GMC Terrain, Equinox, and SRX Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Per GMInsideNews:

"In recent weeks there has been speculation that Cadillac would be killing off the turbocharged model of its SRX crossover. The speculation fueled by dealership rumors and recent amendments to GM’s vehicle order guide; both suggesting the cease of production of the turbo model. Today Cadillac PR has confirmed to GMI that the SRX Turbo has been discontinued.

Cadillac spokesperson Robyn Henderson stated that low sales of the turbo model fueled its demise, citing that over 90-percent of SRX sales have been of the 3.0-liter model."

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/cadillac-srx-turbo-model-axed-98930/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
no shocker, when you compare the price of a caddy turbo to a turbo cx7....which would be its closest competitor....aside from the bmw/benz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Yup and I hear the new V-8 for the upcoming STS replacement, the XTS, will be offered in the 2012 SRX! What a hoot! And it will probably run on regular, unlike the current Turbo!

MM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Motorman said:
Yup and I hear the new V-8 for the upcoming STS replacement, the XTS, will be offered in the 2012 SRX! What a hoot! And it will probably run on regular, unlike the current Turbo!

MM
Unless that is a small, all aluminum V8 it doesn't sound like a great idea for what is basically a front wheel drive CUV. Having added weight up front can't be good for handling...and if the gas mileage isn't much better than a larger SUV, it kinda begs the question...what is the point? I think adding an optional turbo version of the 3.0 V6 would be better..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
NoobNox said:
Unless that is a small, all aluminum V8 it doesn't sound like a great idea for what is basically a front wheel drive CUV. Having added weight up front can't be good for handling...and if the gas mileage isn't much better than a larger SUV, it kinda begs the question...what is the point? I think adding an optional turbo version of the 3.0 V6 would be better..
Going to agree. Giving the choice to get the turbo version of the 3.0 V6 would be better because I think turbo engines are really efficient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
The new V-8, made in upstate NY, is a smaller, hi effieciency model (alum??) but I think your points are valid, especilly with gas projected @ $4 a gallon by Memorial DFay again.... other umors have the 3.6L from Enclave/Acadia being the replacement. I had an Enclave with , and it's a great,quiet engine with lotsa guts. Got 25MPG highway (62MPH.cruise on) with my 5,000 lb Enclave!

MM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Motorman said:
The new V-8, made in upstate NY, is a smaller, hi effieciency model (alum??) but I think your points are valid, especilly with gas projected @ $4 a gallon by Memorial DFay again.... other umors have the 3.6L from Enclave/Acadia being the replacement. I had an Enclave with , and it's a great,quiet engine with lotsa guts. Got 25MPG highway (62MPH.cruise on) with my 5,000 lb Enclave!

MM
Yeah, I think offering an optional turbo 3.0 V6 in the Nox/Terrain/SRX is the way to go for people looking for a little more performance or towing ability. Even with AWD, these vehicles are inherently FWD, and you don't want any more weight than neccessary on the front which provides power to the drive wheels, steering and most of the braking. Even a smaller, lighter V8 is still going to weigh more than a V6...and much more than the I4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Just read it on GM Inside news..........the 2012 SRX gets the 3.6 from Traverse/Acadia/Enclave. I had a 2008 Enclave last hitch and it moved well even @ 5,000 lbs on reg gas! (AWD) Other engs to possibly follow......

MM
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top