It’s 2023, and everything is now a crossover. Small hatchbacks? Crossovers. Family haulers? Crossovers. The wolf hiding in Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother’s bed? Pull off the mask, and you’d probably find an inoffensive high-margin front-wheel-drive crossover underneath. However, go back twenty years, and the crossover market was in a very different place. Everyone was still figuring it out, and one of the weirdest evolutionary dead-ends of the segment was the original Cadillac SRX. Welcome back to GM Hit or Miss, where we swan dive into the soup of GM’s pre-bankruptcy product planning in hopes of going for gold.
Flash back to the early aughts and it felt like everyone was launching midsized high-riders, many of which were car-based. You had the BMW X5, the Lexus RX, the Acura MDX, and the Infiniti FX, to name but a few. Not content with dressing up a Chevrolet Trailblazer or some other mass-market GM SUV, Cadillac decided to create its own rear-wheel-drive crossover on the same Sigma platform as the original CTS at great expense. After years of platform-sharing dreck, Cadillac was going back to a primarily rear-wheel-drive lineup to run with the big boys in the luxury segment.
However, unlike the original CTS, the SRX offered choice of both drive and engines. Customers could order it as a rear-wheel-drive vehicle or as an all-wheel-drive model with a rear-biased 40:60 default front-to-rear torque split. Likewise, while the base engine was GM’s 255-horsepower LY7 3.6-liter High Feature V6, shoppers looking for more gusto could pop for a 4.6-liter Northstar V8 with variable valve timing. Regardless of engine choice or wheels driven, a five-speed automatic with manumatic functionality came standard, suitable for everyday duties.
The structure was right, and so was the options list. The original SRX was available with all the toys you could possibly want, from DVD navigation to rear-seat entertainment to a fantastically panoramic Ultraview moonroof at a time when massive glass roofs were far from the norm. Plus, the SRX was available with three rows of seats. That last row was more of a gesture than a practical addition, seeing as it was both smaller and less comfortable than one of those tiny IKEA sofas for children, but you get the gist. That being said, the SRX wasn’t quite the paragon of luxury for 2004, as I’ll now illustrate. On the left is the interior from a 2004 BMW X5. On the right, the interior from a 2004 (that was the first model year) SRX. Notice anything?
Really, what is there to say about mid-aughts GM plastics that hasn’t already been said? The featureless, ludicrously cheap-feeling brain matter grey dashboard in the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu is a contributing factor in making that sedan one of the most hateful vehicles I’ve ever driven, and although Cadillac classed up the joint significantly over Chevrolet, material choice and styling at the time just couldn’t cut it against the German and Japanese competition.
However, what the SRX lacked in material quality, it made up for with driving prowess, particularly when ordered with the 320-horsepower 4.6-liter Northstar V8 engine. Short of the bionic cheetah Infiniti FX45 and some uber-fast autobahn-bred machinery from Germany, little at time could touch the V8 SRX in a straight line thanks to a Car And Driver-clocked zero-to-60 time of 6.6 seconds. Sorry, BMW X5 4.4i, you’ll simply be seeing Cadillac taillights.
Oh, and don’t think that the family-sized Caddy falls apart in the bends. Remember, this is still a CTS-based vehicle, which means its imbued with a distinctly car-like feel that was buoyed by the engineering magic of available magnetorheological dampers. In a period road test, Car And Driver wrote that the SRX “flits through corners with sports-sedan stability, the roll and pogo motions thoroughly suppressed by the stiff springs and dampers and taut anti-roll bars.” and claimed that “it still thinks it’s a CTS with a garden shed on the back.”
Speaking of practicality, the boxy form of the original Cadillac SRX paid dividends in cargo space. While a 2004 BMW X5 had a maximum cargo volume of 54.4 cu.-ft., the SRX packed a whopping 69.5 cu.-ft., perfect for moving your kids into their dorms. Sure, it may have been an expensive rig with a starting price of $38,690 in 2004 dollars, but plastics aside, that money went fairly far.
Straight out of the gate, the original Cadillac SRX was pegged as a winner. It won its first Car And Driver comparison test against a Porsche Cayenne S, an Infiniti FX45, and a Volkswagen Touareg V8. The bottom line? The SRX was “the best combination of a satisfying driving experience and utility.” High praise, and Motor Trend took it even further, claiming that “The ride quality, stance, and visibility, as well as the Northstar’s exemplary power and refinement, make the SRX America’s vanguard of daily drivers.”
At first, the Cadillac SRX was fantastic. Then everything broke. The base 3.6-liter LY7 V6 quickly garnered a reputation for eating its own timing components, as documented by several NHTSA complaints. In the words of one complainant:
WHILE DRIVING ON CALIFORNIA FREEWAY, ENGINE LOST POWER AND COULDN’T BE RESTARTED. MECHANIC SAYS THAT TIMING CHAINS BROKE CAUSING CATASTROPHIC, IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO ENGINE AND PISTONS. APPARENTLY, CADILLAC SRX OWNERS HAVE FREQUENTLY COMPLAINED OF TIMING CHAIN ISSUES, BUT GM HAS NOT RECALLED THESE VEHICLES. LOSING ENGINE POWER ON A FREEWAY IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION.
On the other hand, the Northstar V8, while substantially revised over previous Northstar engines, held a reputation and price tag that helped ensure rarity. Weirdly though, engine problems might not be the most aggravating of the SRX’s issues.
Since the 3.6-liter V6 and Northstar V8 were shared with other models, engine parts support is fairly reasonable. However, all sorts of dumb little failure-prone components just can’t be bought new anymore. For instance, the transmission pan on the 5L40-E automatic transmissions rots out in the rust belt. Two years ago, I discovered replacements were no longer available. The panoramic Ultraview sunroof is also known to be problematic and most replacement parts for that are discontinued. Oh, and then there are the water leaks that many owners report, which can lead to water pooling in the jack compartment, soaking into the under-carpet insulation, and generally causing mayhem. There’s a long thread on Cadillac Forums about this last issue, to the point where it’s stickied in a common issues post.
The first-generation Cadillac SRX was great while it worked, but also a miss for GM. It was expensive, complex, and a misjudged market move overall. While the idea of a BMW X5 fighter on a longitudinal platform sounds brilliant, Cadillac’s clientele would’ve been just as effectively served with an even more chrome-clad version of, say, the Buick Rendezvous. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the second-generation SRX morphed into a typical front-wheel-drive crossover more in-line with its primary competition, opening it up to a wider audience and marking its predecessor as an evolutionary dead end. That being said, I don’t love the second-generation SRX. It’s not the enthusiast-geared family hauler the first one was, so warts and all, I’d take the original over the sequel.
Oh, but the first-generation Cadillac SRX story doesn’t end there. Believe it or not, the XT6 crossover was originally meant to be more in-line with the original SRX than the Chevrolet Traverse crossover. GM Authority reports that the same longitudinal Omega platform underneath the CT6 was intended to underpin three different vehicles, one of which was purportedly a three-row crossover. I can’t help but feel that more than a decade down the line, Cadillac’s second shot at a longitudinal crossover could’ve had more staying power than the original SRX. Forgotten futures of the past, am I right?
(Photo credits: Cadillac, BMW)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The Final Chevrolet Monte Carlo Looked Faster Than It Was: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Pontiac Vibe Was Very Nearly Flawless: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Toyota Cavalier Was Doomed From The Start: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Saturn S-Series Was A Good Car But Also A Dead End: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Hummer H2 Might Finally Be Cool Again: GM Hit Or Miss
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
I always thought it was weird that the SRX had a mid cycle update to fix the interior from the awfulness of the early Art and Science interiors, but the STS didn’t.
I remember not caring for the press photos of these when they came out, but when I saw one in person I really liked it. Been wanting to buy one with the Northstar and pano-glass roof for awhile, but the decent ones in that configuration are still kind of out of my price range unless they have crazy miles or an electrical issue that’s “probably just a fuse”.
If I do find one to buy, step two and three would be installing some Vogues and checking into if I could lower it an inch or two. I would want it to look like a proper Caddy after all.
“It won its first Car And Driver comparison test against a Porsche Cayenne S, an Infiniti FX45, and a Volkswagen Touareg V8.”
Wow, against a Cayenne? Now that’s surprising
The Cayenne review was never completed, because every tester gouged their eyes out, Event Horizon style.
First automobile with standard LED tailights.
The 2000 DeVille had LED taillights.
Many moons ago I worked on the sponsor side of a golf tournament and Cadillac provided vehicles for staff to get things done. I got to rip around in one of these for a full week and had quite a bit of fun. Not surprised to hear about the longevity issues.
“The base 3.6-liter LY7 V6 quickly garnered a reputation for eating its own timing components”
And speaking of that engine, have a look at this teardown video of one that broke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL0QE4mTANU&ab_channel=IDoCars
I thought these were a gussied up Equinox. And didn’t pay them any attention.
You never even mentioned the one single thing about this vehicle that is pretty rare and unique… the rear glass D(?) pillars. Perhaps the best and worst part of the vehicle, and the ONLY thing I look at every time I see one. It’s otherwise MEH (and I own a ’12 CTS sedan and love wagons.)
I have always liked these a lot, I love the wagon body far more than the second gen crossover blob. My dad called one day saying he bought one for my step mom, I was excited until I realized it was a second gen. Interesting hearing they were about as reliable as a Triumph with wiring issues, I was not tracking any of that but I guess it shouldn’t be surprising given that I haven’t seen one on the road in I don’t even know how long. Bummer. It would be a fun LS swap, which would solve most of the problems…
I was on the market for a SUV in 2008-2009 and irrationally thought the SRX was amazing looking at the time. Never test drove it, but thought it was about the absolute best thing since sliced bread as far as looks went. I remember thinking at the time that the 2nd gen SRX was nowhere near as good looking a vehicle.
Fast forward 15 years and it’s amazing how much my impression of the looks of the 1st gen SRX has changed.
My mom liked hers, until the electrical gremlins set in. Had to replace the whole charging system. Then the tailgate started leaking from nowhere..the rear trunk pan just being full of water. Then the CHAIN in the transfer case started slipping. Then after all the work we did on it, the timing chain gave out at 50k miles. Good looking car, but suffered from every possible GM problem imaginable. I’m sure there’s people out there who had good ones, but we couldn’t hardly give it away after the engine decided to exit the picture.
Virtually every transfer case uses a CHAIN to transfer power to the normally non-driven wheels. Unless you are a hard core off-roader they are usually pretty reliable.
My mom’s last car was a black cherry ’08 SRX, V6 AWD. She loved it. My dad kept it for many trouble free years after she passed. He sold it to his best friend who is still daily driving it.
The SRX is equivalent to a 350 lb linebacker trying to look good in a XS pink tutu, or in this case a white tutu.
I can’t see how this is anything but a hit. They correctly predicted where that market was headed. The engine and drive train options were just right. The pricing was right. I can’t say I ever loved the styling, but I didn’t really love much of their “art and science” design theme. So what if dash plastics weren’t the best? So what if some stuff broke in time? None of the stuff on the German cars ever broke? My inner car lover tells me to never own an old German car. This was part of their return to rear drive luxury. I say it was the right move for the time.
I dunno, it would have been the right move for the time if they had actually sold any. I see gen1 X5s and XC90s day-in, day-out, but it’s a rare treat to see a gen1 SRX. Not sure if it was the build-quality, the goofy looks, or the ‘Cadillac’ stigma, but these just didn’t seem to be the sales success Cadillac needed against the Germans. More like Cadillac’s R-Class, one might suppose.
My wife had a 2004 we bought new. I had a 5 series wagon at the time, there was no comparison. The caddy interior was cheap and ugly, the catalytic converters failed twice in the first 2 years, the A/C gave up the ghost at 16,000 miles. Not to mention, I thought it drove terribly. We dumped that turd before the warranty expired for a 2008 Escalade, which was also problematic. Haven’t bought a GM product since.
You pretty much covered it all with this one; just need to mention the reliability.
My parents had the Northstar version with the magnetic ride control option. It really moved and handled well for being so tall. The Northstar was reliable in this configuration (I had two in other cars that had the head gasket problem despite doing everything right).
The damn thing had creaks and rattles in the plastic from day one. This was without the glass roof that was known to be an absolute nightmare when it came to noise. It went through three transfer cases (something to do with the chain) and two transmissions before they sold it at 100k miles. The headlights constantly would fill with moisture and kill the unsealed HID ballasts. I think they were replaced multiple times. The suspension was insanely expensive. I think I did the rear (found them on clearance) at $600 a shock. I think all 4 wheel bearings had to be replaced inside of 80k.
In short (was that short?); this vehicle along with our other Cadillacs, are the reason that I won’t ever consider another GM product ever again.
I guess I just don’t understand the hate for plastic-type dashes and such. I think they look fine. I’m not gonna nuzzle up to my glove box, so if it’s lightweight, durable, and easy to clean/dust, well then cool.
Shit, anything is better than Alcantara.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. I always think the plastic wears so much better.
I get in my 25 year old Jeeps or my 2007 Escalade and the interiors look like brand new, with practically no wear except the seats.
My Dad’s 2006 BMW 5 series originally had great interior materials, but now all the soft touch has started to wear off and it’s aging badly.
The same can be said of my family’s various VWs they’ve owned over the years.
The soft touch stuff looks great when new, but in my opinion really doesn’t hold up well.
So in other words, it nailed down the German formula perfectly 😛
Fun to drive, scary to fix LOL
That sunroof is awesome! Only the Subaru Forester could match it, and also the Nissan X-Trail that wasn’t sold here 🙁
I bought a used one and ran it for 10 yrs and loved it. The 3rd row seat (power folding) was great for grandkids. The V6 does start using oil (quart per thousand miles) in old age and if you run it low the chain tensioners are the first to starve resulting in big trouble. Don’t know why the trans pan would be any more prone to corrosion than any other stamped steel pan. But with millions of them out there (BMW and Rover used them too) junkyard parts shouldn’t be hard to source. My SRX would still be on the road except it got rear-ended by a soccer Mom in a Honda Odyssey last winter and both rigs were totalled.
I’ve always wanted to like these. But I just can’t. And instead they produced the CTS-V wagon. Maybe not three row, but daaayuuum thats sweet wagon.
If Caddy had just given the wagon a 2″ lift + rocker panel cladding, they probably would have sold 10x as many.
The original interior didn’t help, the ’07 refresh was an improvement, but don’t think it would have made a difference if that had been the original interior. It was a bit too low and wagony looking, and the 3rd row that should have been a boon for the segment was like you said, more of a token. If you wanted 3 rows, MDX and XC90 were pretty much the go-to luxury entries at the time.
Speaking of Car and Driver and SRX quality I recalled a long term test where they still gushed over it but sure enough, wasn’t promising from a quality standpoint.
Gen1 CTS did have engine choices – after a couple years, the 3.6 and 2.8 V6s. Plus the V of course.
Is the interior really that bad? If you’d covered up the badges, I’d have a hard time telling which car is which in the side-by-side comparison picture. I just see two interiors of the same era. The big bezels (or whatever you want to call that excess space) around the CD drive is the most offensive bit to my eyes, and even that’s not the end of the world.
The overall shape of the vehicle makes me uncomfortable, though. It looks like a hearse.
That comparison actually did make them look pretty close, I had the same thought as you, but I remember that interior was not received well at the time. Not all of them had as much wood trim around the center stack, which I’m not a faux wood fan, but the alternative being black plastic…and then I think the nav helps brighten it up, without it you had an orange display that IIRC wasn’t the easiest to use, and even more black plastic. Found an MT article with a pic to compare.
Bit too weird for domestic buyers, and not quite the level import luxury brand shoppers might expect.
The 2 things that stand out most to me are the vents and the gray plastic. Something about the horizontal emphasis on the BMW vents is just more appealing to me versus the grid look of the Caddy’s vents. Plus the gray just looks cheaper compared to BMW’s black plastic. It is probably more apparent in person than in pics, too.
I’ve also heard that the headlights were so poor that some DRLs were brighter than the SRX’s regular headlights.
Poor headlights and older drivers don’t seem to mix, but maybe Cadillac was hoping a younger generation would be buying these.
I had a client who bought these when they were well over a decade old (yes multiple because they kept breaking) and the headlights were always foggy. If he fixed one, the other one’s seal would break and it was just an endless revolving door
This may be my favorite series on here…please keep it up!
A hideous bus with cheesy plastic, self destructing engines, and worthless transmissions? Sounds like an average GM product.
Miss as always.
“cheesy plastic, self destructing engines, and worthless transmissions? Sounds like an average GM product”
Also BMW. Or at least the ones friends and family have owned.