2010: CTS Sport Wagon, SRX

[McLaren]

I would have thought that the XLR was more aimed at the Merc SL. Am I not right in saying the XLR was actually a pretty good car but way over-priced hence its lack of popularity? I wouldn't know since I've never read a review of it, but since it's basically a Corvette convertible with more weight it couldn't be too bad.......?

It was a decent car at best, but GM made the mistake of actually marking the price to that of its competitors. Personally, I've always seen the V model as the biggest mistake because it set itself just below a M6.

 

[Tornado]

Apparently, from what I've been reading about it the SRX (as well as all of the other things that GM dropped the engine into) is comically inept with the 3.0 DI engine. But hey, better gas mileage! Oh, yeah. Never mind then.

 

[buickgnx88]

Ugh, I wasn't sure where else to put this. Want to know how much a glorified Suburban costs today? Top-o-the-line Escalade: $86,000!

 

[Paulie]

Apparently, from what I've been reading about it the SRX (as well as all of the other things that GM dropped the engine into) is comically inept with the 3.0 DI engine. But hey, better gas mileage! Oh, yeah. Never mind then.

The 3.0L in the Commodore has been receiving high praise for its abilities.

 

[Prince.M5]

I've seen the image of the CTS-V Coupe in ''Fast Lane Daily''. Sorry I don't like the looks of the car

 

[magicalgin]

No offence or anything, but whats with the fugly squary style of the Cadillacs lately?

 

[YSSMAN]

Apparently, from what I've been reading about it the SRX (as well as all of the other things that GM dropped the engine into) is comically inept with the 3.0 DI engine. But hey, better gas mileage! Oh, yeah. Never mind then.

I thought it had more to do with the transmission programming and the high gear ratios than the actual power delivery. Or, thats what I seem to remember from Autoblog and Inside Line.

As a replacement for the old, non-DI 3.6L DOHC setup, its adequate. At best.

 

[Tornado]

I don't really think so. Even on paper I can't imagine how GM even felt that the engine was adequate, and I can't imagine GM could even make a transmission that would make it so it was.
If they were downsizing the engines in the Malibu and similar cars, sure, but they are taking the 3.6L non-DI and replacing it with something with roughly the same horsepower but considerably less torque (at way higher RPM, to boot) in 5000lb+ crossover vehicles. Its the Toyota Matrix XRS all over again; and in one full swoop they made everything on the Theta platform completely useless, especially the SRX; for what is essentially 1 MPG.

 

[LongbowX]

I thought it had more to do with the transmission programming and the high gear ratios than the actual power delivery. Or, thats what I seem to remember from Autoblog and Inside Line.

As a replacement for the old, non-DI 3.6L DOHC setup, its adequate. At best.

I don't really think so. Even on paper I can't imagine how GM even felt that the engine was adequate, and I can't imagine GM could even make a transmission that would make it so it was.
If they were downsizing the engines in the Malibu and similar cars, sure, but they are taking the 3.6L non-DI and replacing it with something with roughly the same horsepower but considerably less torque (at way higher RPM, to boot) in 5000lb+ crossover vehicles. Its the Toyota Matrix XRS all over again; and in one full swoop they made everything on the Theta platform completely useless, especially the SRX; for what is essentially 1 MPG.

Those who buy an SRX, or any SUV-like device probably aren't looking for maximum performance. It is adequate for the application. Having been driven in one, I think it performs well enough for the average person. The 3.6 non-DI however was a better engine, I agree. I think calling it "comically inept" is a bit much though.

Also, the SRX weighs 4500lbs, not 5000+.