Ford Inside News banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
If this is "cooking", they need better ingredients. I'm stumped by the paste-on Buick bits.

I believe the SRX will be gone inside 2 years. Unless there is a hefty increase in sales soon, it will be history. It has never sold in the numbers expected, or even deserved. It garners more praise than most domestic vehicles, wins press awards (also rare for a domestic, let alone a Cadillac), and yet buyers have been few. The new interior is great, but may be too little too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
If this is "cooking", they need better ingredients. I'm stumped by the paste-on Buick bits.

I believe the SRX will be gone inside 2 years. Unless there is a hefty increase in sales soon, it will be history. It has never sold in the numbers expected, or even deserved. It garners more praise than most domestic vehicles, wins press awards (also rare for a domestic, let alone a Cadillac), and yet buyers have been few. The new interior is great, but may be too little too late.
I doubt Toyota would cut & Run with one attempt. Seems to have become the new American way.. oooh no.. this is too difficult, lets not waste time on it anymore...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
I doubt Toyota would cut & Run with one attempt. Seems to have become the new American way.. oooh no.. this is too difficult, lets not waste time on it anymore...


It does seem that way at times. Honda didn't give up when the first Odysey (SIC) tanked. The first Toyota pick-ups were a disaster, now the Tundra has the domestics very worried (weather they admit it or noy). The first 2 Avalons were snores, now it's a benchmark. This is why I don't like Ford exuming the Taurus name before it'd even cold in the grave. I say call it the Five Hundred and keep improving it until it's a hit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It does seem that way at times. Honda didn't give up when the first Odysey (SIC) tanked. The first Toyota pick-ups were a disaster, now the Tundra has the domestics very worried (weather they admit it or noy). The first 2 Avalons were snores, now it's a benchmark. This is why I don't like Ford exuming the Taurus name before it'd even cold in the grave. I say call it the Five Hundred and keep improving it until it's a hit.
I I was re-doing the SRX, I would give it taller wider tires, shorten the trunk and raise it somewhat..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
As good as the interior is, it doesn't compensate the oddly proportioned exterior. That's what killed the SRX.

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but despite a 16.9% increse for 2/2007 and 13.9% YTD, the SRX is still easily outsold by the new MKX with 2,310 untis for 2/2007 (v. 1,879 untis for the SRX) and 4009 YTD (v. 3,432 for the SRX)



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Interiors

As good as the interior is, it doesn't compensate the oddly proportioned exterior. That's what killed the SRX.

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but despite a 16.9% increse for 2/2007 and 13.9% YTD, the SRX is still easily outsold by the new MKX with 2,310 untis for 2/2007 (v. 1,879 untis for the SRX) and 4009 YTD (v. 3,432 for the SRX)
GM has really come far in terms of Interiors. Lexus and Imports now are beggining to look old fashioned compared to US vehicles

Compare these three
MKZ

Lekcus RX


SRX


Though the domestic shots are not very proffessional, you can see that really the import has lost alot of ground in the last 3 years or so.
The Acura is worse. The interior looks like a sony playstation console. Childish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
As good as the interior is, it doesn't compensate the oddly proportioned exterior. That's what killed the SRX.

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but despite a 16.9% increse for 2/2007 and 13.9% YTD, the SRX is still easily outsold by the new MKX with 2,310 untis for 2/2007 (v. 1,879 untis for the SRX) and 4009 YTD (v. 3,432 for the SRX)


Not suprising. Given the factors that the MKZ is brand new and many thousands of dollars cheaper. I tried to go on the Lincolns website and price one, but found the link is brioken. But the starting price is just over $3K lower on the MKX. Maybe the upcoming Lincoln version of the Fairlane (em-kay-ef?) would be a better comparison, since it's a bit bigger and can seat as many as the SRX does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
Not suprising. Given the factors that the MKZ is brand new and many thousands of dollars cheaper. I tried to go on the Lincolns website and price one, but the link is brioken, but the starting price is just over $3K lower on the MKX. Maybe the upcoming Lincoln version of the Fairlane would be a better comparison, since it's a bit bigger and can seat as many as the SRX does.
So cadillac's solution is to kill it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
Not suprising. Given the factors that the MKZ is brand new and many thousands of dollars cheaper. I tried to go on the Lincolns website and price one, but found the link is brioken. But the starting price is just over $3K lower on the MKX. Maybe the upcoming Lincoln version of the Fairlane (em-kay-ef?) would be a better comparison, since it's a bit bigger and can seat as many as the SRX does.
If not surprising (actually I was expecting it to be the case) it is nonetheless an impressive achievement considering that the SRX has an extra row of seats that compensates the price difference. It is also impressive since most of the MKX criticism has been based in the fact that it looks too much like a Ford Edge. Apparently that is not keeping anyone away from it, that is good news.

What is keeping buyers from the SRX is, IMO, its exterior design that is minivanish and not attractive at all. Is a shame since apparently is a very good vehicle.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
If not surprising (actually I was expecting it to be the case) it is nonetheless an impressive achievement considering that the SRX has an extra row of seats that compensates the price difference. It is also impressive since most of the MKX criticism has been based in the fact that it looks too much like a Ford Edge. Apparently that is not keeping anyone away from it, that is good news.

What is keeping buyers from the SRX is, IMO, its exterior design that is minivanish and not attractive at all. Is a shame since apparently is a very good vehicle.
The weak sales of the SRX are an enduring mystery to me and I suspect to Cadillac. My own suspision is that it is too big and too expensive. That is, too expensive against Acuras MDX and Lexus' RX. I believe Cadillac meant it to compete with the Mercedes and BMW entries. It is a RWD/AWD performance and handling oriented vehicle. It compares very well in these areas. It's my opinion Cadillac overestimated its appeal in that market segment. I don't think the original interior did it any favors, either. And I wish they had been quicker to rectify it.
Its looks are a subjective matter. I like it a great deal. I would have one if I actaully needed a vehicle that big, or could fit one in my home car-port. (So, I have a CTS.) Some disparage it for looking like a station wagon, others like yourself, as a minivan. Persoanlly, I think the Edge/MKX look far more minivan like, along the lines of the Lexus RX. In the end, it doesn't matter. It looks as if Cadillac will killl it after 2009. A FWD/AWD, smaller crossover (Lord, there's that word again!) is coming along about that time. The CTS will have a wagon variant by then, and that should appeal to the performance/handling group (fingers crossed). This is something Cadillac can sell in Europe as well, therefore spreading the costs out more efficiently. I know that I will be very interested to see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The weak sales of the SRX are an enduring mystery to me and I suspect to Cadillac. My own suspision is that it is too big and too expensive. That is, too expensive against Acuras MDX and Lexus' RX. I believe Cadillac meant it to compete with the Mercedes and BMW entries. It is a RWD/AWD performance and handling oriented vehicle. It compares very well in these areas. It's my opinion Cadillac overestimated its appeal in that market segment. I don't think the original interior did it any favors, either. And I wish they had been quicker to rectify it.
Its looks are a subjective matter. I like it a great deal. I would have one if I actaully needed a vehicle that big, or could fit one in my home car-port. (So, I have a CTS.) Some disparage it for looking like a station wagon, others like yourself, as a minivan. Persoanlly, I think the Edge/MKX look far more minivan like, along the lines of the Lexus RX. In the end, it doesn't matter. It looks as if Cadillac will killl it after 2009. A FWD/AWD, smaller crossover (Lord, there's that word again!) is coming along about that time. The CTS will have a wagon variant by then, and that should appeal to the performance/handling group (fingers crossed). This is something Cadillac can sell in Europe as well, therefore spreading the costs out more efficiently. I know that I will be very interested to see it.
I agree with you. If Cadillac had given it a raised profile and a shorter trunk.. and wider BMW stance tires.. they would be in the money now.

I think we might pick a good AWD V8 northstar on its last model year...
2010!!! after a dealer is stuck with 1...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
I think we might pick a good AWD V8 northstar on its last model year...
2010!!! after a dealer is stuck with 1...

...as well you should! One of my best friends has a 2005 model and it is 10 pounds of sweet in a 5 pound bag.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top