• 45

2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo - Click above for high-res image gallery

The Cadillac SRX Turbo appears to be a one-year wonder. GM Inside News reports that the optional 300-horsepower, 2.8-liter turbo V6 has been discontinued in Cadillac's small crossover – a fact they confirmed through Cadillac's public relations department. Going forward, the standard 3.0-liter DI V6 will be the sole engine offering, which it basically was anyway. You see, according to Cadillac, less than 10 percent of SRX buyers opted for the turbo.

While the 3.0-liter gets little love from reviewers, who (correctly) ding it for being generally weak-kneed given the task at hand, actual SRX purchasers are obviously fine with it. The 2.8 turbo, despite dangling the carrot of more power, was not particularly memorable from either a performance or fuel economy perspective. More importantly, it seems basically no one walking into Cadillac dealerships cared it even existed, so out came the axe. If GM wishes to offer a step-up engine in the SRX someday, maybe it's finally time to work on getting the 3.6-liter DI V6 from the CTS in there.


01-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 01-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 02-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 03-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 04-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 05-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 06-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 07-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 08-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 09-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 10-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 21-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 22-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 23-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 24-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 25-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 26-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 27-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 28-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 29-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 32-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 33-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 30-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 15-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 11-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 12-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 13-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 31-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 34-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 35-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 36-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 16-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 17-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 18-srx-28t-firstdrive
  • 37-2010-cadillac-srx-28t-fd
  • 19-srx-28t-firstdrive

Photos copyright ©2010 Chris Shunk / AOL

[Source: GM Inside News]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 45 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      Terribly late to this burn the SRX party.

      GM already made a great small CUV with a 3.6L V6 - called the Saturn Vue XR.

      A friend has one, great vehicle with a decent powertrain (though not quite his old Vue Redline powered by Honda - oops I digress), but apparently after driving one of the
      CUV's Mike Rowe keeps on stumping for, he doesn't want anything GM - SRX, Equinox or Terrain.
      • 4 Years Ago
      No surprise that the 3.0 is far and away the sales leader. The turbo is overpriced and the folks buying the SRX don't care about canyon carving or 1/4 mile times.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Every professional review I've read of the 3.0L (in the LaCrosse and Equinox, too) has said it's a total and utter dog. It's not that it's underpowered -- the 2.4L in the Equinox is underpowered and only 1.5 seconds slower to 60, after all. The 3.0L is just horrendously tuned, managing to be both slow AND inefficient. I mean, real world fuel economy numbers for the SRX are nearly tied with the much larger Enclave. And the Enclave's faster!
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Allen: The R63 and X5-M are hugely heavy, bloated beasts. If that is AMG and M, then a somewhat smaller and lighter SRX-V would be truer to V.
        • 4 Years Ago
        ....but the base engine is slower to 60 than a Honda CR-V. I've driven a SRX with the base motor and it is downright lethargic, from its unwillingness to downshift to how painfully slow it leaves the line.

        The base motor doesn't make enough power to properly propel this heavy crossover, and the turbo motor was too expensive and didn't make it quick enough to justify the difference.

        GM, drop in the 3.6 and call it a day.
        • 4 Years Ago
        That's what happens when manufactures don't do the right decisions. wasn't that the engine that was burning if you used regular gas? overprice - burning - discontinued..
        • 4 Years Ago
        NightFlight - I have to agree with you. I recently had a SRX with the 3.0 for a rental and it was a horrible engine/tranny combo for that vehicle. I will go as far as saying it was downright pathetic for a Caddy. The engine alwasys seemed to struggle and the tranny had terrible programming.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Night, the 0-60 times are an average of at least 10 web sites I looked into and I stand by my claim.
        The weights I gave are for GVWR, but for the sake of avoiding an argument, here's the revised numbers.
        CR-V curb weight 3430 SRX 4224
        GVWR 4560 5467
        The Equinox uses the Theta platform and the SRX uses the Theta premium platform exclusive to Cadillac and Saab and shares some components with the Theta and Epsilon II, however the majority of whats shared with the Equinox Theta is only the nomenclature.
        While the SRX is not for someone that wants to beat the sox of every car next to you at the light, the 3.0 is more than adequate. If I want to go cruising and blow away anything in sight, I jump in the V. I agree, the 3.6 di would be a better choice, it is what it is. The wife loves it, and it is hers, and I like it. That's all that matters.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ John H

        An SRX-V wouldn't necassarily have been bad, just that an SRX-V with the 2.8L Turbo slug would have been. The R63 and X5-M are seriously quick, the SRX 2.8T was only competitive with mainstream competition.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I just can't understand why GM still makes the 3.0, the 3.6 is more powerful and more efficient. They stopped using it in Buick last year so as far as I know the SRX is the last car to use it.

        GM, put the 3.6L V6 in, stop wasting money making the 3.0L V6 and CALL IT A DAY!
        • 4 Years Ago
        Night,
        On average, the SRX has a 0-60 time of 8.2 and the CR-V is 9.7 according to all the reviews.
        The CR-V is rated 180/161 and 4560lbs, the SRX is 265/223 at 5467lbs. Apples to palm trees.
        When the wife and I purchased our SRX this past summer we test drove both the turbo 2.8 and the 3.0 and while the turbo was quicker, the difference was not worth the added cost.
        Calling the 3.0 lethargic is a puzzle to me, we've found it to be more than enouph power that we use. By no means is it a rocket, but from someone that has performance cars in the driveway and uses the power of a V, it's certainly not lethargic.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ caddy-v

        1. Since when does a CR-V weigh 4,500 pounds? The 2010 CR-V averages a REALISTIC 0-60 time in 8.5 seconds and weighs 3,300 pounds.

        2. Since when does a SRX weigh 5,400 pounds? Publications were running the base SRX 0-60 in the high 8's.

        Your data is completely bogus and doesn't help your case at all. The base SRX is lethargic, EVERY SINGLE reputible publication has said that exactly and panned the 3.0 engine and transmission that is also panned in the Equinox (which your vehicle directly based off of). It runs about 1.5 seconds slower to 60MPH than all of its direct competition.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I doubt the turbo's tendency to kaboom on regular grade fuel didn't help.

      (Yes, I know this was fixed, but bad press is tenacious.)
        • 4 Years Ago
        How was this fixed? Only way they fixed it was to tell us we had to use 93 Octane Gas. Says so right on my fuel door on my wifes SRX Turbo. I would have never bought the 3.0 it was a slow pig. The 2.8 seems to be pretty good considering that its basically the same engine thats in the OPC VXR versions of the Regal overseas. It was a couple grand upgrade but if your looking at a luxury brand its not really about the cost.

        One thing I have noticed since we bought it back in May is that about 75% of the people in Caddy dealers are probably on Social Security. It was like and old folks home the last time I was in for service.

        I'm guessing that most of the people buying SRXs are buying the front wheel drive 3.0s cause they are cheap and look almost the same other than a couple badges.

      • 4 Years Ago
      I feel like they didn't advertise it enough. I, for one, wasn't even aware the turbo was out. But, if it didn't take it didn't take, at least the non-turbo is selling. The 3.6 would be a nice upgrade without being overboard but I bet GM isn't going to bother after this.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Wasn't the engine also self destructive as well if you placed the wrong type of gas on it?

      As turbo guys, its not about the customer caring one way or another about less cylinders or such, the fact was it did nothing special in terms of performance, or fuel economy. Fords Ecoboost could run rings around this. Now the SRX soldiers on with a paltry 3.0L V6 and they are asking almost $50K for this vehicle. Wow...
        • 4 Years Ago
        One guy had an engine blow up, very early on, and GM fixed it for him and everyone for free.
      • 4 Years Ago
      they have a perfectly good 3.6-liter DI V6 that should be standard period on this Cadillac...It is suppose to be a Cadillac after all..on top this is no entry level Luxury SUV either it does not make sense to offer it with weak engines....
      • 4 Years Ago
      They should have made the turbo version a 3.0 and the NA version a 2.8. It would have improved sales. Probably a bit simplistic, but I think many people associate engine size with price.
        • 4 Years Ago
        My past sentence there doesn't even make sense, given how much success Ford has had offering EcoBoost as the performance option so far.

        It's the idea of a turbo as an economy option (like the Cruze) that is so far unproven in the US (it works elsewhere!).
        • 4 Years Ago
        This could be foretelling of all the other downsized turbos planned. The F-150, Explorer...

        Will people give up cylinders and displacement for more complex smaller engines of equal power.
      creeksj
      • 2 Years Ago
      i own a 2011 srx with turbo, had a 2010 without turbo. if you can afford it go with the turbo, another added cost it requires 103 octane fuel. better gas millage, a lot better performance
      • 4 Years Ago
      I've only seen about a handful of these.. or less.
        • 4 Years Ago
        the area you live must not have a lot of wealthy people. they are everywhere here.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Meh. The problem with all of GMs High Feature V6s with DI is that they make peak torque north of 5,000 RPM, with the 3.0L engine making peak torque at 5,700 RPM in the CTS sedan.
        • 4 Years Ago
        It is a little strange given that Cadillac made their money off rumbling V8s for decades. But in use, it's fine, the engines rev up rather quickly when ask them to. The delay for power to come on doesn't seem appreciably different than my previous A6 2.7T which made peak torque at about 2,000rpm (it made full rated torque at 1400 or something, but Audi just underrated the torque so that they could say it did so at so low a figure). In the turbo, I had to wait for the boost to come on, with this engine, I have to wait for a shift, for the torque converter to unlock, or for the revs to get up there.
      • 4 Years Ago
      All Cadillacs should have some oomph -- not necessarily in a CTS-V sense, but part of the brand identity used to be a sort of effortlessness when passing on the highway, and that's a part that should carry over to all of their offerings now. This thing really needs the 3.6 (and an upmarket-looking package to go with it) urgently, but given all of GM's other urgent needs I wouldn't be surprised to see them wait on this one.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Still really don't understand why this CUV didn't get the 3.6 in the first place.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I don't understand why Cadillac isn't putting the 3.6 in this car. Consider:

      1) Cadillac is GM's premium brand. I understand why GM might offer the smaller engine in a Chevrolet, GMC or maybe even a Buick, but Cadillac needs the best engines available to continue their gradual restoration of the brand.

      2) What advantages does the 3.0 even offer? I know it's a different application, but the city/highway/combined ratings for a CTS sedan with the 3.0 Automatic are 18/27/22 while the same car with the 3.6 gets 18/27/21. The 3.0 doesn't seem to offer any real world benefit in fuel economy, and I'd bet some 3.0 drivers get worse mileage than they would with the 3.6 because they have to work the engine harder to move the heavy SRX around. I've read many similar examples where work trucks get better mileage with V8s than the supposed fuel savings V6 offerings because once you use them in the real world, the V6 gets overworked.

      3) The 3.6 is considerably quicker with very little, if any fuel economy penalty.

      Perhaps this is just about cost savings or production capacity. How much more does a 3.6 cost to make than a 3.0? Also, I wonder if the 3.6 production lines are closer to full output than the 3.0 or something like that. Either way, this doesn't make sense.
    • Load More Comments