Ask the Car People.SM


2010 Lexus RX vs 2010 Cadillac SRX

17 messages,  Last post on Jan 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM

You are in the Lexus RX 300/330/350 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Lexus RX 300, Lexus RX 330, Lexus RX 350, Cadillac SRX, Car Comparisons, SUV

Messages Page 1 of 2

#1 of 17 2010 RX vs 2010 SRX by wwest

May 03, 2009 (8:49 pm)

The RX may be about to meet its match....
 
The SRX uses a 3.0L V6 w/DFI to match the HP, and probably better FE, of the 3.5L RX. The SRX has a F/awd system that is the equivalent of the best of the best, the Honda/Acura SH/AWD system. Whereas the RX has now adopted, as an improvement, the Ford Escape F/awd system.

#2 of 17 Re: 2010 RX vs 2010 SRX [wwest] by houmi

May 07, 2009 (10:42 am)

Replying to: wwest (May 03, 2009 8:49 pm)
I think the only car that can match the RX350 is the Audi Q5. I wish I had driven the Q5 before purchasing the RX...

#3 of 17 Re: 2010 RX vs 2010 SRX [houmi] by jayrider

Jun 27, 2009 (4:34 pm)

Replying to: houmi (May 07, 2009 10:42 am)
First model year for audi Q5 -- be very glad you got the Lexus. Stay away from new models of any car -- especially euroimports. The Lexus might be new but is based on a tried and true design. Excellent reliability.

#4 of 17 SRX Weight by pearl

Aug 26, 2009 (2:20 pm)

According to some of the auto mag road tests, the new SRX is getting beat up for being too heavy. Over 4300 lbs and apparently its 3.0L V6 struggles to move it. The RX isn't any lighter, but its V6 is half a liter bigger with more torque. Seems that all the auto makers are going to have to try harder at weight managment as they work to meet future MPG requirements.

#5 of 17 Re: SRX Weight [pearl] by la4mead

Aug 26, 2009 (3:24 pm)

Replying to: pearl (Aug 26, 2009 2:20 pm)
My take: The SRX with the standard (non-turbo) 3.0 may "struggle" but compared to what? Compared to competing models. It seems the car makers are trying to compete for faster, more powerful (and perhaps crash-worthy) cars. I haven't driven the SRX, but maybe not all drivers test the 0-60 time or standing quarter mile. Maybe it's more than adaquate, but that's hard to tell by engine size. Why not sacrifice some 0-60 points for more engine torque for real-world useful oomph. Because track speed is what auto mags give more points to.
 
Your point that these "small" or "sporty" light utility vehicles is spot on. Same with "mini" vans, etc. Perhaps when demand for less bulky, more efficient cars goes up, there will be more choices.

#6 of 17 SRX by drwilsc

Aug 26, 2009 (5:51 pm)

The SRX can be had with a 2.8 liter turbo with 300 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque, a much closer match to the Lexus' engine.

#7 of 17 Re: SRX Weight [la4mead] by rbirns1

Aug 27, 2009 (11:59 am)

Replying to: la4mead (Aug 26, 2009 3:24 pm)
Well I have driven the new SRX, and I have to admit it felt sluggish. This is compared to my current Q7 3.6, which is even bigger and just as slow. Just means that you'll have to punch it more if you really want to get moving. 8+ seconds to 60 is not dangerously slow, but it is noticeable.
 
I know the turbo is coming, but I question how good that will be. First-ever turbo for Cadillac (and first for GM?). Can't understand why they didn't just use the excellent 3.6L V6 from the CTS.

#8 of 17 Re: SRX [drwilsc] by wwest

Aug 29, 2009 (10:59 am)

Replying to: drwilsc (Aug 26, 2009 5:51 pm)
Turbocharged engines must be run in detuned/derated mode, low CR, 95-98% of the time(***). So you sacrifice the I4's normally good FE for HP. On the other hand if Toyota's extended VVT-i method were to be adopted the engine could be run with normal CR or 10:1 (12:1 with DFI) off-boost and then modulated to 8:1, or less for intercooled BOOST.
 
*** Just ask Ford, even with DFI their V6 TwinForce (EcoBoost being simply a marketing SHAM) doesn't improve DFI over their non-DFI/turbo V6 engine.
 
Ford...IDIOCY.

#9 of 17 Re: SRX Weight [la4mead] by pearl

Sep 28, 2009 (5:01 pm)

Replying to: la4mead (Aug 26, 2009 3:24 pm)
My point is not about acceleration but mass. I have never driven the new SRX but have read a number of car mag tests (and Edmunds) and ALL of them say the engine is overmatched for the bulk it has to haul. This will translate into longer stops, poorer fuel mileage as drivers will need to keep their "foot in it", and slower acceleration. The tests have shown that the SRX is about a second slower to 60 than most of its competition. I agree, "so what", but it is not just slower, it gets worse mpg too. Given the increasing requirements for better gas mileage for all manufacturers, I am just surprised that Caddy let this one out of the barn without more efforts to take some of the lard out.

#10 of 17 Re: SRX Weight [pearl] by phyre88

Jul 23, 2010 (3:10 pm)

Replying to: pearl (Sep 28, 2009 5:01 pm)
I just purchased a 2010 SRX on July 5. I am very impressed with this
vehicle. It rides very comfortably, and is averaging 22 mpg overall. For
a 4300 pound vehicle, I think this is impressive. It seems to incorporate
the best of everything. Styling, ride, handling, etc. It has the 3.0 V-6 and
the power may not be overwhelming, but, I have found it to be very satisfying
in all aspects for my needs. Entering the interstate, cruising, it meets my
expectations.

Messages Page 1 of 2

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement