Longitudinally mounted V6, rear wheel drive-based AWD system, double-wishbone front suspension, car-based unibody platform, strut tower brace, huge “Ultraview” moonroof, seven-passenger seating, and luxury touches everywhere. The first-generation Cadillac SRX seemed to have it all.
What Luxury SUV Buyers Want
So what went wrong? Why was the first generation only mildly popular while the second generation SRX is the second largest selling mid-sized SUV, even seven years after its introduction? Well the first answer of course is that the average buyer is different from the enthusiast, and seems to want conventional looks, a conventional platform, a promise of luxury, and, it seems from looking at the successful mid-sized SUVs on the market, a fastback shape!
What Car Enthusiasts Want
But what do we enthusiasts want? We want to combine the attributes of a performance sedan and a minivan. In our minds, we need performance, but we also need maximum space or else we’d choose a sportwagon or a sedan. For us the fastback shape just robs cargo and third passenger space.
When the 2004 Cadillac SRX came out, the automotive press praised it highly. I remember reading Car & Driver’s choice of the SRX V8 over the VW Toureg, Infinity FX45 and Porsche Cayenne S, and I was immediately a fan. I loved the “Camaro SUV” looks and recommended to my buddy that he purchase an SRX. He lived in California, so I never got to ride in it, but I remember how he loved the car. He eventually replaced it with an Escalade, however, because the SRX was a little small.
Time passed, and through the magic of layoffs, I found myself out of a job and decided to sell Cadillacs. It took a while, but eventually we took in a white-diamond-over-shale-interior 2009 Cadillac SRX AWD V6 with the premium grille and 18″ wheels with 49,950 miles. It just made it under the 50,000 mile cutoff for a certified car, and my wife and I traded her 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe in for the SRX as we were expecting our first baby, and I already had 3 older kids.
“Ultraview Sunroof”
By 2009, the final year for the SRX, the interior had been upgraded into quite a beautiful place to be. I’ve never been into paying for all the bells and whistles, but the heated seats, wood and leather heated steering wheel, Bose stereo, power pedal and “Ultraview Sunroof” were certainly very nice!
Power Third Row Was Truly Small
So what’s the second answer to the question above: What went wrong? The first generation SRX, despite many strengths, was just a little bit less than the sum of its parts. For example, the power-folding third row was truly tiny. Almost no foot room and a very thin seat cushion. And it took up almost the entire way back, leaving the roof as the only option for luggage on trips.
And since this was a rear-wheel drive platform, the drive-shaft tunnel was quite large, rendering the middle seat best for a short legged child. Since my oldest daughter needed an opening window as she would tend to throw up in the way back, and my middle daughter was the best fit for the middle seat, and my youngest daughter was in a car seat, that left my growing teenage son to ride in the way-back, and it was quite uncomfortable for him on trips.
Shock Tower Brace Couldn’t Completely Compensate for the Sunroof
Next up on the list of not quite perfect was the structural integrity of the car. By historic standards, this was a stiff and quiet car, but it was a large, heavy, unibody vehicle with a huge hole in the roof for the sunroof, and as such, the creaks and rattles after 50,000 miles were ever present, despite being very minor and quiet.
255 horsepower at 6,500 rpm, 254 lb-ft of torque at 2,800 rpm
Third, the GM Hi-Feature V6 was a torque-y mill, but a bit breathless over 4,000 rpm. When accelerating through the gears, the 5-speed auto was perfectly matched, and half to 3/4 throttle would work each gear from about 2,500 rpm to about 3,750 and then shift up, and it was a seamless and fun drive. Pushing the engine hard, however, was less rewarding. Holding gears above 4,000 rpm made quite a lot of noise, but not nearly as much thrust.
So how was it to drive? Awesome on the highway, very nice on a twisty road, and easy to place and control in moving traffic. Around town the steering was very slow and required more turns lock to lock that you would expect, but the payoff was steering on the highway and the back roads that was very precise, and yet completely unflappable. Small movements of wheel would not adversely affect the line you had chosen. The flip side (please forgive the near pun) was that the vehicle was not quite what you would call toss-able. You could set your line and drive it, but it required a fair amount of steering and usually both hands on the wheel on the twisty roads.
3.6 V6 Timing Chain
Over 2.5 years we put 30,000 miles on the SRX and loved it, but we did have things go wrong, both little (a persistent rattle in the sunroof when open) and big (stretched timing chain, replaced under warranty) and there were also a few nagging items that I could feel but not diagnose myself and that my dealer couldn’t quite identify or fix. (One of the problems turned out to the a bad transfer case in the AWD system.)
The Best Way to get the Space of a Minivan, is to get a Minivan!
As the end of my certified warranty approached, it was decision time. I got a trade in value for my SRX from my dealer that was ok at best. I decided to go to Carmax and see what they offered. They offered me $4,000 less and said the AWD system was no longer operational! So I went back to my dealer, got a little bit more for my trade, and leased a new 2015 Toyota Sienna minivan. The space in the Sienna is incredible, the ride is supple, the engine is powerful, the steering is nice, and the turning circle is better than any car I’ve owned.
I don’t regret owning the SRX, but I’ve learned that you can’t have it all (minivan space and sports sedan performance) and sometimes the crowd is right!
(The postscript to the story, is that at trade time, I was able to get my car fixed under warranty, and then once the SRX was ready for sale, I had the pleasure of being the salesperson who sold it to the next owner, at a small profit, and fully sorted.)
I don’t drive many new cars anymore so my thoughts/feelings are often based on others experiences. That said, my guess as to why the 1st generation SRX wasn’t that successful is largely based on the styling. It’s blocky looks would lead someone to think it’s a sort of “junior” Escalade, a thought reinforced by it’s RWD based chassis. But it’s let down by it’s base V6 engine and dismal interior space versus it’s physical size.
But you have to congratulate Cadillac for it’s effort.
I agree. The 1st gen just never looked right to me. Not wrong, but something just seemed off. The replacement nailed the looks. That, I suspect, was most of the difference.
These first gen versions were ridiculously unsuccessful as far as sales went…. even here in the city that built them (meanwhile the streets are teeming with CTS and STS sedans, as well as the current “little” SRX). I always notice them in traffic because they’re uncommon and have very odd proportions and styling compared to other crossovers, especially from the rear.
I think the price, size, and styling just wasn’t right for a lot of people. It’s not quite a large CUV (as evidenced by that 3rd row), but it’s way too big to be a small CUV. The rear is very blocky and upright; combined with the long rear overhang and big quarter windows it gives off a very strong “station wagon” look which is exactly what crossover buyers don’t want.
The current generation is much sportier looking. Raked lines, lower stance, clipped overhangs, and firmly compact size. I don’t like crossovers in general, but I always thought the current one was handsome for a CUV and integrates current Cadillac styling cues nicely. I recall a huge price cut on the downsized 2010 model as well, by at least $5k-$10k. This allowed really good lease rates which is extra important in this category. I think most of the newer ones you see are leases, as with the king of this segment, the Lexus RX.
Max, I agree with your styling comments of the new SRX. I must add that the new SRX has tail fins. They are subdued, but present nonetheless. It couldn’t be a Cadillac without them.
The new one may look better, but that tiny fastback sacrifices practicality significantly.
Unsurprisingly, that doesn’t seem to bother CUV buyers.
I fully agree that the current generation is more handsome. The first generation had what I call the “tall wagon problem”, in that more wagon-ish proportions sometimes come off looking awkward. For another example, see the Ford Freestyle/Taurus X. The effect is similar. Further complicating things here is that the vehicle mimics the styling of the STS so closely up front, and also in the angle of the C-pillar, that it almost looks like a vertically stretched STS wearing a backpack.
The “tall wagon” shape is infinitely more practical, though. That cargo area must swallow an awful lot of stuff, since the roofline does not curve down at the back and the hatch is nearly flat.
Was in the market for a new to me car just a couple weeks ago.
Because I need the ability to haul stuff and three dogs and specifically did not want an SUV, the tall wagons ended up on my shopping list. Ended up with a Volvo V70 which is a surprisingly large car inside.
Wagons are far and few between since consumers seem to prefer the SUV look – and none of them have any storage space behind the seats. So much for the “U,” right?
Your experience mirrors a lot of others here on this site. After getting a taste of the kind of cars we dreamed about when young, we find ourselves gravitating toward unpretentious utilitarian vehicles that offer greater value as we grow older.
Being a grownup stinks.
So true!!
I miss the days of cramming 7 to 8 high school buddies in my VW bug while driving across town.
Today, I drive a very pedestrian Ford Escape (the truck looking version) :-[
However, I have a very keen eye on a used red Fiat 500 sitting on the front row of the nearby dealership. My family would “flip” if I pulled up in my sister’s driveway for Xmas in my Fiat 😉
I can third that. The Alfa Romeo Giulietta I was set to buy made way for a Mazda 3 once I realized the Alfa’s seats were torture instruments.
A stretched timing chain and a bad transfer case within the first 80,000 miles? Regardless of who picked up the bill for these major repairs, this is inexcusable in ANY modern vehicle, let alone one that cost as much as this pretentious load did when it was new. Is it any wonder GM went broke when the former “Standard of the World” was selling stuff like this?
A friend of mine had one of these. A black one that looked very nice. Eventually started “nickel and diming” her with little things going wrong, it was in the shop all the time. Eventually, just like the vehicle in the article, the transfer case went bad. She now drives a well equipped Toyota Highlander.
Former Cadillac salesman here, and another big fan of the SRX. Like all the Sigmas, they were great to drive, and I loved the low driving position. One of the few CUVs where I can put my legs out in front of me, instead of below.
Looking back on it, I think it’s fair to say that the first SRX placed so much emphasis on the driving experience that it was to the detriment of the rest of the package, especially in aesthetics and cabin space. I for one happened to like the tall wagon looks, but I was certainly in the minority. Let’s face it, the exterior shape just didn’t project the right image, and this class is about image above all else. The few potential customers who were unconcerned about the unconventional shape and were willing to give the SRX a closer look found, like you, a cramped interior that was difficult to configure and poorly packaged. The power operated third row stands out as being exceptionally useless; it was tedipus to demo because it moved so agonizingly slow.
And then to top it off, there is the atrocious build quality and reliability that plagued all Sigmas. Even when new, these cars caused massive headaches for both me and my customers.
Didn’t some of the first ones have Northstars?
Yes, Northstars were optional. But after the first year, they weren’t common.
The 3rd-row seat space issue was why we finally abandoned shopping SUVs & got a minivan.
Good choice on that Sienna, the turning circle really is amazing & makes it a breeze to park. I don’t know about later models, but the only driveability issue with our 2004 is its “binary” throttle response, noticed by reviewers too. Ours held up well after 120K miles, no major repairs.
As the immortal Frank Zappa said,
“It’s a little bit cheesy, but it’s nicely displayed.”
If reliability is ones goal of vehicle purchase, a GM product may not be the best choice.
J D Power’s long term dependability (2015) puts Lexus at the top, followed by Buick (a GM product), then Toyota, with Cadillac next…
LINK to press release
Note that none of GM’s product lines are below average, and well above Land Rover and Fiat.
I’ve said elsewhere, Land Rover is for people who think a Jeep isn’t expensive and trouble-prone *enough*.
Yes, BUT, as we all know, Toyota/Lexus is so vastly superior to everyone else that coming in third after those two is akin to discovering fire after someone discovered electricity.
JD Powers is a joke.
Consumer Reports Long Term Reliability Index (most recent index, as of a month ago, on a rolling 5 to 7 year average, depending on make/model) has Cadillac 4th from the BOTTOM, not far ahead of Fiat, Land Rover, and other miserable makes.
GM mostly makes garbage now, and has for some time, and Cadillac actually scores worse on CR’s Reliability Index than Chevy, Buick or GMC, which aren’t exactly stalwarts of reliability.
I think Consumer Reports is rubbish. J D Powers does a random selection of owners and follows up to get each selected owner to report. CR not so much.,
The ONLY person I know who owned one of these was a life-long Cadillac person, and the SRX was such a steaming pile that she traded it for a Lexus ES, which she likes much better.
I am not a Cadillac fan, but the new SRX is a pretty vehicle.
Someone posted a tale of woe to the Edmund’s forums about her SRX. Some sort of problem with the wiring harness. My SRX was really trouble free. I did learn to run the engine while moving the rear seat to/from the stored position and then plan to go somewhere to make sure the battery recharged before shutting down.
Style wise, I agree the current SRX is much better looking. I always have had mixed feeling about the 2004 to 2009.
when considering a replacement vehicle for my soon to be too old 98 passat wagon i test drove a used one of these. i was intrigued by the low mileage and the exterior shape that promised station wagon proportions on a slightly raised platform.
i can agree with much of what was already posted here – where did the space go? it has an anti- doctor who approach to interior volume. the exterior appears so big but there is so much less usable space inside. i’m 6’3″ with 34″ inseam and size 15 shoes. i found it difficult to get a comfortable driving position (not unusual). the rear seats were no better for my kids who now at 17 and 14 are taller than i am. there was no 3rd row seating in the one i drove and in retrospect i have to ask where would gm engineers have put it? the cargo space seemed both narrow and shallow (really a 3rd seat? there?) and i do recall the retractable privacy shield actually moved from side-to-side instead of front-to-back. i thought that was fairly novel and upon reflection necessary because at that road height a person of below average height would not be able to reach back to grab the handle to operate the screen!
of course after driving cars or station wagons all my life it seemed high and tippy (probably was) and i recall the acceleration and steering to be nothing to write home about. according to the write-up this was a sporty vehicle? this vehicle had sporting intentions? really? sorry, i never noticed, but to this day i have not driven many in the class – perhaps it was sporty by comparison.
fit and finish was nice and there were all sorts of luxo touches that my decade+ older wagon did not have. those touches were nice if you needed them, i just wanted more of the same. functionality, practical use of space, comfortable driving position, relatively easy on fuel. in fact that’s what i still want. in the end i passed although my decision was made after about the first 10 minutes of driving having had the salesman go over the vehicle front to back before we test drove it.
funny it is one of the cars that i test drove really hoping to like it. i came away thinking that it was small for its size in driver, passenger and load capabilities and that it had more luxo touches than i needed in a package that overall was not very inspiring.
It is interesting to conduct informal surveys of what’s on the road every now and then. Certainly, lots and lots of SUVs of all types and sizes, but about 1/4 of the fleet in the Detroit area appears to be minivans. You can’t go on any trip without seeing several Chrysler or Dodge vans. Lots of Tahoes and Yukons as well. The recipe for success includes good seating and good stowage.
Most of the CUVs will, in my opinion, be really cheap in a couple of years when folks realize that they aren’t really all that practical or comfortable.
Here in Vienna these are likely to have foreign plates, usually from one of the eastern EU states and the people driving them are not ones you would like to meet.
I had a 2007 with the northstar V8. No problems with the drivetrain in 91,000 miles. Front shocks got replaced. The third seat was only good for smaller children, and I would not have wanted it, but it came the with the utility package which included rear A/C, which was very good to have in over 100 degree weather. The V8 came with a 6 speed automatic instead of 5. I also had 255/50 tires on 20 inch wheels (sport pkg). The RWD SRX was Car&Drivers first choice in their luxury midsize SUV comparison for a few years beginning in 2004 I think.
I really liked the SRX at the time (and still do), but in retrospect it’s easy to see why it was a bust. It was basically the Audi “Allroad” or Volvo “Cross Country” equivalent of the STS – a jacked up station wagon – but I don’t think Cadillac saw it that way or marketed it that way. Buyers saw it as either a half-assed proper SUV or a very awkward, tall station wagon. Mind you, “jacked up station wagon” is precisely the reason I like it, but look at sales figures for cars like the A4 Allroad and Volvo Cross Country wagons… they sell to a very small but dedicated handful of outsiders. The SRX was intended to be a solidly mainstream product, and failed at that miserably. FWIW, I think they really knocked it out of the park with v2.0, and the CTS Wagon was probably a better fit for people who wanted something like the OG SRX anyway… too bad that didn’t survive.
I also liked that you could get the Northstar in these. When not explodifying itself, it’s a great engine… sounds good, very smooth, power everywhere and it’ll rev to nearly 7,000rpm. Plus, being a nerd, I admired Cadillac’s V8 for being a throwback to the olden days of greater autonomy within the GM divisions.
The RWD northstar was a different engine than the FWD version, with variable valve timing. My 2007 SRX would do 70 MPH in 2nd gear before automatically upshifting to 3rd. I think in either 4th or 5th gear it would have had a top speed of about 140 MPH (I only had it up to about 110). (4th-6000 RPMs or 5th-4500)(in 6th 2000 RPM=79 MPH)
SomeOne is right. People are hesitant to consider 2000s Northstars, but it was made much more reliable for 2000 and the 2004 RWD variant was actually considered quite sound. In fact, reading sites like Cadillac forums reveals the RWD Northstar is generally more reliable than the first few years of the 3.6.
Interesting to read about the SRX, I was aware the first gen was rwd but have not really looked into it. The basic concept is similar to our Ford Territory, which is an SUV/CUV based on the Falcon platform.
Comparing the 3rd row space I can understand the comments above, the SRX has 9.4″ less legroom than the Territory (which is small enough) thanks to a footwell for the third row, the second row also slides to adjust 2nd/3rd row legroom. The SRX looks more like the add-in third row often seen in station wagons, including Holden’s competitor which was simply a raised AWD Commodore wagon (the Adventra).
I expect another key difference was the Territory 4.0 I6 had 35 lb-ft more torque, peaking at lower rpm. Power is the same, but only because the 4.0 peaks at 1,250 rpm lower.
Styling-wise, it certainly seems like the SRX looks too much like the CTS/DTS/?TS sedans to be accepted as a ‘proper’ SUV.
To me these always had an Escalade “light” look to them, with some faux sportyness in it’s lower roofline. I initially even thought these were just that – chopped Escalades – If not, trail blazer based. I was genuinely surprised to find out these were CUVised CTSs in essence.
They were actually CUVised STS.
I like the 1st gen styling. It was almost a Cadillac wagon. Almost.
The 2017 XT5 has a bold new look.
I’ve always liked the look of these, and the ’07-09 interior is very elegant. But it’s interesting to hear an owner’s perspective and hear about the car’s flaws.
I still much prefer these to their successor, if only because of the RWD layout and, in my eyes, more attractive styling.
One other problem with these is the gas mileage, even with the V6. The bigger Lambda crossovers managed an EPA-estimated 16/24 mpg with FWD, 16/22 mpg with AWD. The SRX managed only 15/22 mpg just in V6 RWD guise, and it weighed around 600 pounds less than the Lambda! Considering the V6 RWD gets the same gas mileage as a V8 AWD STS despite similar curb weights (I’m going by figures from Edmunds.com), that has effectively ruled out a used SRX for me. I don’t need a crossover but the idea of basically having a STS wagon appealed to me: good dynamics and just a little extra space. But the V8 gas mileage is equivalent to that of some trucky SUVs.
Also, it’s odd that the first-gen SRX didn’t receive the direct-injected V6 towards the end of its run, which would have helped with fuel economy.
Yeah the gas mileage was really quite terrible! I managed 19.5 on a few road trips and 14-15 in general usage.
My overall gas mileage with the V8 was about 19 MPG. My 2007 SRX is on the EPA Fuel Economy website (the only AWD 2007). On long trips @70 MPH I usually averaged about 21-22 MPG. The revised EPA ratings were 20 highway for the V8. The new FWD SRX is only slightly better than the V6 RWD SRX was. AWD does use more fuel. My V6 CTS gets @70 about 27-28 on long trips.
The two 2004-2009 SRX owners I knew both bought it because it was a Cadillac that happened to be a CUV. Unfortunately, for the rest of the market that wanted a good CUV whoever it happened to be made by, it didn’t quite work out that way.
Current owner of first gen. As it became clear that my e36 is dead, started frantically looking forvreplacement. Since wife wanted suv, looked for them, and decided to look for americans (in eu). Before that didn’t even know it existed. But stats and reviews looked good. As it is, imho, rather good car. Wife was scared when first saw it, even thought she wanted suv. Imho, it’s roomy, v8 has proper punch (for europe), corners well (we really don’t have canjons, just curvy roads), could go faster than with beemer with no drama.
Just my 2 cents..