2010 Cadillac SRX: First Drive

As part of GM’s rebirth, a number of its brands have fresh new product hitting dealerships relatively soon. For Cadillac, the redesign of the SRX is vital to its future. While sales of its big sedans and Escalade SUV are flailing, the luxury crossover market is booming. Enter the new SRX, which is an SRX in name only. It’s smaller than the long, wagon-esque SRX of the past five years, and it’s ready to do battle with crossovers from Lexus, BMW, Volvo, Audi, Mercedes and Land Rover. But will it beat them? Any of them?

That’s what I wanted to find out.

Before heading out for an afternoon of SRX driving, I sat down to lunch with executives from Cadillac. I felt pretty good in my knowledge of the segment and the SRX’s competitors. I’ve recently driven the Audi Q5, Volvo XC60, Land Rover LR2 and BMW X3. The only model in the segment I haven’t thoroughly tested is the redesigned Lexus RX 350, which outsells everything. So when the GM folk said the model they directly targeted with the SRX was the RX, my stomach lurched. 

Still, I understand what they’re saying. They’re trying to offer near-luxury comfort at a good price with attractive styling. And the SRX is a looker. Somehow, it’s bold without being over-the-top, and it even features a grille that’s smaller than what you’d find on almost every other Caddy. Wise move there. The rear is also quite handsome, with taillights that form fins sticking out from the body of the car.

On the performance side, the SRX certainly doesn’t lean toward the sporty nature of the Audi or BMW; it’s much more aligned to cushy comfort, which is the RX’s place in the segment. Even riding on its optional 20-inch wheels, the SRX soaks up rough roads — like the stimulus-spurred construction zones of northern Illinois/southern Wisconsin on which we drove.

The afternoon was spent in quiet isolation from the road, as both my passenger and I noted the near absence of road and wind noise. However, that was pretty much the only standout performance attribute. Steering, handling and power were all just about adequate, which isn’t what you’d expect from the makers of the CTS sport sedan. I don’t think 90% of people who test-drive the SRX will note the somewhat dull steering and handling, but even the most passive driver probably won’t like how slow the heavy SRX feels with its base V-6 engine which gets 18/25 mpg city/highway with front-wheel drive and 17/23 mpg city/highway with all-wheel drive. When accelerating from 35 mph to 50 mph in the all-wheel drive model, there was a noticeable hunting of gears coming from the six-speed automatic. It wasn’t confidence-inspiring and really got me down on the model as a whole. While most of the competition’s base engines aren’t exactly thoroughbreds, the X3, Q5 and XC60 all feel significantly faster. An optional turbocharged V-6 will go on sale later this fall, while the V-6 I tested hits dealerships in a few weeks.

The SRX’s interior was also hit-or-miss. If your eyes stick to the top of the dash, with its hand-stitched appearance; the gauge cluster, with its dazzling LCD display; or the center stack infotainment center, you’ll feel like you’re in the nicest crossover ever made. Let your gaze fall to the lower dash and its chunky gray plastic, or the doors and their two tiers of plastic pockets, and the luxury atmosphere quickly dissolves.

Because the SRX ($33,330) starts a few thousand dollars less than the RX and others in this segment, a lower level of luxury is acceptable, but I think the SRX is hovering close to the edge here — especially when the Lexus has upped its game in terms of luxury accoutrements, and even Volvo’s new XC60 outdoes the Cadillac in terms of high-end feel for nearly identical dough.

What about the good? There’s plenty to praise Cadillac for in the new SRX. Chief among them is a very usable, flexible rear cargo area. There’s a rail system that allows for a cargo separator to slide around, blocking off a variety of areas depending on how much cargo needs to be corralled. A large under-floor bin can hold a propane tank in place, according to company representatives. Otherwise, it’ll simply hold a lot of grocery bags.

The optional pop-up infotainment system features new software, but it mimics what you find in the CTS sedan. Navigation and other graphics are a tad sharper, and all in all it’s one of the most comprehensive systems you’ll find from any automaker.

Cadillac also gets a win for its terrific-looking gauges. In the center of the speedometer is an LCD screen that offers a ton of information about the car, from trip-computer settings to whether rear passengers have unbuckled their seat belts.

On a personal note, my favorite part of the SRX’s interior is a pair of faux crystals that reside on either side of the speedometer. They light up when the corresponding right or left turn signal is activated. It looks like you’re driving Superman’s SUV, and I almost bought one right then and there just for that.

Perhaps — like those light-up crystals — the gauges, cargo area, soft ride, exterior design or infotainment system will persuade a large number of shoppers in this segment to pony up for the SRX. Otherwise, I think it’s going to get tired of staring at competitors’ taillights.

Additional Photos





Perhaps you could let us readers know if you drove the base or uplevel, FWD or AWD, transmission mode.

Your first impressions on the whole are rather negative, much different than those of your colleagues who've driven and reviewed this new SRX.

"On the performance side, the SRX certainly doesn’t lean toward the sporty nature of the Audi or BMW; it’s much more aligned to cushy comfort"

Strangely, EVERY other review I've read on the new SRX says the opposite, that fantastic, sporty handling is awesome in this CUV, at least if it's in "sport" mode. Did you realize there is a sport mode that makes the car much less isolated and more reponsive, from the trans shift points to the steering and the handling? What every other review does agree with is that the base engine is too weak to endow the SRX aggressive-feeling, confident power/speed, for what you'd expect in this segment. Why did Cadillac fail on this front? If there is a better Turbo available, why didn't they just make that availabe in their testers and put them in sport mode from the start? From the sounds of it, the base SRX in regular mode versus the turbo with the FE3 suspension in sport mode (also with a better trans I think) is going to feel like you're driving two totally different cars. One is kind of isolated and slow, and the other is nimble, sporty, powerful and handles like a dream. So why wouldn't Cadillac give the testers the better CUV?

The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that it's a sharp CUV that will draw eyes and most likely sales, as image/look seems like it is at least half the sale.

Done. Sorry. It was the all-wheel drive version. They had only a few FWDs available and the AWD will be the major seller. Most of the competition doesn't offer FWD, but the Lexus and Volvo do. I'd also expect AWD to be higher volume for them.

I think most reviews have noted the vehicle's weight and transmission issues. Jalopnik comes to mind. Although they liked the handling better than I did.

It's one of those times when it's a "good" vehicle, but in a super competitive segment. I didn't like the XC60 when we had it in because I thought the ride was too rough despite how fast it was. I wonder which way most buyers would lean though?

I'm guessing they'd prefer the SRX's performance/ride mix, but again, the interior could be a deal breaker.

We'll have one in for a full review in the next few weeks so stay tuned. Maybe a week of commuting in it will change my mind.

Bryan T,
I don't believe the anyone has tested the turbo engine yet. They're all writing off of what we tested. I did test the FE3 setup yes. Yes, it was that dull.

Again, I'm not saying "bad" I'm just saying it's not a performance-oriented vehicle. Cadillac said they aimed at Lexus RX which is the same formula.

If they addressed the transmission issues I'd be happier giving it a thumb up for this type of buyer.

Take the aging X3 we had in recently where they fixed all their transmission issues, it was much more enjoyable to drive. Of course it rides rough and has tons of road noise. For a long road trip the SRX would be much more pleasant and cost about $10K less.

But the X3 sells pretty well regardless.


Sounds like the new SRX may be as forgettable as the CTS. For me, the CTS 1SB/AWD was okay, nothing to dislike about it at all and does everything quite well, yet nothing about it stuck out in my mind. As competitors, the G37x was rough rough rough, but it was fast and fun; the 328i was surprisingly quiet, ride was firm but much more comfortable than the G37, and handling was heavenly and price was ridiculous; the TL's optional leather was buttery. Whatever, i'll never buy an SUV/CUV/whatever they call it/rollover mobiles.


The fact that Dave mentions the shortcomings of the X3 and mentions their sales success at the same time reminds me that buyers don't care about much other than image. BMW could rebagde the the Scion Xd and it would be a sales success. Most of the buyers (I venture to say) are women; women who only care that they can tell their friends they "Got a BMW."


This is most negative review I've seen for the new SRX. Everyone else has said the handling was impressive for a crossover. Cadillac may have been targeting the RX but they certainly weren't targeting its soft handling and MT compared the two and noted the SRX was much sharper. As for the interior- all vehicles have plastic inside. What makes the presence of plastic in the SRX noteworthy? I also think criticizing the storage bins in the doors is just silly. Do they work? IF so, I dont see the problem. They don't look any worse than what's found in other luxury vehicles.

Also, what exactly is "chunky gray plastic" and how does it differ from "quality" plastic found in the Q5 and all the other import CUVs that you feel are superior?


"I'm guessing they'd prefer the SRX's performance/ride mix, but again, the interior could be a deal breaker. "

So you are saying that the door panels and lower dash are such low quality that it will turn buyers away from this vehicle? Wow. Just so you know, nothing in the pictures included in your review relay "cheapness" at all. The pic you provided of the door looks fine to me.


Hard dull plastic, vs soft quality plastic? Kia vs Volkswagen? Chrysler vs Mercedes? Cadillac vs BMW?

On Plastics:
To me it's not really about hard or soft, it's often about the sheen and finish. If it's grained and hollow like the SRX it gives off a cheap feeling. If its flat and solid like in a VW it doesn't seem cheap. Not sure if the quality of the plastic is much different, it's just the appearance.

That's why I think the looks, pleasant ride and gadgets could lead to lots of SRX sales. It's not about performance for most buyers, even entry level luxury buyers.


I don't see all the fuss about "sports" tuned ride and handling...Where are ya'l driving like that? I like to know.

It looks very luxurious, for those who can't afford a Lexus. A quiet ride is very important and cargo capablity.

Thanks for the review.



Based on the pics you provided the plastics don't appear to be hard and shiny. Are you saying this interior isn't on par with a VW? I haven't been in the 2010 SRX but if the old model was any indication of how Cadillac does interiors I have doubts that this interior is cheap feeling. The CTS interior certainly isn't cheap looking or feeling and the SRX's interior is heavily influenced by the CTS.

I don't see all the fuss about "sports" tuned ride and handling...Where are ya'l driving like that? I like to know.

I added a photo to the end of the post showing the plastic I had issues with. I did like the rubberized slots though to hold stuff.


I have not see this car up close but with regards to the pic of the door - it seems odd that the armrest is not flush with the plastic panel below it. I've seen that a lot with some dash pieces on some GM models that I've looked at recently (malibu and HHR).


In looking at the pics from the Cadillac website it seems odd that they offer a rear DVD player that flips up from center console (reminds me of the malibu max). Seems cheap for a car in this price range, especially a Caddy. I would think that they would have an overhead DVD or headrest DVD.



You arent talking about the 2010 SRX. The 2010 has dual screens that are attached to the rear of the seats. The 2009 model has one screen that is attached to the back of the console- just like the X5. But I'm sure its not cheap when BMW does it.


Nice to show what you complained about. It looks like plastic on a door to me, nothing more or less. I suppose Audi and Lexus don't use plastic on their lower door panels. I can tell you that would not likely be the focal point of potential buyers. Price, performance, features, quietness, ergonomics, etc. would be much more important. At some point we have to acknowledge that there are things more critical than what type of plastic or vinyl is used inside a vehicle.


Sheth you're an idiot. You want to see proof of why someone complains about something and then when they do...you make up an excuse for the flaw. Get over yourself.


Sheth, you have also got to realize that domestics have always used cheap, hard, thin, crackling plastics while the foreign counterparts use softer smoother plastics and rubbers that not only look better, but last the life of the car. I can just hear the creaking noise it probably makes when you grab the interior. If you don't put armor all on that junk in the caddy it's going to crack and deteriorate about the time you are finished paying for it.


That last picture of the door looks like it it is from a Cobalt. And Sheth you can't say it doesn't as much as you know about the domestics. It is the same cheap stuff. And I'm not going to "acknowledge that there are things more critical than what type of plastic or vinyl is used inside a vehicle" when you are going to be paying over 40k for a crossover that reminds me of a 12k Cobalt!!


do u think this will sell more than the CTS Wagon?? Not sure about those turn signal "crystals"....have 2 c em in person!

Original sheth


I have to question your intelligence if you think that the plastic around a storage bin is the key measure of the competence of the vehicle. You are fishing for flaws and since you can't find anything legitimate you are engaging in name calling and juvenile antics. Please note other reviews of the SRX basically contradict everything DaveT wrote. Check out Motortrend's comparison. The only thing everyone agrees on is the gauges are very sophisticated. It seems to me Dave was biased before he ever drove the SRX.

BTW, I still didn't get an explanation for "chunky gray plastic". What is that and how is it any worse than whats used on the lower dash of other crossovers? Its called nitpicking in order to discredit a competitive vehicle.

Nic, I suggest you spend some time in more imports before lecturing me about soft plastics. I just drove a Scion xB recently and the interior is chock full of rock hard plastics and mediocre build quality. You are delusional and have no credibility. Even the much lauded Mazda3 has hard plastics, I should know since my brother owns one.

Original sheth


The picture shows plastic in the door. It doesnt look like it came from a Bentley but I'm sure its not far off from what you get in an affordable luxury car. To be honest I dont really care because no rational person bases a car purchasing decison on plastic pliability. Not sure why you and DaveT have trouble understanding that. The lower door and dash trim in most vehicles is comprised of grained, hard plastic. Don't shoot the messenger. Are you honestly saying you would not consider this vehicle because of the lower door trim?

You're very wrong about buyers making decisions on perceptions of quality. JD Power and others base their whole business on this and the second you sit in a car for the first time, that impression often resonates more than even driving it for shoppers.

You read this site every day. You had to have read my take on the new Equinox which was very positive. I think the one thing I'm not is biased. As folks who've read my Toyota reviews will note.

I think you have to understand that Motor Trend and other enthusiast pubs don't look at things with the most critical eyes out there. They have their audience and their reason for writing things the way they do.

Original sheth


i think its unprofessional to suggest that MT or any magazine you dont agree with is producing inferior or biased results. I don't agree with everything MT writes but they have been in the game for decades so they should get some respect. IN case you didn't read the comparo I will tell you they did note a few MINOR issues about the interior but plastic quality was not amongst them. In fact, the stuff they complained about were so obscure that most owners wouldn't even notice. MT may care more about handling than cars.com but they do evaluate interiors and comfort. Again, every review I've see so far has been positive except this one. C&D and Autoblog raved over the interior.

Just for kicks I checked out the xB review on this site to see if it disparaged that vehicle for hard interior plastics. Unsurprisingly the criticism was mild- only noting a few "minor" cheap spots. Considering how much you dislike the Cobalt based on its plastics I cannot believe that the Toyota produced xB got off the hook. Keep in mind the vehicle is 3 years newer than the Cobalt. It may not be bias but its sure reeks of double standards to me.

Original sheth

BTW, the fact that you rightly note some Toyota products are average doesn't mean there is no bias. My observation has been that regardless of vehicle class there is not one domestic branded product that you guys seem to recommend over a comparable import. Maybe the Equinox will change that but I'm not optimistic. You guys dont like the Taurus, SRX, Camaro or much else thats debuted recently. In the Taurus review the primary focus is the loss of rear legroom over last year's inferior model as if the 2010 Taurus is somehow cramped on the inside. I thought everyone was in agreement that the new model was a huge improvement until I read the review on this site in which the reviewer seemed to be longing for the 2009 model.


Kick him off already.

Sometimes OS keeps me on my toes, like by adding that plastic photo, so he can stay for now.

I don't think I questioned MT in terms of their integrity. Just that they might not have the same focus we do because of their audience.

Again, we'll get the SRX in for a week long test for a review. Others will get to drive it and weigh in.

OS is also focusing on two paragraphs in a 1300 word story.


The positives in your review far outweigh the negatives. OS needs to find something else to do with his time.

The thing is, i'm trying to be balanced. It's very evident I think in the story.

I will note that looking back through photos, the new Mercedes GLK has some really awful door plastics that put me off too. I just didn't have that assignment.


Are you guys seriously arguing about opinions?


Dan - are you new to this site. OS argues about everyones "opinion".

Original sheth


Stop trying to villify me because you have a problem with my opinions. You just posted on here that the SRX has a cheap mounting of the DVD screen and didn't even realize that was the old model. You spend more time attacking me than making accurate assessments. This is the internet, its all about different points of view. I notice you rarely offer any constructive rebuttals to my positions. Just attacks and smart aleck comments.

Also, there are only a few people I disagree with and a few of them (you fill in the blanks) are embarrassingly juvenile and poorly informed. Guess what, if you told me the sky is green I probably wouldn't agree with that because its not true. Imagine that.

Original sheth



You didnt do the xB review but I'd love to get your perspective on how it got a free pass on interior materials considering how important you say they are in establishing perceptions about quality. In the last 6 months I've driven a Cobalt, 2008 Corolla and xB. I can tell you hard plastic abounds in all three.

If the Cobalt drove like the xB, offered the value of the xB, utility of the xB, or standard features it would be rated better.

I don't think anyone shopping in that class cares much about plastic overall unless it is so bad you can scrape your hands on it like in the Cobalt and Dodge Caliber for example.

xBs also has black interior so you don't notice it as much. I tell people this all the time, the color makes a huge difference.

Original sheth


Talking about utility is a cop out. You and I both know the Cobalt is sedan/coupe and not a boxy wagon so it cannot match a wagon in cargo capacity. You seem to be insinuating that increased usefulness excuses hard plastics which makes little sense. You just bragged about how tough you are on Toyota products and yet you are obviously making excuses. Your derisive comments about the Caliber were unecessary but since you mentioned it I will say its no worse than the xB either. The Cobalt's interior is mostly black and grey plastic. The center console is trimmed in metallic looking silver plastic but much of is black. To suggest that you would scrape your hands by rubbing the dash is just silly. Your own site had a blog entry about how people change their view of a vehicle based on the badge. It mentioned the Cobalt and indicated that people rated it MUCH higher when they were told it was a Toyota as opposed to being a Ford or GM product. Your viewpoints seem to reflect the findings of the study. Any vehicle not made by GM automatically gets the benefit of the doubt no matter how mediocre the effort. How does excusing the same flaws you criticize in American products make the imports better or serve consumers? I think one reason Toyota is struggling is that they started to take the lack of criticism from the auto media to heart and began resting on their laurels.

And how does the xB drive any better than the Cobalt or any other compact? It has a decent ride (so does cobalt), quiet engine (same with the Chevy) and noticeable road noise and wind noise. Its not exceptional by any means. IN additon to the hard dash the stalks are comprised of smooth, cheap feeling plastic, they fell like they are going to break off and the climate controls move with ZERO fluidity. But hey, its not a Cobalt so it cant be too bad.

What's your problem with consistency? I don't see why being consistent is seen as a negative.

Now you're just being silly. Let's stop. this is an SRX post. No more Cobalt talk. It'll be deleted.


Ziggy -
Nah, I've been reading this blog ever since it started. (wow, how long has that been?) I'm well aware of all the flamewars and argument that occur on here, but this one just struck me as a bit more off than usual. Dave looks at the plastic and to him it feels cheap. OS looks at the plastic and doesn't think so. Okay, what's their to argue about? There are no facts to debate. It's all a perception thing. It is similar to the claims of bias around here. Clearly OS likes GM. Perhaps just the way a GM seats fit him, or the sound of the engine, or maybe the way GM styles the exterior appeals to him. Good, then he should buy a GM product. Maybe the way Toyota designs cars appeals to Dave. Fine, then he's going to say he likes a Toyota. Personally I feel Dave does a pretty good job trying to be objective and factual, but some ratings are going to be subjective. I may look at two pieces of plastic and say the second one is clearly more visually appealing, and someone else could say the first clearly is. There really is no way to establish who is right. And perhaps company A always uses the second type of plastic. Then I'm going to be generally say that company A builds a better product, while someone else simply won't see it, and accuse me of just liking company A. In the end this accusation is silly, because I'm doing an automotive review, which is by nature an editorial. If I find a particular reviewer's review tend to be off, it is probably because we have different tastes, and I shouldn't trust that that person's reviews will apply to me.
Of course this is the ideal world, and I certainly don't always manage to stay above the fray. But this thread has gone on for quite a long time without anyone realizing this argument is pointless, so it happens to stand out to me.

Darn it, I wanted to end this short rant of mine with something appropriately sophomoric and potentially ironic, but nothing comes to mind. Can anyone help?

That's what she said.

...and thanks.


OS, your arguement toawrds me does not make any since. If the review was about a Scion XB then I would not have to say anything about the interior of that car. This review is for a CADILLAC. Which means what? Luxury and expensive. Never did I say that other economy cars don't have cheap plastic. It's when the cheap plastic is on the expensive cars that is makes it junk. Like we see here on the Caddy. You really have no legitimate arguement with me and it seems as if you are grasping at anything you can just to make a smart remark. Which is not working. And by the way. I drive an import everyday and the interior of it is years ahead of this Caddy. I own an IS350 and a LX470. So I don't want to hear your rant about me not driving imports.


Yeah Sheth I think the point here is that when GM uses cheap plastic parts from the Chevy brand and uses them in the Cadillac not only is that stupid but makes it look cheap when you are obviously going to spend double the price. If Toyota put Xb plastic wear in their Lexus cars I would be just as angry. But they don't. Which makes them that much better than GM. And obviusly you pay for what you get for in a Lexus. Not so much with the Cadillac.

I think the long argument about plastics doesn't make sense on both ends. OS is comparing scions and cobalts with a premium line car. Obviously expectations are different when purchasing a cadillac than a cobalt! But I also think different people have their different hot buttons, and Dave T.'s seems to be the plastics. Most of the other reviewers raved about the interior, but some had other problems with it that others did not. These are still people with their own hang ups. But you also do have to realize that the interior is a "package" deal, and this one is very well done in the opinion of most. I also think Cadillac should have toned down the two-tone though, because Dave T is right that the color of the plastic makes a BIG difference, and suddenly making the interior much lighter just as the materials cheapen, only makes the cheap materials really stand out. Some of the photos of this interior are ALL dark gray with no two-tone, and it looks more upscale to me that way.

Let's get back on track here though. I've read 6 or 7 reviews and they all LOVE this car but they ALL agree on two negatives that do stand out to buyers as well: the leather is too cheap and the engine is not powerful enough to pull this 4,400 pound behemoth. I wanted to buy one of these but I won't due to the engine. If I wait until the turbo comes out, then I get turbo lag, shitty gas mileage and have to buy premium fuel. As soon as it came out this should have been available with the 3.6 liter DI engine, and should have used better leather and better seats on the interior and more people would have bought it.

I forgot to say they ALL think the tranny sucks too! Cadillac needs to use better leather and have more comfortable seats, a better engine available from the start (and for the reviewers right off the bat, duh?!) And a better trans or better programmed trans.


Sheth you can bet I cross shopped between Lexus and the Caddy when I was looking for both of my cars and DID in fact sit in the CTS and Escalade and also drove them. And I can honestly say I liked the Lexus interiors and parts better. But that is just my own opinion. And never did I say THOSE particualr cars have crappy interiors. Last time I checked this blog is about the SRX which will be compared to the Lexus RX. And I can tell you this SRX will have nothing on the RX. I do not understand why you are bringing cars into the conversation that we are not talking about. I am talking about the Cobalt inspired door panels on a Cadillac.


This back and forth arguing is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody but Dave T. has actually seen this car in person so the rest of you have absolutely no basis for your "opinions".

"And I can tell you this SRX will have nothing on the RX"

Nic, please tell us why then since you obviously know everything there is to know about this SRX without ever having seen it or driven it.

Ralph L

Did the test car have the optional adjustable suspension?

Apparently, the new AWD system doesn't work with the 3.6 DI engine. The Lacrosse 3.6 isn't available with it either. With CAFE and higher safety standards, we'd better get used to heavy, (relatively) underpowered cars.

Historically, GM always offered a better engine the second year of a new model, just to p.o. early buyers. At least they're only behind a few months this time.

Original sheth


Your last comment disqualifies you from being credible and shows me you havent been in a Cadillac in 10+ years. Maybe 20. If you think Cadillac interiors are dissimilar from Chevy interiors you cannot be taken seriously. Just for the record, Toyota and Lexus have shared things like window switches, clocks, power window switches, shifters and other minor components for years. If you deny this you are being dishonest. Next thing I know you will tell me that its unacceptable for Cadillac to use the same disc brakes or tail light bulb as a Chevy.


I never said anything to you about the Scion. I used that as an example to point out the double standards employed commonly here and in other corners of the automotive press. In case your memory is short I'll remind you that you were the one who came to this blog making snide remarks about how I disagree with everyone. No, actually only those who don't make sense.


I dont deny humans are inherently biased. I don't expect to read biased opinions in "expert reviews" in cars.com. I only want to read about flaws that can be verified by ANYONE, not flaws only perceived by an auto critic that has a special place in his heart for Toyotas. I think Dave's inadequate response to the example I raised summarize my point quite nicely. Car A can be given a free pass because its from a better manufacturer and its interior is all black while car B is dogged for the same quality interior because someone has an axe to grind with that car. Not objective, not professional. And I brought that up to show how the double standard is in full effect with this nitpicking review. Dave says I focused on 2 paragraphs but I suppose he failed to remember the last paragraph where he said the cheap interior could be a deal breaker for most. I always thought the critical parts of the interior where the parts you touch constantly and that lie within the driver's sight lines. You might as well criticize the plastic in the cargo bay.

James, I seriously suggest you check out the interiors of the CTS, DTS, Escalade or STS before telling me about how inferior Cadillac interiors are. This isn't 1989 when LExus first came out. Cadillac has been making nice interiors for some time now.

"And by the way. I drive an import everyday and the interior of it is years ahead of this Caddy."

The IS has a nice interior, but its not superior to the CTS. Likewise the Escalade Platinum is just as nice as the LX. Sit in them for yourself before using dated stereotypes.

"And I can tell you this SRX will have nothing on the RX. "

Tell Motortrend that. And what criteria are using besides badging to make your determination? The SRX are close in size and feature content and drivetrain. They are direct competitors. C&D loved the SRX except for the base engine. Most reviews have said the SRX stacks up nicely to the RX. The interior on the current model most certainly matches up well with the interior of the RX. I will have to see the 2010 model firsthand to see if quality decreased with the redesign.


I agree that the 3L engine is too small for this vehicle. I would really like to know why the 3.6 wasn't used instead. The base engine lacks torque. The turbo engine will lose 2mpg relative to the base AWD model but its mileage is on par with the MDX or ML350.

"And I can honestly say I liked the Lexus interiors and parts better. But that is just my own opinion. And never did I say THOSE particualr cars have crappy interiors."

"And by the way. I drive an import everyday and the interior of it is years ahead of this Caddy."

So Nic you admit that the interiors on the Cadillacs you've checked out WERE nice but then you go on to say your Lexus models are light years ahead of the 2010 SRX interior even though you've yet to sit in it. Considering the interior is very similar to that of the CTS and the CTS interior has been widely lauded I do not get why you would presume the SRX has a low rent interior just because DaveT doesn't like the plastic door pockets. Seeing as though you know Cadillac can design a nice interior maybe you should wait until seeing the SRX in person before condemning its quality.

Dave Wuss

When will Cadillac wake-up and realize chrome side vents and chrome wheels are tacky and unattractive. Compared to it's competition this Caddy falls way short. GM can do better than this.


Dave I was reading over the review again and I like your comment on how you'd buy the SRX solely on the crystal style turn signals. It's funny because even though I got an IS350 over the BMW 335i...I almost purchased the BMW solely for the door chime that they have on the ones with the navigation. I know you've heard it. It's awesome!!! But then I realized that in all honesty the Lexus was a better car for my taste.

Original sheth

"When will Cadillac wake-up and realize chrome side vents and chrome wheels are tacky and unattractive. Compared to it's competition this Caddy falls way short. GM can do better than this."

Chrome wheels are OPTIONAL. WHat part of that is confusing? You don't have to get them. Side vents are being used by Ford and numerous other brands right now. Some BMW models have side vents with turb signals - they are horizontal instead of vertical.


i love the side vents. seems like they are everywhere at the moment.

i have read several negative reviews of the SRX interior. if i remember correctly, the interiors of the first CTS, SRX, and STS were also heavily criticized and then redesigned to much better reviews a year or 2 later.

at any rate, for me the issue is quietness. just one buyer's 2 cents.

Dave Wuss

A work colleague has been looking at cross overs the past few weeks so today I went with him to test drive the Lexus RX. Across the street from the Lexus dealer was a Caddy dealer displaying a silver 2010 SRX outside so we decided to inquire about a test drive. After one of the reps drove it down from the platform, off we went. Within a few minutes my colleague and I knew this car was awful. The interior was to much on the plasticky side with a lot of the interior pieces having wide gaps. To add to our disappointment it was outfitted with the old GM 3.0L engine. Why would anyone buy this underpowered cross over when you can buy an Equinox that weighs less with the same engine??? GM puts an exclamation point on this disappointment by building this Caddy in Mexico. A Caddy being built in Mexico! Old GM is still very much alive.

Original sheth

I had the chance to drive the SRX at a Cadillac sponsored event. They had the X5, RX350 and GLK on hand for comparison. The inteior was hardly cheap and the handling was hardly subpar. The RX stood out as the most ponderous and floaty. The RX would dive every time you touched the brake pedal and its steering was very low effort. The entire vehicle felt really large even though its not heavier than the SRX. The GLK's interior was the worst of the bunch and lacked any sense of luxury. The SRX was clearly the best in terms of interior design within the group provided for evaluation. All of the vehicles had nice materials (with the Lexus being last) and solid construction. In typical Toyota fashion the doors on the RX350 felt light and hollow when closed while the German vehicles and SRX had solid feeling doors. Also, there were components within the RX that are shared with lower end Toyota models.


"Chrome wheels are OPTIONAL. WHat part of that is confusing?"
-I don't believe he said anything was confusing Shet. He said it looks tacky. It appears yet again, you are the only one confused.

"Side vents are being used by Ford and numerous other brands right now."
-It is a good thing Cadillac is looking to emulate Ford. They could learn something.

"Some BMW models have side vents with turb signals - they are horizontal instead of vertical"
-What are turb signals? And really, if BMW can be considered to have "vents" (Maybe a 6 or 7 series) it looks a lot less gaudy than what is on the SRX.

Post a Comment 

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • If you don't want people to see your email address, simply type in the URL of your favorite website or leave the field empty.
  • Do not mention specific car dealers by name. Feel free to mention your city, state and brand.
  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers. This blog is not a fan or enthusiast forum, it is meant to help people during the car-buying process and during the time between purchases, so shoppers can keep a pulse on the market.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
view posting rules

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Search Results

KickingTires Search Results for

Search Kicking Tires

KickingTires iPhone App