpg better than the V8's.
Brent Romans, Senior Automotive Editor, Edmunds.com
sddoc07 says:
03:02 PM, 02/ 8/07
I totally agree with you Brent, but these same 2 mpg advantages are always mentioned when people suggest that crossovers are the holy grail (see endless discussion of Ford Edge, GM Lambda crossovers) for automakers.
misaniovent says:
03:10 PM, 02/ 8/07
While I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the V6, I cannot imagine getting it over the V8 when I'd already be paying that much money.
playdrv4me says:
04:37 PM, 02/ 8/07
The 3.6VVT motor is one of the few truly great power plants that GM has produced in the last 10 years, especially after the disaster with the 3.2L unit that powered the Catera, the illfated Saturn L series, and the early CTS.
The only reason that the fuel economy with the V6 is only slightly better than the V8 in the SRX, is because the SRX is admittedly a little bit of a porker, even in the crossover world. Still even with the V8, real-world fuel economy is better than most of the full sized utes because there is less mass to push around, which results in less mashing of the gas pedal.
The BMW X5 has almost the identical situation. The V8 is an awesome choice, but the 3.0L I6 in the X5 was surprisingly quick and spirited.
gmguy111 says:
05:44 PM, 02/ 8/07
yeah caddy should have used a diffrent color for the cover. To the untrained eye it would make you think your looking at a northstar unless you look clsoer at it or you look on the exterior for the trademark northstar badges but enough about that this motor is a winner
jerrywimer says:
08:57 AM, 02/ 9/07
Isn't 2 mpg difference the same as saying something like 15 or 20% better? It doesn't take a large number to be a realistically big difference when the numbers are where they're currently at.
ahightower says:
11:48 AM, 02/ 9/07
Right. 36 vs. 38 mpg, not a big deal. 18 vs 16 is more significant.