• Feb 2, 2011
2011 Cadillac SRX – Click above for high-res image gallery

General Motors may have pulled the plug on the Cadillac SRX Turbo, but fear not, we will not be stuck with the anemic 3.0-liter V6 as the Caddy's sole powerplant. A report from GM Inside News states that the 2012 SRX will use the automaker's well-received 3.6-liter V6 with direct injection – the unit currently found in the CTS sedan.

Not only is the 3.6-liter V6 more powerful than the outgoing 2.8-liter turbocharged six, it will likely be tweaked to improve overall fuel efficiency when it makes its way under the SRX's hood. Known internally as "LFX," this engine currently produces 304 horsepower in the CTS, though rumors have suggested that power will be increased for use in the larger crossover. GM Inside News also reports that the SRX will get a few other tweaks for the 2012 model year, including a heated steering wheel.

[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
      • 3 Years Ago
      Would it kill a manufacturer to offer a 2/3 door crossover, with nice, wide doors to make entry into the front seat easier for some people? A lot of people don't use the backseat very often, but like the tration and ride height of an all wheel drive crossover type vehicle. I think I'll do a V-series SRX 2 door soon. I wonder if they'd consider a twin-turbo 3.6?

      • 3 Years Ago
      I liked the SRX when it was based on the RWD CTS archetecture, rather than the gussied-up Equinox it is now...

      Nothing wrong with the Equinox... it's a fine Chevrolet vehicle. A Cadillac it is not.

      ...also preferred the styling of the first-gen SRX quite a bit more, too...
        • 3 Years Ago
        The 1st Gen SRX was too long and wagony. A new Caddy 3-row CUV based on a stretched Lambda would be pretty cool, tho.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Well, in a way, the SRX was replaced by the Buick Enclave. I really don't see a vehicle that style fitting Cadillacs new Mojo. It's all about pimp and/or sporty. Neither of which describes the old SRX.
        • 3 Years Ago
        The Caddy and the Chevrolet actually have very little if anything in common. From what I remember, they are made on completely different platforms.
      • 3 Years Ago
      That is one fugly automobile. I'm sure that it will be a very nice ride but yikes, this is SsangYong Rodius-like ugly. Luckily for me it is most likely never to be released in Europe.

      A shame though, because I really like the CTS, Cadillac sure has the abilty to produce nice looking vehicles.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I have a feeling they will try to beat the Fuel Economy ratings and power on the 3.7 MKX which I think right now is class leading?
        • 3 Years Ago
        The SRX is one of my favourite crossovers. If this new engine can improve performance and economy then I'm all for it.
      • 3 Years Ago
      4 cylinder/cadillac do not go together.. 4.0L V8 would be big seller in all cadillacs with todays technology/gas mileage My last SRX had V8 AWD and I miss it. Waiting on 3.6L V6 or better. Otherwise no Cadillac. Too many better alternatives until then
      • 3 Years Ago
      How exactly does GM expect to sell any higher-end motors in the SRX? Wasn't the reason for the removal of the turbocharged I4 because so many people were flocking to the base V6?
      • 3 Years Ago
      Jumps on soapbox.
      I think one of the reason Cadillac along with many others lost there way for a while is because every review I used to read seemed compare the car to a BMW 3-series and the only way to improve the reviews was to try to be more like BMW. So slowly they moved away from what made them special in the first place. When I was buying a MINI Cooper S back in 2003 I almost didn't get the sunroof options because I read it would raise the center of gravity and make the car not so responsive on an autocross track. Well in the 2 years I had that car I never drove on an autocross course once, but I did have a blast driving on the streets with the sunroof open.

      Yet most people yearn for when American cars actually meant something. They were actually not very good vehicles. But, they were American dammit. They were iconic!

      I grew up in England until I was 12, and I couldn't wait to get here and see all of the Yank Tanks. I'd never seen such huge cars. They were awesome, but somewhere along the way we all seemed to believe the auto-writers that it is important for our cars no matter how mundane to be track-day cars.

      Cadillacs should be Cadillacs, and so on. I'm glad to see the American back in some of the cars.

      I'll jump off my soapbox now, continue your evening
        • 3 Years Ago
        Personally, I'm against sunroofs:
        1. it costs me at least 2" of much-needed headroom
        2. extra weight up high
        3. reduced structural integrity / chassis stiffness
        4. it's another mechanical part which can break
        5. it's another seal which can leak

        I may not be on track, but the way I drive, I like a car which handles better.

        If it costs me money and space for something which may leak rain / snow, I'd rather have a simpler, stronger roof.
        • 3 Years Ago
        B-NOIT, my point wasn't that the SRX can outgun my Fit. Obviously it can and does. What I was trying to say is that the SRX is such a heavy car and requires a bit of extra welly to get it to move, that when I jump in my Fit I tend to push the gas too hard at first being used to the girth of the SRX and snap my neck back accelerating because the Fit moves so easily.

        Yet despite the heft of the SRX, when I want to move in traffic I plant my foot and it moves out very nicely. I'm impressed every time I accelerate in it just because I've read so much about how bad that aspect of it is.

        And apart from the fact that the Oddessey is a minivan and the SRX an SUV they do get compared to one another (cross-shopped) by families who are thinking of moving away froma minivan to something a little less soccermom like. A lot of vehicles from different categories get compared to one another just becasue the monthly payment makes them competitors
      • 3 Years Ago

      This is how an engine gets slandered.

      Years from now people will be proving to each other that the 3.0L was no good by googling up articles from AB and other sites saying how the 3.0L was "anemic".

      It may not be a hot rod motor. It may even leave something to be desired, but it's not anemic.
        • 3 Years Ago
        I'm with you, Spin Cycle.

        Years ago, I remember when the Nissan Maxima with a 3.0L V6 produced over 200 horsepower and we all thought it was a power rocket. Eventually the 3.0L V6 reached the last gen family sedan, the Honda Accord, producing 240-hp. Now this 3.0L V6 making 265-hp (mind you with some 4,200 to push along) in the Cadillac SRX, and suddenly it became "anemic". I'm sure if you put this engine in a 3,500 lb car, it would feel a lot different, but the engine still remains much better than what was possible 10-years ago.
        • 3 Years Ago

        AB managed to review the equinox without using the word anemic or sluggish.

        Insideline did also, even listing a 0-60 of 8.2 seconds, not bad for the base model of a crossover.
        • 3 Years Ago
        What else would you describe an engine that delivers less than its numbers would suggest? I think "anemic" is the perfect word. I mean, every single professional review of that 3.0L (whether it was under the hood of a SRX, Equinox, or LaCrosse) has used words like "anemic." Along with "underwhelming", "sluggish", "disappointing"....
        • 3 Years Ago
        The 3.0L was sufficient for 90% of SRX buyers to not pick the turbo. It is only anemic to web bloggers who aren't in the market for the car who are waiting for their turn behind the wheel of a GT500 or GT-R or something.
        • 3 Years Ago
        The 3 liter would have been fine in the SRX if GM would of had a 7 speed double clutch [4,8,12,16,20,24,28]
      • 3 Years Ago
      What about the Saab 9-4X? That was supposed to have the turbo too
        • 3 Years Ago
        @QAZZY I know its "free" from GM but Saab still shares platforms and drivetrains with GM products. Also get a new word, anemic has already been used in this article.
        • 3 Years Ago
        All Saabs have turbos. Now that it's freed from GM, and owned by Spyker, it doesn't need that anemic 2.8T.

        When I first heard of the 2.8T, I was excited. A TURBO V6 with OVER 100 hp per liter.

        Then I drove it.
        • 3 Years Ago
        I still think the Cadillac should use the the 260HP 2.4T and the 304HP 3.6L as the engine choices in the SRX. That way it solves the SAAB 9-4 issue as well.
      • 3 Years Ago
      This change makes a lot of sense, given what the competition is offering. Now, they just need one more. That is, to offer a hybrid alternative to the RX450h. They have the perfect solution in their parts bin too. I'd bet that if they paired their new eAssist system that is coming to the LaCrosse and Regal next year with a properly tuned 2.0 DI Turbo, they'd probably come really close in combined fuel economy at less cost and complexity than Lexus. Probably a little less in the city, but a little better on the highway. Considering that Ford is putting their Ecoboost 2.0 in their offering (I know it was only announced for the Edge, but I'd bet the MKX is not far behind), GM better find a way to compete.

      • 3 Years Ago
      The 3.6 in the SRX doesn't need to be tuned for more power than in the CTS - it needs to be tuned for more torque. The SRX might actually pull a trailer one day.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Better late than never. This is the engine that it should have had from the very beginning.
    • Load More Comments