Jump to content
CaddyInfo Cadillac Forum

2010 SRX: 260hp


joeb

Recommended Posts

article in todays paper kinda ripped the SRX as only having 260hp or so from a DI 3.6? said the CTS motor was better. i thought the 3.6 nonDI was 260hp and the DI was 300? they really made a point to knock down the hp rating. says getting rid of the NS version was proof they did not care about beating the bmw X5. and it was not as quiet as a lexus rx350.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


todays paper had another article on the srx. different author. yes, i see it is a 3.0L DI. i did not know GM offered a 3.0 version. they also have a blown 2.8 that makes close to 300hp. just like the 3.6. is that another reason why GM is loosing money? why replace a motor with another when both make the same hp? is it all for fuel economy? i know the new govt in washington is really pushing for increased fuel economy in the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

todays paper had another article on the srx. different author. yes, i see it is a 3.0L DI. i did not know GM offered a 3.0 version. they also have a blown 2.8 that makes close to 300hp. just like the 3.6. is that another reason why GM is loosing money? why replace a motor with another when both make the same hp? is it all for fuel economy? i know the new govt in washington is really pushing for increased fuel economy in the next few years.

The rational for not using what you already have...and that "WORKS"...eludes me.

Meaning the 304 HP, DI 3.6.

The 300 HP turbo 4 cyl will be available later in the model year.

Due to the added complexity of the turbo, and the lack of low end torque on the typical 4 cyl, I don't think it will be a good match...unless they have somehow managed to get good low end torque from it.

Typically a turbo doesn't do very much good unless you have your foot in it and let it get to higher RPM.

The MPG gains between a 3.0 V6 and a 2.8 4 cyl isn't going to be much.

At least not in real world driving.

The 4 cyl may be even WORSE in real world driving, because it will have to work harder to move the car down the road.

I have found ..down thru the years...that a bigger engine, properly tuned and adjusted of course, will get just about the same mileage as a much smaller engine.

Plus you have (in reserve) the FUN FACTOR of the bigger engine. :D

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the 2.8L is a V6. i recall the audi A6 with the turbo 2.7. they offered it along side the 2.8 nonturbo motor. than the 2.8 turned into 3.0 and than 3.2. gotta keep up with the competition. still have the 2.0T in the A4? thats a 4cyl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Cadillac.com the 2010 SRX has 2 engine options:

The standard 255 hp, 3.0L DOHC V-6, with estimated 18/24 MPG FWD or 17/23 MPG AWD.

Or the optional 300hp, 2.8L DOHC V-6, with estimated 15/21 MPG AWD.

2001 Deville, Sterling Silver exterior with Dark Gray leather, 93k miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Cadillac.com the 2010 SRX has 2 engine options:

The standard 255 hp, 3.0L DOHC V-6, with estimated 18/24 MPG FWD or 17/23 MPG AWD.

Or the optional 300hp, 2.8L DOHC V-6, with estimated 15/21 MPG AWD.

2.8L...15/21mpg...

Dang...my 2.5 ton DTS gets better mileage than THAT.

And I have a "V8" with "OVER" 300HP. :D:D:D

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the 2010 buick lacrosse is available with a 182hp 4cyl motor. ugh. maybe 175lbs torque? woohoo. i suppose grandma going to the hairdresser will like that. should be ok sitting at the stoplight. depends if it vibrates a lot or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...