Oregon is in our rear view mirror today as we head south for home in the 2007 Cadillac SRX. If there has been one recurring theme so far, it's this: the SRX drives very nicely, but the navigation system isn't good.
If you don't want to read my Navigation rant simply skip to the bottom to see the fuel economy tally. You've been warned.
5 or 6 = the number of times the system instructed us to turn onto non-existant roads, or onto single track dirt roads. In one case the system did this needlessly, as the years-old paved road I was on went directly to our destination. And yes, off-road mode was set to "off".
3 = the number of times we exited the freeway following the navigation POI to stations identified as Shell or Mobil stations (our only cards) only to find out that the stations sold some other brand of gas - and had for several years.
4 = the number of times we were routed the wrong way on a one way street or directed to turn left where that possibility didn't exist or was illegal.
10 or 11 = the number of times we wanted to add a waypoint while underway, but couldn't because the system has been programmed to prohibit this operation - even if a passenger is present.
2 = the number of times we wanted to change the routing from "shortest" to "fastest", but couldn't. Apparently, one has to delete the entire route and re-enter it to do this with the SRX's Denso system. And, of course, this too has to be done when stopped.
1 = the number of times my wife wanted to punch up a rest area POI to find a comfort stop - but couldn't because adding POI categories beyong the 6 chosen by the factory is another feature that is greyed-out until you stop the car.
while moving, no "more" option expanded menu when parked
Too many to count = the number of times I tried to figure out how to silence the "beep" that accompanies zoom commands so I wouldn't distrurb sleeping passengers. On this one, you can silence the guidance voice, but not that blasted beep.
We found many database errors, several of which could have gotten us into trouble had we blindly followed them. Donwright necessary features (for my money anyway) are unavailable when the car is in motion. Passenger detection systems exist in all cars, but to my knowledge no carmaker is taking advantage of this to allow expanded in-motion usage.
I'll save my money and stick with paper maps and a suction cup aftermarket unit that will let my passenger/navigator do what is needed when it's needed. Besides, stereo system controls are usually much simpler and straightforward when they're not mixed up with navigation controls and a screen.
Fuel added (3 more tanks): 903.7 miles, 44.7 gallons for 20.2 miles per gallon
Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing @ 22,579 miles
esoterica says:
03:12 PM, 08/26/07
Is this the same nav system as in the Tahoe that the prior post complained about? If so, I assume it's approximately the same system as on the STS and Hummer H2, and if so, I find it hard to believe that more hasn't been written about how indescribably awful this system is -- the routing engine is horrible and the user interface is so bad it makes iDrive look good. The GM nav systems I've used are so terrible that I don't even bother trying to use them anymore, I just take my Garmin Nuvi with me even when I'm driving a nav-equipped GM. And it's a shame because in almost every other regard I like the STS and SRX. The '07 SRX in particular is probably the best SUV I've ever driven (though I haven't driven the new X5 or MDX). Hopefully they'll have this sorted out for the '08 CTS.
hondacura4 says:
08:01 PM, 08/26/07
When is the next SRX supposed to debut as the current one looks a bit dated? If Cadiilac can add the design of the 08 CTS on all of their models then I think they may have something.
opfreak says:
05:36 AM, 08/27/07
on a positve note.
gas milage didn't seem to bad
this is probably why factory nav system lower long term vechical value. its still a fairly new technology for the masses. and this one seems very first generation,. err maybe 2nd, the 1st gen let you do too much while driving. the 2nd not enough.
but the outdated databass is just un-acceptable.
actualsize says:
08:38 AM, 08/27/07
I agree HA4. A CTS-like makeover would work well on the SRX. But I have heard two rumors:
1) A smaller BRX will replace the SRX in 2009.
2) A smaller BRX will be sold alongside the SRX in 2009.
If number 1 is the truth, it'd be a shame. The SRX drives very nice indeed and I'd like to see it evolve. But this trip has taught me that the 7-passenger version would be impractical. Four persons (2 adults + 2 kids) find our 5-passenger version tight enough for a trip of this length. The SRX would be better served by a limit of 5 persons max, plus luggage. Perhaps that's the point of the upcoming "smaller" BRX.