Comparison Test: Luxury Crossover SUVs

I cant get the link to work.

Wow; the editors practically trashed the SRX.
Someone is gonna be pretty pissed at the perceived bias.....

I'm not sure what to think of this comparison as with the Cadillac, it seems it was destined for last place from the start. That's the vibe I get from the article.

I thought I had responded before, but my comment was not there. IL must be monitoring any negative comments.

Here I go again. There is a bias, no matter what IL says.

CTS, squeaks from the seat, complaints galore from IL editors, but no trip to dealer to resolve issue.

GT-R, problems galore, but only glowing reviews, even though the GT-R has a second home at the Nissan dealership.

SadButTrue also covers the IL editors bias.

^
"SadButTrue also covers the IL editors bias."

Huh?

SadButTrue:

that is your moniker, but also describes the sadbuttrue statement that IL editors have a bias towards certain auto manufacturers.

Sadbuttrue, IL editors love without question, Honda, BMW and the GT-R, no matter what.

Sadbuttrue also means IL editors will harp about most GM and Ford products, no matter how petty.

Meaning, it is sad but true, we can almost always count on IL editors to live up to the above listed comments, no matter how good the GM/Ford product, or how bad the Honda/BMW/GT-R.

aurakr,

It's true that the IL staff are a bunch of driving enthusiasts compared to the group at Consumer Reports that focus more on reliability and safety.

So it's natural they'd favor BMWs, Godzilla, Evos and any other car without a gutless engine.

That includes some of GM's and Ford's cars. Take for example the CTS, G8 GT, Camaro SS, Mustang GT/GT500 and the Taurus SHO. Two of which were part of their Long Term Fleet.

Aurakr, if you would care to do a little research, almost a 1/3 of the entries from the IL staff about the Accord weren't positive. That's pretty substantial.

hondacura4

The nearly 1/3 entries that were slightly critical of the Accord don't even begin to match up to the outright love out of the box. Again it doesn't even match the hate for the Aura or the CTS, two fairly powerful vehicles.

The editors never gave the CTS or the Aura a chance, go back and see. They started out completely in puppy love for the Accord, which by most accounts, is slower, gets the same mileage, handles worse, and brakes worse than the Aura.

DCuerpoJr, even allowing for enthusiasts, why would the editors love the Accord more than the CTS? The CTS was always being ripped apart, for what its squeaky seat, but never taken to the dealer. The CTS is a far better driving vehicle than the Accord, but all we heard was squeaky seat.

The CTS doesn't have a gutless engine. The Aura didn't either. The love affair of the driving dynamics of the GT-R, I can understand. The failure to rip it apart for constantly being in the shop is absolutely ridiculous.

My wife and I have owned 6 different cars over the last 26 years, and guess what, all totaled, in that time, even allowing for accident repairs, they have not been in the shop as much as the GT-R. Total miles driven in those cars, 590,000. Total days in the shop, undriveable, 51 days. Most of the time was for accident repair, not transmissions not working, etc.

I can guarantee you the IL editors would rip apart a Ford/GM product if it was as unreliable as the GT-R, even if it drove the same.

@preceding comments,

Choice comment over on the Edmunds Daily comparo:

"Yep, they hate American cars. Oh wait, what's that? A Ford won the last two comparison tests? Nevermind then.

Play a different song."

Thanks for that, daxtripper.

Any chance we could refrain from hijacking the thread and talk about this particular test?

I'm surprised the Volvo won first place. My recommendation for someone from this group would have been the Mercedes GLK. I'm sure if the seasoned veterans were entered, the results wouldn't change too much.

6)SRX
5)RDX
4)X3
3)Ex35
2)Q5/GLK
1)Xc60

"Meaning, it is sad but true, we can almost always count on IL editors to live up to the above listed comments, no matter how good the GM/Ford product, or how bad the Honda/BMW/GT-R."

Their results and rankings are so predictable. I couldn't believe (OK maybe I could) that they ranked the Malibu just ahead of the Camry and behind the Altima in their midsize test. I drove a "sporty" Altima rental recently. Interior is worse than Malibu and road noise is unacceptable in a modern midsize sedan.

"It's true that the IL staff are a bunch of driving enthusiasts compared to the group at Consumer Reports that focus more on reliability and safety."

Nice excuse but other enthusiast magazines often disagree with them. SRX, Cobalt SS and Corvette would be a few examples. To my knowledge the only domestics that they like that EVERYONE likes are the CTS (although it was trashed in LT test), 2010 Mustang and Fusion.

"Thanks for that, daxtripper."

he didn't even name the tests. Maybe he is talking about tests in which all the cars are domestic like the Camaro vs GT500 vs SRT8. For obvious reasons that wouldn't count.

You want to talk about this test?

Don't include a vehicle in a test that has no chance of winning due to equipment levels. Other tests of the base SRX had loaded models with the 20" wheels. C&D and MT tested such versions. I understand you are in CA but if you can't get the version you want you either need to wait or omit the vehicle. Comparing a stripped FWD SRX that lacks the performance package to $45k+ versions of the European competition with AWD is just stupid. A few days ago you made a big deal about the $48k price (potentially) of the SRX 2.8T and yet several of the vehicles in this test approach that price. But fortunately you guys made sure to tell us if we just deleted those pesky overpriced option packages the European crossovers would be much cheaper. The fact that the Caddy was $6500 cheaper than the next cheapest model shows it didn't belong in the test. That's not even close.

"The CTS was always being ripped apart, for what its squeaky seat, but never taken to the dealer. The CTS is a far better driving vehicle than the Accord, but all we heard was squeaky seat."

MT just posted their wrap of a LT CTS equipped like IL's model. They noted some dash rattles and a sporadic squeak from pop up nav that went away. The car had no warranty repairs and they were enthusiastic about the car after a year and 20k miles.

The SRX was also trashed in the most recent C&D, so it's difficult to argue that IL is biased in this case.

"The SRX was also trashed in the most recent C&D, so it's difficult to argue that IL is biased in this case."

No it wasn't. What C&D are you reading? They loved the base model accept for the acceleration. They loved the 2.8T model unconditionally. You call that "trashed"?

^From C&D:

"Highs: Lexus-like cabin, BMW-like seats, superb fit and finish.

Lows: Far too heavy, nonlinear throttle, confused transmission.

The Verdict: Maybe the upcoming turbo V-6 will help. Maybe."

And this, about a third of the way through the review:

"And with that, sadly, most of the good news concludes."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2010_cadillac_srx_3.0_v6_awd-road_test

-JS

Also from C&D, regarding the turbo model:

"Even with the expected decrease in acceleration times, if the SRX 2.8T had been available for our last comparison test of $40,000 luxury SUVs, its claimed acceleration would have placed it nearly a second behind the group average, making it the slowest in the group."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2010_cadillac_srx_2.8t-first_drive_review

They're really showing this thing the love, aren't they.

"The Verdict: Maybe the upcoming turbo V-6 will help. Maybe.""

ISn't that what I said? They noted the engine as the weakpoint which is EXACTLY what I just said. Work on your comprehension. And then you have the audacity to ask why people are so terse when dealing with you in these forums.

"We still miss the distinctly sports-sedan feel of the previous SRX, and we’ve never professed much passion for the Lexus RX that the new version attempts to ape, but the turbocharged engine in the SRX makes it a credible and compelling alternative."

Did you read that Josh? Guess not.

"Even on its standard 20-inch wheels, the SRX 2.8T feels composed and compliant. Body motions and roll are kept in check and the SRX feels more Germanic, precise, and stable than the Lexus RX. "

Did you read that part? Guess not. Its under the heading "Credible and Competitive".

How about this part:

"The new engine doesn’t turn the SRX into a dragster, but it does make its acceleration at least class-competitive. Where the Cadillac really shines is in the suspension tuning, its quiet demeanor, nearly complete list of standard equipment, and its attractive interior. "

If you read the article you should have seen all that.

I can't believe you are stupid enough to suggest that C&D shares your extreme dislike of the SRX. They said the acceleration would have been last based on GM's info, not a test. Even so, they never suggested it felt underpowered.

By the way, this is the sub heading for the 2.8T review:

"A turbocharger is just what Cadillac’s new crossover needed"

Also, here is another quote from the initial SRX review:

" And once the SRX is up to speed on the interstate—with the cruise control on—it voraciously gobbles up the miles, leaving its driver to revel in luxury and serenity, which may be all its buyers care about anyway."

Again, that is pretty much what I've been saying. They also loved the interior and liked the handling.

"They're really showing this thing the love, aren't they."

I would say yes with the exception of the base powertrain. See the quotes I listed above.

Here's another one:

"In the hills, our SRX—riding on the optional 20-inch Michelins and fitted with Sachs continuously variable dampers—proved flat, stable, and composed. Its chassis was informative, reassuringly solid, and expert at controlling body motions. The ride was definitely firm, and big displacements could occasionally cause crash-through at the rear, but the overall ride-and-handling trade-off was to our liking, far more visceral than, say, the RX350’s. We’d have preferred steering that was a little lighter and faster, à la Audi Q5, but at least its sense of straight-ahead was unsurpassed."

Oh yeah, they HATE the SRX. Glad you cleared that up for me Josh.

well of course they are going to be biased to the american companies, its all the foreign brands people are interested in, ie BMW,Honda and gt-r. it makes up the market for people of different classes and such. by kissing A$$ so to speak, it puts them in good graces with these companies. with slander towards GM I'm surprised they gave them a look at any future products. its been discussed by another auto blog that some sites are favored due to gushy relationships they have, like with the new jag xj, some sites were demanded by jag to have pics taken down, while others were not. its a game of who knows whom so i cant really blame them, tho they need to at least admit when a good car is a good car....

aurakr writes:

"My wife and I have owned 6 different cars over the last 26 years, and guess what, all totaled, in that time,"

Thats crazy!

1487, the C&D reviews are lukewarm at best. You are quite possibly the only person in the world who could interpret those reviews as involving "love" in any way.

Your initial claims, for the record:

"They loved the base model accept for the acceleration. They loved the 2.8T model unconditionally."

And there was more "love" talk later.

Also note that they were mostly comparing the SRX to the RX -- the one we explicitly left out of our comparison for reasons stated in the intro and actually confirmed by C&D's comments.

End of story.

Back to this review. Here's how I'd rank em' based on my driving preferences.

1st) Audi Q5
2nd) Cadillac SRX
3rd) Mercedes GLK
4th) Volvo Xc60

Unfortunately, my girlfriend doesn't like any of these and insists on buying the Lexus RX. Why? Because she likes the way it looks -_-

Since both of us are buying our own cars I could care less about her decision.

@ inlinesix

Agreed! aurakr's insurance premiums must be high!

DCuerpoJr and Inlinesix:

You guys(gals) got me. What I meant to say was the total amount of days those cars have been out of service was 51 days, in 26 years of driving.

My wife wants to state for the record, we never have been at fault in any of the accidents.

Yes my premiums are high, I live in San Diego, and have two teenage drivers. Anyone want to help me pay my insurance :)

My ranking would have gone:

1) Audi
2) Volvo
3) Merc
4) Caddy

I think Caddy took a step back with this new SRX. The old one was pretty fantastic, but this new one seems like a worked-over Vue.

@aurakr

Insurance is expensive in San Diego. I grew up there and remember all the times my little brother crashed our mom's cars. He's got a lead foot and no sense of self preservation so behind the wheel he's a maniac. He joined the military so at least he's off the public roads 6-9 months of the year.

Can I just address the whole BMW - C&D bias argument for a second? Ok, the 3-series & M3 pretty much win everything all the time, but have you ever read a bad review of the M3? Honestly? Let's look at the rest of the BMW range for a minute and how they have done in C&D comparo's...

1-series: Lost to the 370Z
5-series: Lost to the A6
6-series: Lost to the SL
7-series: Beat the S550
M5: Lost to the E63 AMG
X3: Lost to the Q5
X5: Lost to the MDX
Z4: Lost to the Boxster S

So one out of eight for the rest of the range? Hmm. I think some people just see what they want to see.

"Also note that they were mostly comparing the SRX to the RX -- the one we explicitly left out of our comparison for reasons stated in the intro and actually confirmed by C&D's comments."

Its really becoming apparent you really aren't that bright. At first I thought you were just being contrary for the sake of trying to stand out. I assumed you were doing quite a bit of acting to get attention. C&D compared the SRX to teh RX because its the CLASS LEADER in sales. YOU were the one who said the SRX doesn't compare with the RX in any way. YOU said the two vehicles can't even be seen as competition because the SRX is so much smaller and inferior to the RX in every way. Remember that? My original statement was t hat C&D liked the SRX except for the base powertrain. You have YET to show me anything that contradicts that. You post a bunch of excerpts that criticize the powertrain which corroborates what I said in the first place. In their verdict they said the turbo might be the remedy that is needed. They tested the turbo and were satisfied that the largest shortcoming was addressed. What part of that is escaping you?

You try to disqualify my statement about the 2.8T but don't actually post any complaints from the C&D review. They note that based on GM's figures the acceleration would've been slower than the test average but later on in the review they say the power is more than adequate and the 2.8T would be class competitive. In other words, your assertion that the 2.8T was dismissed is garbage.

End of story.

"I think Caddy took a step back with this new SRX. The old one was pretty fantastic, but this new one seems like a worked-over Vue."

The old SRX was not a fantastic seller and that is what counts. It was a hit in the media, not in the market. I guarantee you this model will outsell it easily.

"So one out of eight for the rest of the range? Hmm. I think some people just see what they want to see."

Um, no. Don't list the rankings unless you read the comparos. Most times cost is the reason a BMW loses a test. They tell you so in the articles. The 545 or 550 lost to an M45 strictly due to price. They essentially said it was the best car but the Infiniti was so much cheaper it came out on top. BMWs never lose because other vehicles are superior in C&D. Cost is typically the only weakness they cite.

Josh:

I have to say your interpretation of the C&D reviews borders on delusion. I cannot believe you can sit here and claim that C&D's review matches up with what has been posted on this site. Then again, considering how the opinions here largely mimic what C&D puts out I can see why you are desperate to prove that there is consensus between you and C&D. Nice try, but I assure you that a logical person would not read the C&D review and come away with the impression that they thought the SRX is totally uncompetitive in any way as you are claiming. They told us about a glaring shortcoming in the base model and tested the 2.8T and were satisfied. Period.

Care to comment on the positive reviews on Autoblog, Motortrend or Leftlanenews.com? I'm sure you can find a way to make those negative as well.

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/0908_2010_cadillac_srx_28t/index.html

Another negative review. Maybe Josh is on to something afterall.....

"Um, no. Don't list the rankings unless you read the comparos. Most times cost is the reason a BMW loses a test."

If C&D were biased, wouldn't they just explain away the price difference with some flowery metaphors about steering feel or bump up the "Gotta Have It" (read: "We want this car to win") factor? Wouldn't they find a reason to add a point or two in the highly subjective "Exterior Styling" category? Bias is different from Boo-hoo-the-car-I-like-didn't-win.

sabastian:

You obviously dont read the magazine so perhaps you arent in a position to determine if they aren't biased. C&D is widely known to be wildly inconsistent and biased towards BMW and Honda. They often use "gotta have it" to boost the vehicle they prefer into first place. This is the same magazine that said the Insight is clearly superior to the Prius in every way even though everyone else said the exact opposite. Again, when BMWs dont win (typically they come in 2nd if not first) they typically say its because the winner was cheap. This is the same magazine that said the G35 was inferior to the 328i even though the Infiniti was cheaper and outperformed the 328i while having more features.

"You obviously dont read the magazine so perhaps you arent in a position to determine if they aren't biased."

Yeah, I don't read the magazine, but I magically knew the results of 8 comparison tests.

"They often use "gotta have it" to boost the vehicle they prefer into first place."

Then why didn't BMW's win the comparisons that I listed above? There's the fundamental flaw in the bias argument. If C&D really were biased toward BMW's, they would be winning. Simple.

"Again, when BMWs dont win (typically they come in 2nd if not first) they typically say its because the winner was cheap."

I'm going to use one of your previous statements here: "'They often use "gotta have it" to boost the vehicle they prefer into first place.'"

Why aren't they using "Gotta Have It" to help the BMW's win? I'll answer that for you. Because it would be biased.

Here's an idea: maybe BMW actually builds consistently good cars year after year. That would probably explain why the first generation M3 is considered a classic, why the BMW name became a status symbol in the first place, and why everyone who reviews them thinks they're fantastic. Or maybe it's a giant conspiracy within auto journalism and BMW is secretly paying off everyone to give them good reviews, in which case, thanks for opening all our eyes to the truth. What would we do without you?

Ah, 1487.

"My original statement was t hat C&D liked the SRX except for the base powertrain. You have YET to show me anything that contradicts that."

Incorrect, as noted. You said "loved." And for other C&D dislikes, read the articles (links above).

"I cannot believe you can sit here and claim that C&D's review matches up with what has been posted on this site."

Never said that.

"a logical person would not read the C&D review and come away with the impression that they thought the SRX is totally uncompetitive in any way as you are claiming"

Never claimed that.

Here's what I did say:

"1487, the C&D reviews are lukewarm at best. You are quite possibly the only person in the world who could interpret those reviews as involving 'love' in any way."

That is correct.

-JS

"Yeah, I don't read the magazine, but I magically knew the results of 8 comparison tests."

Internet.

"Then why didn't BMW's win the comparisons that I listed above? There's the fundamental flaw in the bias argument. If C&D really were biased toward BMW's, they would be winning. Simple. "

Not true. I never said BMWs win every comparison test, I said C&D is biased towards BMW. Can you understand the difference between the two statements? IN numerous tests C&D has said the BMW is the superior vehicle but the cost disadvantage was too large to ignore. When the winning car is not the best car in the test that tells you something. Basically when a non BMW wins its usually with the qualification that the BMW in the test was equipped in such a manner that made it far too pricey.

"Why aren't they using "Gotta Have It" to help the BMW's win? I'll answer that for you. Because it would be biased."

Exactly, which is why they use it often. C&D commonly takes a vehicle with a higher price and lower levels of performance and puts it near the top of the rankings with "gotta have it ratings". Hondas, BMWs, Mazdas, etc. typically get high ratings in that category. American cars (even the Corvette) and Toyotas typically do poorly there. In virtually every comparison in which American branded cars do poorly "gotta have it" is a critical factor. They get letters about this ALL the time. This is hardly anything new and they don't even deny it. That's how the Insight was able to beat the Prius even though all sane people know the Toyota is superior in EVERY way except price.

"Incorrect, as noted. You said "loved." And for other C&D dislikes, read the articles (links above)."

Josh stop playing games with semantics. My point was they had VERY favorable impressions of the SRX except for the powertrain. They concluded that the turbo engine MIGHT solve their main issue with the SRX. You have yet to post anything to refute that. You offered several exerpts from the article criticizing the powertrain which is fine because thats what I mentioned in the first place. C&D made it clear that it was a competent vehicle that needed either less weight or more engine. You basically said it comes up short in every way and is totally uncompetitive. Stop acting like your opinion is congruent with C&D or MT. It's not.

"Never claimed that."

Then what are you saying? I don't think you know at this point. You wasted a lot of time copying and pasting quotes from C&D when there was no argument from me. I clearly have maintained that they were NOT impressed with the 3L engine. What exactly is the argument? You can use loved or liked or whatever word suits you but the bottom line is that they were IMPRESSED with the SRX sans the powetrain. That's not debatable. Furthermore, they were impressed with the SRX 2.8T and really had no major complaints.

""1487, the C&D reviews are lukewarm at best. You are quite possibly the only person in the world who could interpret those reviews as involving 'love' in any way."

Unfortunately you are too dense to grasp that there is more to a vehicle review than rating acceleration. Throughout the discussion I have mentioned (and quoted) C&D's opinion regarding the handling, ride quality, steering and interior quality. Repeatedly you have ignored those comments and chosen to focus SOLEY on the powertrain. I said they loved it EXCEPT for the engine/tranny and you have YET to prove otherwise. When they say the handling and interior might be best in class I would say that counts as "loving" the vehicle. It's common sense. If you want to refute that simply show me where they criticized the rest of the vehicle as you did.

I wanna know what the FUCK is up with all the different reviews on the SRX in the second road test they said that the ride is compliant.....and now in this they're saying that the ride is harsh.........kicking tires also said that the ride is cushy.......I'm gonna have to test drive one for sure..........