First Drive: 2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo

Sweet. GM drops a turbo in something besides a Saab no one cares about an a Cobalt people laugh at. I like where this is going.

Any ideas what the DI V6 could do with a turbo or two? I would think it would be just as strong as the stupidly-named DI TT V6 in the new SHO. Awesome.

I love how Edmunds devotes an entire article talking about how this fixes acceleration times, which is probably near the bottom of most luxury crossover buyer's criteria list, and gives one line to the interior room, which is probably near the top of the criteria list. This is what happens when gearheads test practical cars.

I've skimmed the article, but I didn't see any mention of MPG figures. Does anyone know what they'll be on this model?

Nevermind. I searched the article again and revealed the 16/22 figure.

so you mean this isnt a total piece of crap with the 300hp engine? Isn't that what we were trying to say a few days back when Sadlier was blasting the SRX as totally uncompetitive?

I do like that "new math" in which a $50k SRX costs as much as a well equipped X5 or Q7. Not true at all.

I'm all for the move to a turbo. Though the fuel consumption is rather high, I'm guessing its more or less on par with most other competitors. I also think that people buying this vehicle probably aren't thinking of mpg as their first priority. Still, a shame about the looks.

so it now appears that IL's view lines up with C&D, MT and others after basically saying the base model was near the bottom of the class. Everyone agreed the base motor needs more torque but IL was the only one who seemed unimpressed by the SRX in general.

BTW - now that I think of it, it was dumb of Cadillac to launch the 3.0 first anyway. Volvo effectively hid the fact that it's base 3.2 is slow by launching the turbo first.

"Volvo effectively hid the fact that it's base 3.2 is slow by launching the turbo first."

Cadillac should have done the same.

"I do like that "new math" in which a $50k SRX costs as much as a well equipped X5 or Q7. Not true at all."

Depends on what "not far" (as stated in the article) means. If "not far" is 10-20% of the price of the SRX, then there is some truth in Dan Pund's statement.

"I love how Edmunds devotes an entire article talking about how this fixes acceleration times, which is probably near the bottom of most luxury crossover buyer's criteria list, and gives one line to the interior room, which is probably near the top of the criteria list."

They already covered all the other features in the base model review. Why do you always have to find something to complain about when Edmunds looks at a GM car?

1. FX35 303 hp AWD: 16/21 mpg, 6.1 sec, $44,465
2. RDX 240 hp AWD: 17/22 mpg, 6.5 sec, $35,330
3. GLK350, 268 hp AWD: 16/21 mpg, 6.5 sec, $37,475
4. Q5 270 hp AWD: 18/23 mpg, 6.6 sec, $37,450
5. RX350 275 hp AWD: 18/24 mpg, 6.7 sec, $44,033
6. XC60 T6 281 hp AWD: 16/22 mpg, 6.8 sec, $38,650
7. X3 3.0i 260 hp AWD: 17/24 mpg, 6.9 sec, $42,525
8. MKX 265 hp AWD: 17/23 mpg, 7.7 sec, $41,045
9. SRX 300 hp AWD: 15/21 mpg, "< 8 sec"
10. LR2 230 hp AWD: 15/22 mpg, 9.0 sec, $36,225

wtf is "< 8 sec"? The Caddy went to the wrong party. Let's give the benefit of the doubt that Caddy is being humble with their PR.

I would think 0-60 is going to be in the low 7 sec range. I hope you understand that you are listing real data from road tests. Once the SRX is tested we will have real numbers. It should be faster than the MKX and close to the X3.

1487, I know you said many times the non DI 3.6L engine was a bit thirsty but given its thicker, richer torque curve, and more available peak torque do you think that engine would have been better in terms of all around performance (acceleration/fuel economy/drivetrain response ETC ETC)?