I can't believe they didn't offer this engine from the get-go...

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/02/r...o-get-3-6l-v6/

 

I agree.

I still prefer the previous gen SRX though.

 

The problem with the 2010-11 engines is the 3.0L isn't fuel efficient enough and the 2.8L turbo wasn't powerful enough. I expect the new 3.6L best those previous engines in both categories.

 

The 32 valve Northstar V8? Not sure it would fit in the new one! It might be fun to try though!

-Geoff

 

The 3.0 as a whole seems to have been a flop. It disappointed in both power and fuel economy in the SRX and LaCrosse.

The DI 3.6 makes a lot more sense than a turbo 2.8. Maybe Caddy thought the DI 3.6 just wasn't exotic enough for a premium vehicle or were there some engineering issues?

You mean as a whole you think the overall product was better last gen? How so. I thought the previous SRX was mediocre at best even for its time (much less now). The new SRX aside from odd powertrains as an excessive price when well equipped, is much better.

 

RWD / AWD architecture shared with CTS / STS and (reported) driving dynamics, primarily. Also the overall styling afforded by the rear drive platform, though both are quite handsome (and both models have some oddity to their proportions). The original looked a little long at the rear cargo area, but the new one seems a little bloated and very beak/nose-heavy to me in profile. The front is just a little too prominent somehow. I really like the first gen on the 18inch wheels or, even better, the Sport package with the 20s. The new one also looks good when equipped with its bigger wheels.

The interior of the original SRX was so-so at first (like the CTS, fairly well made, but with odd styling that looked like a computer tower), but the '07 redesign made it plenty nice for me. It was sort of a preview of the new CTS interior. The new one is nicer in this regard, but I'm not a big dash fondler, and the '07+ models look quite sharp to me inside.

I really shouldn't give a preference without having driven them, I guess (I may have driven a first gen, but it has been several years). The new one clearly has advantages as an RX350-type vehicle. But I suspect I'd enjoy driving the CTS-based first gen more. Maybe the nicer interior would win me over after all, as it's not like I'd be autocrossing them...

The non-DI 3.6 / 5 speed auto combo was solid in the first gen (creaming the base DI 3.0L in the new one), and of course the 320 hp Northstar / 5 speed was even sweeter. Perhaps the new DI 3.6 will add some spice to the current one.

 

I can't think of a n/a 3.0L that makes more power than GM's. 265-270HP in Cadillacs, that definitely isn't a flop. Where the 3.0L fails is getting better fuel economy than the 3.6L. If you can't get better fuel economy than the more powerful 3.6L then you might as well use the 3.6L.

My guess is the turbo 2.8L was temporary EcoBoost competitor until the turbo 3.0L is ready. The poor fuel economy made it a loser IMO.

 

I'm a firm believer that horsepower per liter is a pointless discussion. Talk about horsepower per fuel economy or horsepower per cost/durability of the engine's design. But if you're going to talk about HP per liter you might as well talk about HP per cam or per valve or whatever else. The point is the SRX 3.0 was meant to compete with the likes of quite a few vehicles that were seriously more satisfying to punch the gas. Even the Lexus RX350 left it crying in the dust for goodness sakes and the Lexus is marketed as a cream puff.

The main problem with the 3.0 was that its power curve was terrible. It didn't really feel like a normal V6 until you revved it up quite a bit. Plus the fact that the EPA didn't find it to be any more fuel efficient than the 3.6 (though I heard that GM's testing said otherwise) made it a serious 'WTF' engine selection. Especially if we can safely make the assumption that the 3.6 hardly costs any more to build than the 3.0.

 

Too bad they don't put the FWD 292hp Northstar in the SRX.....

<kidding>