My Experience

A couple months ago, while attending GM's Auto Show In Motion, I experienced irrefutable proof that Cadillac is on the upswing. That proof was the CTS-V, a fire-breathing sports sedan that rivaled Chevy's Corvette on the event's handling course. After stepping out of that car, though, I couldn't help wondering: do Cadillac's mainstream models possess the same magic? Or will Cadillac's renaissance be limited to low-volume hot rods like the CTS-V?

Well, at the same auto show, I drove another crucial component in Cadillac's product offensive: the SRX. It's not my kind of car, as I'm not particularly keen on SUVs. But it's produced in greater numbers than the CTS-V, and is arguably more important to Cadillac's long-term success. GM's event staff had plenty of tough rivals on hand, including the BMW X5 and Lexus RX 330, so I took them all for a few brisk laps. Is the SRX further evidence for Cadillac's comeback?


Performance

The SRX offers a choice of two engines: a standard 3.6-liter V6, or a 4.6-liter V8 available at extra cost. Intending to work my way up to the top of the SRX range, I sampled the V6 model first--and found myself more than satisfied with the base powerplant. The 3.6 is a smooth and willing revver, and although it feels a bit soft off the line--probably due to the SRX's substantial mass--its thrust is reassuringly confident from 2000 rpm upwards. A somewhat characterless engine note is its only significant weakness.

I switched into the V8 SRX expecting a more engaging drive, but surprisingly, this proved not to be the case. Sure, the V8 spins just as smoothly as the V6, and provides a noticeably swifter kick when your foot hits the floor. But its pronounced exhaust burble seems at odds with the SRX's luxury mission--it's uncharacteristically burly--while throttle tip-in seems oddly delayed and nonlinear. All in all, I think this SUV is better suited to the Six.

Another advantage of choosing the Six is that its fuel economy is better than average for this class. Its EPA rating of 16/22 MPG can hardly be called frugal, but it's certainly better than the V8's 15/19 MPG. Keep in mind, though, that both engines require premium fuel--a distinction that's becoming increasingly relevant as gas prices climb.


Transmission/Clutch

Regardless of engine choice, the SRX is fitted with a five-speed automatic transmission. It's the same unit that sees duty in the CTS, and as in that car, it does a fine job in the SRX. It's at its best in the V6 model, exhibiting well-timed shifts and a sporty willingness to hold lower gears through corners. Its marriage to the V8 seems a bit less happy, though--it's still a very smooth operator, but it plops into overdrive early, and feels more reluctant to downshift.

What's bad for responsiveness is good for fuel economy, though, and I'm sure the tranny was deliberately programmed to keep the V8's revs down. The standard "manumatic" gate allows you to increase its alertness when needed, too. But for enthusiasts, it's worth noting that the V6 is likely to be in its "sweet spot" more often on challenging roads.


Steering/Handling

The SRX steers much like its CTS sibling, but with one major difference--Cadillac dialed back the amount of effort to provide minimal resistance at the wheelrim. The standard CTS required a pretty light touch already, so this adjustment leaves the SRX's helm feeling too feathery for my tastes. Aside from the insufficient heft, though, the SRX's steering responds just like the CTS's--quickly and crisply, with commendable precision.

The SRX's chassis responses are generally similar to the CTS's, too. Both the V6 and V8 SRXs threaded around GM's road course with an easy, balanced fluidity, and both displayed suprisingly quick reflexes in back-and-forth transitions. There's a bit more body lean--and a bit less grip--than you'd experience in a CTS, due to the taller build and greater mass. But the SRX inherits the CTS's forgiving, intuitive nature at the limit, lapsing gently into understeer without the "tippy" feeling that afflicts many competitors.

Unfortunately, one CTS trait the SRX missed out on is its structural solidity. As is the case with most SUVs, the SRX's bodyshell tends to jiggle and quiver when it encounters sharp bumps--and if said bumps are encountered mid-corner, they can rattle the SRX's steering column and nudge the car slightly off its intended line. This sensation will be nothing new to current SUV owners, but it's one that you don't have to deal with in the BMW X5 or Mercedes-Benz ML.


Ride

For most buyers, I imagine the SRX will offer one of the most appealing ride-and-handling tradeoffs of any SUV in its class. It absorbs rough spots with minimal intrusion, yet feels nicely-controlled over uneven surfaces--a very European-feeling compromise (the available Magnetic Ride Control shocks may improve matters further, but I didn't drive an SRX so equipped). Road, wind, and engine noise are all quieter than the SUV norm, as well.

For me personally, however, the SRX's ride was marred by the mild structural shudders mentioned earlier. Chassis flex is one of my foremost vehicular pet peeves, and its presence in the SRX was an unexpected disappointment. Those shudders aren't easy to tune out, either, because they excite some of the interior trim--particularly that in the cargo area--into emitting thumpy drumming sounds after sharp impacts.


Interior

If you've ever sat in a CTS, the SRX's interior will give you a good dose of deja vu--its dash, console, and door panels are lifted almost intact from the smaller Caddy. Whether or not this commonality is welcome will depend on your personal tastes. The skewed-Cubist look of the SRX's cabin definitely speaks to a younger, techier audience--I quite like it--but its sharp, asymmetrical angles may come off as garish to some buyers. Either way, the resulting ambiance is a bit more austere than you'll experience in a Lexus.

Still, while the SRX's edgy styling aesthetic won't suit everyone, it's difficult not to be impressed with the quality of its furnishings. The dark, low-gloss plastics may look cheap at first glance, but run your hands over the various surfaces, and you'll find them pleasantly tactile--from the satin-finish console to the thatched rubber-weave dash top. The switchgear is unusually smooth-acting for a GM product, too.

Another surprise is the cabin's "turtleneck" fit, an impression created by the high cowl, slab-sided dash, and low driving position. It's a sensation that's likely to disappoint SUV shoppers, since the SRX doesn't afford a significantly taller view of the road than a conventional car. Even I wished for a slightly better view over the dash, and I'm no fan of "sit-up-high" pretense. But in other respects, the SRX's driving environment is among the best in its class. The front seats are broad, firm, and supportive, and the secondary controls are less busy than most.

Even more praise can be lavished on the second-row seats, which are mounted a bit higher than those up front, "theater-style." There's a refreshing surplus of space back there, even for six-footers--my hair was nowhere near the headliner, and my knees cleared the front seatbacks with room to spare. Should you need even more legroom, the rear bench cleverly adjusts back-and-forth.


Practicality

Lending further support to the SRX's passenger-hauling credentials is the availability of a third-row seat. Unfortunately, as in many SUVs, this feature looks better on paper than it does in person. The third-row bench is small and thinly-padded, and it's mounted so low to the floor that adult passengers will be eating their knees. Equally irksome is the fact that the third row comes bundled with a pricey (and pointless) power-folding seatback. Still, it's nice to have a third bench for children or the occasional extra passenger, and the SRX is one of relatively few vehicles in this class that offers one.

Even if you forego the power-flapping third row, however, you'll benefit from the SRX's large and well-shaped cargo hold. Liftover is unusually easy for an SUV, thanks to the SRX's low build and modest bumper height, and the load floor is usefully flat. To top it off, the SRX's split-folding second-row seat allows you to expand the cargo area to enormous proportions when needed.


Reliability

One of the SRX's few apparent weaknesses is its reliability record, which has been rated "Below Average" by consumer advocacy groups. However, this isn't necessarily the kiss of death that it appears to be. Most of the cited problems were limited to faulty trim and electrical glitches, and as such, they're likely to be more annoying than dangerous. Keep in mind, too, that GM's parts and service costs are considerably lower than the European brands'. That said, if faultless operation is your primary objective, you'll probably be happier with rivals from Acura, Infiniti, or Lexus.


Overall

I drove the SRX wondering if Cadillac's mainstream products are working as hard as the CTS-V to further the company's reinvention. The answer is a resounding "yes." Especially after driving the STS and regular CTS that weekend, I left GM's event convinced that public perception is really the only thing left for Cadillac to fix.

There's just one more downside I haven't mentioned yet, and that's Cadillac's Draconian approach to option packaging. They offer very few options as stand-alone items--and the SRX is not immune to this policy. For example, if you're an audiophile who wants the Bose sound system, you'll have to spring for an option package that bundles your radio with an assortment of stuff you might not want. That sound system, incidentally, can only be had with two option packages--one of them listing for $2,250, the other adding a jaw-dropping $13,660 to the bottom line. Most any rival makes it easier (and cheaper) to outfit your car to your taste.

Overall, though, the SRX strikes me as the best value going in this class. For most buyers, it's even better than BMW's X5. The SRX delivers, say, 80% of the X5's brilliant driving dynamics, but with more cargo space, greater seating capacity, a roomier cabin, and an appreciably lighter pricetag. If I was in the market for a luxury sport-ute, this winning combination would likely get my vote.

Of course, I personally wouldn't be in the market for a vehicle like this to begin with. My idea of a "sport-utility vehicle" runs more along the lines of a Subaru Legacy GT wagon, BMW 325i wagon, or Dodge Magnum RT--all of which offer more utility than daily driving realistically necessitates, plus better gas mileage and more "sport" than any SUV. But I digress. If you've got your heart set on riding high, the SRX is one of the best ways to do it.


Feel free to check out my reviews on some of the SRX's competitors:
BMW X5
Buick Rainier
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Lexus GX 470
Lexus RX 330
Mercedes-Benz M-Class
Amount Paid (US$): N/A
Model and Options: V6 AWD w/ 1SB pkg, V8 AWD