Edmunds praises Volvo XC60, pans Cadillac SRX in new entry-lux CUV comparo
2010 Volvo XC60 - Click above for high-res image gallery
Volvo's new XC60 sits at the top of the pack when it battles head-to-head against the Audi Q5, Mercedes-Benz GLK350, and Cadillac SRX, says Edmunds in its latest four-way comparison. The entrants, each new members of the expanding Compact Luxury Crossover segment, were all selected for the battle based on size and their less-than-$40,000 starting prices. Veterans such as the Acura RDX, BMW X3, and Infiniti EX35 were left home as they aren't rookies to the field.
With a resolutely last place finish, the Cadillac SRX was clobbered over its outward visibility, weight, lack of overall space (despite being the largest of the bunch), and cramped second-row seating. The fact that the Edmund's test car was a base FWD model didn't help either.
Tied for second place were the GLK350 and Q5, both praised for their power, ride, and handling. The Mercedes came up short in overall utility, while the Audi took some hits for its electric power steering.
According to the testers, the XC60 "won by a hair" thanks to its generous cargo capacity, second-row comfort, and "safety features galore." While the Swede offered plenty of power, it suffered from poor fuel economy and less-than-satisfying handling. So, how did a not-fun-to-drive Volvo CUV climb to the top of the comparison (one that Edmunds says, "none of our editors would personally choose")? You'll have to read their story to find out.
Gallery: 2010 Volvo XC60
[Source: Edmunds]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Steve Lopez 2:07PM (8/18/2009)
Well, were they are in the same price range? Did they all have all wheel drive, most of the same options, etc.
You must compare them on an equal footing or don't bother.
I think I will let the real car magazines handle this one.
Reply
audi_arena 2:26PM (8/18/2009)
So far Car and Driver, Motor Trend, and Automobile have all given top honors to the Q5, and while the Volvo, like the Audi, does just about everything well, it does nothing BETTER than the Audi...
the interior also looks and feels like poo...
Adam Marcello 2:28PM (8/18/2009)
Its a little ridiculous when they chastise the car for not having options when use the base model. The other cars tested were all above their min. MSRP indicating each one had options except for the cadillac who was tested at base msrp. Adding all wheel drive and the sport package yields all the options they claim are missing at a price point still lower than the merc. I guess they just needed a 4th car to fill out the pack. Why wasnt the lexus in this test, they are the current lux crossover king?
Tagg 2:56PM (8/18/2009)
The Cadillac starts at $33,000 and goes into the $50,000 price range. The Volvo XC60 starts at $32,000 and goes deep into the $50,000. The Audi Q5 starts at $37,000 and goes deep into the $50,000 range as well. The Benz GLK starts at $35,000.
So they are all price competitive but some of places where Edmunds rips the Cadillac has little to do with AWD or options. They didn't like the basic items that all SRX's have and that's a serious weight issue (which has been noted by the real car mags), poor visability (also noted by the real car mags) and a cramped interior despite being a huge; compact CUV. The only real props the car mags gave the SRX were to the high quality interior.
Those are issues that no option package will fix.
I'm a bit biased because I liked the old SRX and really like the Q5 and the Volvo with some of the appearnce options.
Paul 7:24PM (8/18/2009)
Cadillac is going to have to live with this re-badged turkey of a Chevy for a long, long time. Given the importance of this segment, news like this does not bode well for the brand.
Without a huge success in the "3-series competitor" that they say is coming and a hit in the flagship STS replacement, I think Cadillac could legitimately go away in a couple years without a lot of fuss.
Matt 4:41PM (8/18/2009)
I think it's pretty funny people still have this mentality. I sure hear Edmunds' name in the news a lot more often than any other automotive publication. I hear their brand being quoted by vehicle manufacturers in TV and radio commercials, too, something that used to happen with the 'real' car mags years ago. You have the right to disagree with their comparative analysis. But don't kid yourself into thinking running to the car magazines will get you anything different. Except maybe a false hope that using rollout for acceleration times will get your base SRX to hit 60 in 5 seconds flat. :)
AMcA 9:52PM (8/18/2009)
GM totally screwed the pooch on the SRX introduction. Why didn't they bring out the turbo first? It seems everyone's complaint is that the car feels sluggish. But invariably they love the interior, and the handling.
Had they brought out the turbo first, no one would have minded the extra weight.
Not the SRX is getting saddled with a seriously bad reputation. Highly unforntuate.
Dan 10:44PM (8/18/2009)
Doesn't matter which order they sent the press cars out in, selling a $25K Equinox as a $45K Cadillac isn't going to work. This car is a joke.
the4thheat 12:59AM (8/19/2009)
I'm not even sure why the SRX has so many rabid fans (take a look at the old SRX posts) convinced that it's going to be some massive sales hit. I've been saying for a while that this thing shouldn't even have been released but for some bizarre reason there's people who are actually convinced that this is some sort of Lexus RX killing CUV sales king.
And honestly I think if they want to keep releasing premium CUVs they should just keep them under the Buick brand name since that's supposed to be the entry level luxury competitor. Having a bizarrely proportioned Equinox-based crossover plopped into the Cadillac lineup is just plain strange.
PJ 2:26AM (8/19/2009)
Tagg nailed it. The new SRX's problems are more fundamental than features or options. It's tighter inside and nearly a half-foot shorter than the old model, compact enough that there's no third-row option. But it's also 100 lbs *heavier* than before and slower 0-60 than the old V6 model--over a second slower, in the 3.0's case, and about a half-second slower in the 2.8T.
Bottom line is that GM cheaped out with the SRX's platform. The old one drove great because it was essentially a CTS wagon. Although GM has gotten extremely peeved when journalists have said so, the new SRX *is* related to the VUE, Terrain, and Equinox. The SRX uses the Theta II platform; the VUE and Equinox use a platform that mixes Theta II parts with parts of the old Theta platform (original VUE, Equinox, XL-7). So they're partial platform-mates, and they also share engines and transmissions. Not so good when you're trying to rebrand yourself as the "New GM."
GIUGIK1 2:09PM (8/18/2009)
The new SRX is rubbish. I don't know what they were thinking. As much as I love the CTS and CTS-V , the SRX is a piece of excrement in Caddilac's lineup. And to make it worse, it's all new. It won't be going away soon. As for the XC60, congrats, Volvo.
Reply
Devin 3:00PM (8/18/2009)
Congrats to Volvo, except for that joke of a Nav system they've decided to use
Joe K. 4:38PM (8/18/2009)
I'm still lost on the FWD platform... You have arguably one of the nicer platforms for midsize cars to build on with the CTS and you make it FWD and AWD, why not RWD and AWD, makes a heck of a lot more sense. Esp. if the AWD is Rear biased...
val 2:09PM (8/18/2009)
Haha thats Edmunds for you, they wouldn't know a car if it ran them over....
Reply
Doug 2:13PM (8/18/2009)
this coming from an armchair expert.. *rolls eyes*
niteriderc5 2:18PM (8/18/2009)
wow... The Merc interior looks like it was designed by chrysler, the Audi Interior looks like Kia helped them and the Volvo...ikea furniture store.
I am somewhat shocked....The SRX is my least fav Cadillac and hardly one I would defend but damn...
Reply
val 2:20PM (8/18/2009)
How do you know i have an armchair? They are called Recaro's, look it up Douglas, you may learn something, and get those eyes checked..
Reply
godda9u 2:58PM (8/18/2009)
stop texting and driving you a-hole
GO DENVER 2:31PM (8/18/2009)
The SRX they tested was a base model with no options. Look at the base price and the as tested price. They're the same only on the SRX. Did edmunds intentionally do that? Doesn't seem like a very fair comparison.
Reply
Aprime 2:50PM (8/18/2009)
Plus the 3.0L engine sucks overall.
It's meant to impress HP-wise Honda style, meaning its torque peak is at 5900RPM, meaning the fuel economy is terrible because it has to move 4000+ pounds boats.