Cadillac SRX is NOT the Saturn Vue

I hear some chatter on the social networks that the Cadillac SRX seems the same as the Saturn Vue.   They are not the same, and I would like to explain how they differ:

1) Chassis:  The new Cadillac SRX is on an evolved Theta platform, sometimes referred to as a  premium Theta-Epsilon Chassis, and has a 110.5″ wheelbase.  The Vue is on the original Theta chassis and has a 106″ wheelbase.

Differences:  more premium components in the Cadillac, Cadillac is longer wheelbase for better ride and more interior space.

Cadillac SRX 2010 Chassis

Cadillac SRX 2010 Chassis

2) Powertrain: The new Cadillac SRX offers either a 3L Direct Injected DOHV VVT LF1 V6, or a 2.8L Turbo DI V6. The Vue offers a variety of engines, the 2.4L LE5 I4, 2.4L LAT I4, 3.5L LZ4 V6, 3.6L LY7 V6, or 3.6L LCS V6. 

Differences:  The two vehicles have different engine choices available; both of the Cadillac choices are more powerful, premium engines.

Cadillac SRX 3L V6

Cadillac SRX 3L V6

3) Exterior:  Visually the Cadillac SRX and the Saturn Vue share the same configuration of any mid-size SUV, or CUV. 

Differences:  The Cadillac SRX clearly shows modern Cadillac styling with sharper features, and a more formal, elegant appearance.

Cadillac SRX 2010

Cadillac SRX 2010

2009 Saturn Vue Red Line

2009 Saturn Vue Red Line

Conclusion:  The Cadillac SRX is on a different, premium chassis, offers different, more powerful engines, and looks visually different — more appealing than a Saturn Vue.

Next article:  “How Beyoncé is different from Bon Jovi” (kidding)

4 thoughts on “Cadillac SRX is NOT the Saturn Vue

  1. It seems a moot point whether the SRX chassis is an “enhanced” Theta or not — the car is a dumbed-down front-drive version of what had been a great vehicle. Less power, less sophistication, less car. And it looks, feels, smells, and drives oh-so-much like a Vue-except the Red Line was quicker. While GM claims it’s “not a Vue” the question should never have to be asked. And they admit it shares platforms and drive trains with a Chevy and with a Saab. Time will tell if the “new” SRS will sell, but those of us old enough to remember the Cimmaron/Cavalier vehicles from the worst of GM’s times won’t be buying one anytime soon. Vehicles like this 2010 SRX really make me doubt the future of the new GM.

  2. Thank you for responding Dan.

    I agree the 1st Generation SRX was a good effort, but it did not compete directly with the class leaders. The SRX won Car and Driver’s Five Best Trucks “luxury SUV” award for 2004, 2005 and 2006. I liked the fact that it was on the same Sigma chassis as the 1st gen CTS, and made at Lansing Grand River.

    This redesign is targeted squarely at the aspects people who buy this type of SUVs apparently want to buy. Everyone I think agrees that GM and Cadillac need to focus on cars that people want to buy, and so far this vehicle is a hit.

    The problems with the Cimarron were that the J car platform was not great to begin with, and Cadillac had NO time after they decided to produce a Cadillac variant to MAKE it into a Cadillac. (I think this year Cadillac would accept another ‘failure’ that sold 25K cars in the first year).

    I am okay with the notion that not EVERY vehicle that Cadillac makes is targeted at me. It does pull a car-like 0.82 g’s on the skidpad, but I’ll be shopping for a sedan or coupe next.

  3. The first generation SRX was a class leader. The new SRX is at the back of the pack and I actually think the Saturn you have pictured here looks better than the Caddy. I was just reading a review of the Saab 2.8 liter which wasn’t pretty. The review was in Road and Track or Car and Driver. I’ll be trading my Audi A4 for a new CTS wagon which is a class leader.

  4. I was surprised to find that the Cadillac SRX is one of my favorite vehicles after spending a couple of days in one. If you are reading all the reviews but have not gone and driven one, get some seat time before you decide. I like the CTS Sport Wagon, and no argument there in terms of value. These are two different approaches to a similar need to carry 4/5 people and haul some stuff.

Please leave a Reply