Cadillac SRX, 2011-2012 opinions, warnings?

[440Magnum]

We're finally getting serious about a replacement for my wife's PT Cruiser. While there are a number of cars in the running, I know everything I need to know about most of them. However, one that I'm lacking on is the Cadillac SRX, probably a 2010-2012 model year. She really liked it when I showed her what it was, and it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful, and the mutual requirement of being a nice road-trip car. The PT really spoiled her with its cargo area layout, and honestly I think most other hatch vehicles are going to disappoint her in comparison. But I pick my battles...

So... any known mechanical gotchas? Other routine complaints? Any specific recommendations? Options to be avoided?

I appreciate any and all input other than alternative vehicles... I've already got plenty of those. This is really a "data call" on the SRX alone.

thanks,

 

[Rand]

is that the one with the stretching timing chains?

 

[dishdude]

My parents just picked up a CPO 2011 SRX and really like it. It was previously a lease and had 2 oil changes in the first 30k of it's life but no warranty claims...the CPO process included a 100k warranty so if anything wild shows up they'll be covered.

I did a quick search before they pulled the trigger and didn't find any issues, and nothing related to the timing chain on models that new.

 

[JC1]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
We're finally getting serious about a replacement for my wife's PT Cruiser. While there are a number of cars in the running, I know everything I need to know about most of them. However, one that I'm lacking on is the Cadillac SRX, probably a 2010-2012 model year. She really liked it when I showed her what it was, and it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful, and the mutual requirement of being a nice road-trip car. The PT really spoiled her with its cargo area layout, and honestly I think most other hatch vehicles are going to disappoint her in comparison. But I pick my battles...

So... any known mechanical gotchas? Other routine complaints? Any specific recommendations? Options to be avoided?

I appreciate any and all input other than alternative vehicles... I've already got plenty of those. This is really a "data call" on the SRX alone.

thanks,



The two vehicles are a huge difference. I'm sure when the caddy is working with no mechanical issues it will be great. But I'm sure that repairs and parts will be a lot more expensive.

Have a look at edmunds for consumer reviews.
http://www.edmunds.com/cadillac/srx/2011/consumer-reviews.html?sub=suv

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-srx-forums/

Regards, JC.

 

[nickaluch]

Front or AWD.Not rear wheel drive.Based on the same platform as the equinox and terrian.You can buy those new for the same price as the srx used.

 

[tenderloin]

Daughter in law has a 2010...50,000+ miles. Been a great car except not enough power that was fixed with 3.6L V6 upgrade. The 3.0 has been reliable..I have no idea about the 3.6 (2012?)

 

[tightwad]

Go to the cadillacforums website. Click on the SRX link at the top of the page. Then there is a link to the second gen, 2010 & up SRX. You'll find lots of discussion about issues big and small by lots of owners. It's easy to sign up, then you can post your question there. I think you'll get a lot of useful responses.

 

[MrHorspwer]

There should be no timing chain issues on the 3.0L and since the 3.6L was available starting in 2012, those are past the troublesome years as well.

The SRX actually shares platform elements between both the Theta (Equinox/Terrain) and the Epsilon (Regal, Malibu, Lacrosse, etc.). It's a nice little package. Shorter wheelbase than an Equinox/Terrain, so rear seat room is less.

I drove a 2013 AWD for a week. It seemed like a nice vehicle. Plenty of power with the 3.6L. Quite and well appointed inside. Having two kiddie car seats, the rear was a bit cramped, but I suspect car seats aren't the target market.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
However, one that I'm lacking on is the Cadillac SRX, probably a 2010-2012 model year. She really liked it when I showed her what it was, and it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful, and the mutual requirement of being a nice road-trip car.


I don't think it does. I test-drove an SRX with my dad recently...they're looking to get out of the hard-core Jeeping business and into the softer SUV business. Having been Cadillac owners before, he wanted to drive an SRX.

It's a very nice and soft FWD sedan-based wagon. It's not a RWD vehicle, and it doesn't drive like a RWD vehicle. In fact, it has quite a bit of torque steer. Dad said that he felt like it drove just like mom's old 1997 Seville. Essentially, it drove like the large FWD GM vehicle that it is. Some like it, some don't. It wasn't what he was looking for.

I encouraged him to drive the Durango after it. I said I think he'll be able to tell a difference in how it drives.

Let me tell you...the new Durango is NICE. Real nice. We drove a loaded Citadel model. Long story short...the SRX is nice, but a powerful RWD model it is not.

You may be thinking about the previous generation, which lasted through 2009.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
However, one that I'm lacking on is the Cadillac SRX, probably a 2010-2012 model year. She really liked it when I showed her what it was, and it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful, and the mutual requirement of being a nice road-trip car.


I don't think it does. I test-drove an SRX with my dad recently...they're looking to get out of the hard-core Jeeping business and into the softer SUV business. Having been Cadillac owners before, he wanted to drive an SRX.

It's a very nice and soft FWD sedan-based wagon. It's not a RWD vehicle, and it doesn't drive like a RWD vehicle. In fact, it has quite a bit of torque steer. Dad said that he felt like it drove just like mom's old 1997 Seville. Essentially, it drove like the large FWD GM vehicle that it is. Some like it, some don't. It wasn't what he was looking for.

I encouraged him to drive the Durango after it. I said I think he'll be able to tell a difference in how it drives.

Let me tell you...the new Durango is NICE. Real nice. We drove a loaded Citadel model. Long story short...the SRX is nice, but a powerful RWD model it is not.

You may be thinking about the previous generation, which lasted through 2009.


Well, we are looking at AWD in this case. I probably was remembering the previous generation, which was (I think...) even available with CTS-V power at one point? (not in the running, unfortunately).

The Durango is completely off the table for my wife (I have been officially informed) because of styling, length, and negative emotional association with someone who owned a previous generation Durango. However the Grand Cherokee is still in the running since its just a wee bit shorter, is prettier (her words...) and doesn't have the mental baggage.

 

[Hokiefyd]

My parents are buying a new Grand Cherokee. It uses the same underpinnings (as you know) as the Durango, and is an excellent vehicle. They are going to sell their '12 Rubicon.

We drove an AWD SRX. The torque steer was still ferocious. At the end of the day, it's around 300 horsepower saddled up to the front wheels. The AWD system is like that of most FWD-based 'utes, including the two that we own...it's pretty much on-demand and the driving characteristics are much like a FWD vehicle. Not that that's good or bad...that's just what it is. It doesn't drive like a RWD vehicle drives.

For sure, go drive one and check it out. I liked the panoramoic roof. I did not at all like the HVAC/infotainment controls. I see those as easily malfunctioning/breaking with any age on them. You'll see what I mean if you drive it.

I do agree with your wife on the Durango/Grand Cherokee styling. I'm not particularly a fan of the Durango's ostentatious "flair"...the Grand looks much more classy and formal to me. It lacks the 3rd row seating that the Durango and other SUVs offer, but that's certainly not on everyone's must-have list.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

For sure, go drive one and check it out. I liked the panoramoic roof. I did not at all like the HVAC/infotainment controls. I see those as easily malfunctioning/breaking with any age on them. You'll see what I mean if you drive it.


I'm repeating over and over... "It'll be her car, not mine... it'll be HER car, not mine... " ;-)

A front-biased AWD or even pure FWD is not going to bother her, she's never spent much time driving a non-FWD car anyway. We keep cars a long time, so she's only really had 3. Her first car of her own was an 84 Cavalier she bought new in college with her own income, then a 93 Vision TSi when our daughter came along, then the PT (used) in 08. Of all of them, the only one I personally liked was the Vision and it had torque-steer aplenty itself. At the time, 214 HP to the front wheels was quite a bit. About the only things that topped it were Northstar Cadillacs with ~300 HP at the time, the supercharged GM 3800s (Bonneville SSI, Riviera), and the odd turbo FWD here and there.

I mainly don't want to step into a money pit over something I could have found out beforehand. I'm not planning to do much more than oil changes, so it doesn't even have to be "easy to work on" (ha ha!) like my SRT is.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
However, one that I'm lacking on is the Cadillac SRX, probably a 2010-2012 model year. She really liked it when I showed her what it was, and it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful, and the mutual requirement of being a nice road-trip car.


I don't think it does. I test-drove an SRX with my dad recently...they're looking to get out of the hard-core Jeeping business and into the softer SUV business. Having been Cadillac owners before, he wanted to drive an SRX.

It's a very nice and soft FWD sedan-based wagon. It's not a RWD vehicle, and it doesn't drive like a RWD vehicle. In fact, it has quite a bit of torque steer. Dad said that he felt like it drove just like mom's old 1997 Seville. Essentially, it drove like the large FWD GM vehicle that it is. Some like it, some don't. It wasn't what he was looking for.

I encouraged him to drive the Durango after it. I said I think he'll be able to tell a difference in how it drives.

Let me tell you...the new Durango is NICE. Real nice. We drove a loaded Citadel model. Long story short...the SRX is nice, but a powerful RWD model it is not.

You may be thinking about the previous generation, which lasted through 2009.


Well, we are looking at AWD in this case. I probably was remembering the previous generation, which was (I think...) even available with CTS-V power at one point? (not in the running, unfortunately).

The Durango is completely off the table for my wife (I have been officially informed) because of styling, length, and negative emotional association with someone who owned a previous generation Durango. However the Grand Cherokee is still in the running since its just a wee bit shorter, is prettier (her words...) and doesn't have the mental baggage.


I know you said not to recommend alternative vehicles, but I can offer some info on the Grand Cherokee.

My dad has a 2013 Grand Cherokee with the 5.7 Hemi. He has racked up 20,000 miles on it already with absolutely no issues. Probably 5,000 of those miles included towing a heavy dual axle dump trailer. I've driven it a few times and its a nice vehicle and drives very smoothly and feels solid but comfortable. Visibility is also decent considering the size of it.

My uncle recently bought a 2014 3.6L Pentastar Grand Cherokee and it drives nice, but he hasn't had it very long. Since it will be her vehicle, I'd opt for the 3.6L over the Hemi. My dad gets about 15 mpg.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I'm repeating over and over... "It'll be her car, not mine... it'll be HER car, not mine... " ;-)


Sorry, I guess I kinda took this at face value...

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
...it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful...


...so you'll excuse my confusion.

Just wanted to note that it wasn't a RWD car, if it indeed is one of your criteria (though it sounds like it might not really be).

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The AWD system is like that of most FWD-based 'utes, including the two that we own...it's pretty much on-demand and the driving characteristics are much like a FWD vehicle.


The SRX uses a Haldex Generation 4 AWD system (also known as XWD in Saab world). Unlike most on-demand FWD-based AWD systems that simply couple and de-couple the rear drive axle, the SRX has an electronic limited slip rear differential that allows real-time torque vectoring across the rear of the vehicle, along with the front to rear control.

The system functions in much the same way as Honda's SH-AWD system.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I'm repeating over and over... "It'll be her car, not mine... it'll be HER car, not mine... " ;-)


Sorry, I guess I kinda took this at face value...

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
...it meets her criteria of having a hatch rather than a trunk, mine of being rear-drive and powerful...


...so you'll excuse my confusion.

Just wanted to note that it wasn't a RWD car, if it indeed is one of your criteria (though it sounds like it might not really be).



Sorry- been away. Mine are the "lesser" criteria. And I'd looked away from Cadillac long enough to not realize they'd totally re-platformed the SRX, so I need to re-immerse myself in the lineup.