Cadillac's SRX sportwagon has done a parking brake 180. Last year's model was bigger, based on a rear-wheel-drive sport sedan (CTS) and offered V-8 power. The 2010 SRX is physically smaller, loses its formerly optional V-8 and is now based on a front-wheel-drive layout. Two fewer cylinders; no more burnouts and room for just five instead of seven.

The upside is better gas mileage (sort of). Cadillac reasons that hard-core enthusiast types who esteem RWD and love V-8s are fewer in number than Regular Joes who don't know the difference (or don't care) and like FWD because it's better in snow. And the downsizing to five seater from seven? Well... the reason for that change is less clear.

It's a design gamble that could pay off - or kill off the SRX.

WHAT IT IS

The 2010 SRX is a mid-small (five-passenger, two rows of seats) entry-luxury crossover SUV. It's available with two different V-6 engines (one of them turbocharged), standard six-speed automatic transmission and your choice of front-wheel-drive (standard) or (optionally) all-wheel-drive. Prices start at $33,330 and run up to $47,540.

WHAT'S NEW

The whole car. Nothing carries over except the name. The 2010 SRX is smaller outside and inside than the outgoing 2009, based on a FWD layout and no longer offers a V-8 engine option or third-row seating.

WHAT'S GOOD

The new FWD layout improves economy and may improve the mass appeal of the SRX in a segment that seems to prefer the better poor weather grip (vs. better dry road handling) of a FWD-based vs. RWD-based drivetrain layout. Sharp-looking interior. Neat adjustable opening tailgate layout. Base 2010 model is much less expensive (by nearly seven grand) than last year's base model, which started at $40,460. The new base price of $33k puts it under the base price of the segment-leading 2010 Lexus RX350 ($36,800).

WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD

Enthusiast drivers will miss the rear-drive layout and sporty handling of the old model - as well as the formerly available V-8, which was a feature not offered in V-6 only light-duty competitors like the Lexus RX350. It is kinda small inside while still pretty big on the outside (as well as heavy). And when equipped with the standard V-6, it's kinda slow, too.

No price cut on the top-of-the-line model, which stickers out almost exactly the same as last year's V-8 SRX. That model is also still a lot more expensive (by about nine grand) than a top-of-the-line AWD-equipped 2010 RX350 ($38,200).

ENGINES & PERFORMANCE

A major change for 2010 is that V-8 power is no longer available. Instead, buyers have their choice of two V-6s. The standard engine displaces 3 liters and produces 265 hp - ten more hp than last year's standard 3.6 liter, 255 hp engine. A six-speed automatic is the standard and only transmission choice, but you can go with front-wheel-drive or (optionally) all-wheel-drive.

This combo produces about the same acceleration as last year's SRX with the 3.6 liter V-6: Zero to 60 in about 8.2 seconds. But gas mileage is a bit better, with the 2010 SRX with the smaller 3.0 liter engine returning 18 mpg city, 25 mpg highway vs. 15 city and 22 highway with last year's 3.6 liter V-6.

The only real functional/performance downside with the 3 liter engine and the new FWD-based design is that the '10 SRX's maximum trailer towing capacity is reduced from more than 4,000 lbs. to a pretty weak 1,200 lbs., which is barely enough to pull a wood chipper .

The optional (and Saab-sourced) V-6 is actually smaller - just 2.8 liters - but thanks to direct injection and turbocharging, it's also more powerful - producing 300 hp. This is still less power, though, than last year's optional 4.6 liter, 320 hp V-8.

Performance is ok - 0-60 in about 7.6 seconds - but this is noticeably slower than last year's V-8 SRX, which could get to 60 in just over 7 seconds flat. Gas mileage is only slightly better than before, too: 15 city, 21 highway vs. 13 city, 20 highway for the '09 V-8 SRX.

The turbocharged 2.8 liter engine comes only with AWD, which adds weight - which slows the car down. A six-speed automatic is also used with this engine, but it's calibrated for sharper, more performance-minded shifts.

DRIVING IMPRESSIONS

If you drove the '09 SRX (V-6 or V-8) back to back against the '10 SRX you'd immediately notice that the new model is softer and more generic-feeling. It doesn't accelerate nearly as aggressively or appreciate aggressive, high-speed cornering nearly as much.

Enthusiast drivers will probably find it ordinary and even boring. Acceleration/passing power with the base engine is mediocre; the optional V-6 rises to adequate. But for average drivers - who are after all the majority of buyers - the driving experience is probably going to be much more to their liking.

The '10 SRX, being FWD-based, has more built-in understeer (front-end "plows" during hard cornering) than oversteer (rear end tends to "fishtail" when cornering aggressively, a characteristic of RWD cars) which means it feels safer and more controllable to the average driver. The steering is very precise and nicely weighted and the car goes where it's directed, no fuss or muss. It's quiet and smooth and very happy on the highway with the cruise control set at 65 mph for hours at a time.

Overall, it drives and handles a lot more like a Lexus RX350 now than, say, a BMW 3-Series. And that's exactly what Cadillac is shooting for.

Again, the big question is whether the new focus on the middle of the road buyer rather than the enthusiast buyer will attract enough of the former to make up for losing the latter.

STYLING & UTILITY

The new bodyshell mixes design elements of an SUV (blocky, Escalade-like big-grilled front-end) with hints of minivan/crossover tarted up with Cadillac cues such as tailfin-looking rear brake lights. It's taller than it was before - and shorter, end to end - which gives it a more scrunched-up looking profile.

The overall appearance is now a lot more like its target competition than the outgoing SRX sportwagon. Whether it's an improvement or not is a call you'll have to make.

Neat features include an adjustable height rear liftgate that won't smack the ceiling of low-roofed garages. Not so neat features include a very high beltline and tapering side glass that combine to limit outward visibility and give an in-the-bathtb feel to the cabin - which is otherwise nice-looking and intelligently laid out.

In a sign of the times, the dash cluster has an "MPG" needle (basically, a vacuum gauge) that lets you know how your right foot is affecting fuel economy - as if people who blow $40k on a car actually care about that. The 160 mph speedo is hilariously optimistic.

The optional hard-drive based GPS flat screen rises from the center stack, which leaves more room on the face of the stack for other controls, such as the climate control and audio. Most of these are push-button straightforward and immediately understandable - in contrast to the mice/menu stuff you have to deal with in some competitors.

Pewter trim plates, black satin for the control surfaces and really nice-looking wood inlays and soft, expensive-feeling leather tie it all together.

The FWD/AWD layout is a definite functional advantage in wet and snow-weather driving over the previous rear-drive layout. But the new SRX's max towing capacity is weaker than many mid-sized FWD passenger cars, which can often pull as much as 3,500 lbs. (An RX350 can pull 3,500 lbs.)

Another no-so-great bit of news is that the '10 SRX has significantly less cargo room inside than before: 61 cubic feet vs. 70 cubic feet (with the second row folded). The '10 RX350 has a lot more cargo room - 80 cubic feet, total.

Meanwhile, front seat head room is also down a bit (39.7 inches vs. 40.3 inches before), as is front seat legroom (41.2 inches vs. 42.1 inches). Rear seat headroom is exactly the same at 38.4 inches, but the loss of rear seat legroom is also significant - down to just 36.3 inches from 41 inches in the '09.

And of course, there's no third row option anymore - so maximum total seating is now five vs. seven previously.

These sacrifices were supposedly made to make the '10 SRX leaner and meaner, but a glance at the spec sheet shows it's only slightly so. The 2010 version is four inches shorter overall - but it actually weighs more than the previous model (4,220 lbs. at the curb vs. 4,164 lbs for the '09).

I don't see how shortening the SRX's overall length by a measly four inches is worth losing a significant amount of cargo and interior space (as well as the formerly optional third row, which gave the SRX something the RX350 didn't have).

As mentioned earlier, fuel economy is somewhat better (especially with the base V-6 engine). But otherwise, the "downsizing" doesn't seem to have accomplished much - other than reduce the '10 SRX's functionality.

QUALITY & SAFETY

Cadillac has achieved the appearance, at least, of Lexus/BMW/Audi levels of workmanship and cosmetic appeal. The big question that remains to be seen is whether the new crop of Caddies will hold together as well over the next 8-10 years as the established leaders.

Depreciation rates on Cadillacs are still higher than on leaders in the field such as Lexus.

Crash test ratings weren't out at the time of this review, but it's almost a given that any car at this price point is going to do well. In the hands of the average-skill driver, the FWD/AWD 2010 SRX, being largely immune to fishtailing on slick roads, should be an inherently safer vehicle.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The new SRX will probably do nothing to kick-start the hearts of previous SRX buyers but may just give Cadillac something with which to lure away Regular Joes who would otherwise probably not even consider it. If it does that, it will have accomplished its mission.

========

www.ericpetersautos.com or EPeters952@aol.com for comments.