Comparison Test: Audi Q5, Cadillac SRX, Mercedes-Benz GLK350, Volvo XC60
Americans don't like wagons. Never mind about the killer combination of versatility and drivability; coolness counts in this country, and the old-fashioned station wagon hasn't been hip since the mullet went out of style. But now traditional body-on-frame SUVs have fallen from grace as well, victims of volatile gas prices, inherent packaging inefficiencies and a burgeoning sense that bigger isn't always better. That's where so-called crossovers come in: car-like underneath but SUV-like in appearance and elevation, they're the latest in wagons for those who wouldn't be caught dead in one.
Our quarry in this Edmunds Comparison Test is the best new entrant in the rapidly expanding Compact Luxury Crossover segment. The field consists of four notables that have joined the ranks within the past year: the 2009 Audi Q5, 2010 Cadillac SRX, 2010 Mercedes-Benz GLK350 and 2010 Volvo XC60. Since we limited ourselves to rookies, respected veterans like the Acura RDX, BMW X3 and Infiniti EX35 went uninvited. As for the redesigned 2010 Lexus RX350, we determined that its midsize interior dimensions and doughy ride would clash with this crew's intimate cabins and capable suspenders.
Shoppers in this segment want more than just typical crossover virtues like good visibility, secure handling and stout styling. They're also after an upscale cabin, premium features and confident power. Practicality counts, too, and that includes price, as these "CUVs" start at less than $40,000 -- well shy of cost-no-object territory. Details below on our winner by a hair, our loser in a landslide, and the wholly respectable tie for second place.
Josh Sadlier, Associate Editor
4th Place: 2010 Cadillac SRX FWD Luxury Collection
Base MSRP (with destination): $37,735
As-Tested Price: $37,735
For more information, please read the 2010 Cadillac SRX Inside Line Full Test
Where It Follows:
Oh SRX. How we didn't love thee -- from our first few seconds in the driver seat, no less. A crossover is supposed to have an elevated driving position and the superior visibility that comes with it, but the Caddy's extraordinarily thick pillars join with its high beltline and cowl to create easily the worst sightlines in this segment. Nonetheless, the Cadillac still could have won us over, a la another current GM product with dungeon-grade visibility: the butt-kicking Camaro. Alas, it got its butt kicked instead, bringing up the rear by a healthy margin in both our standard scoring and our personal evaluations.
The SRX's missing features (notably a navigation system, a rearview camera, xenon headlamps and all-wheel drive), a consequence of limited press-car availability, were balanced out by its lowest as-tested price. Its other shortcomings, however, were not so forgivable. Foremost among them was a dramatic power deficit: with 255 horsepower and a weak-kneed 223 pound-feet of torque from its 3.0-liter V6, our 4,292-pound front-drive SRX was D.O.A. against the more muscular Europeans, which weighed in at anywhere from 4,214 lbs (Benz) to 4,301 lbs (Audi) with all-wheel drive. Not surprisingly, the Caddy's 8.2-second jaunt to 60 mph trailed the pack by roughly a full second; what's more, the economy-minded six-speed automatic "won't downshift unless you put your foot through the firewall," as one exasperated editor put it. While following his advice, incidentally, we noted that the transmission would occasionally downshift itself into the rev-limiter, producing an "Engine Overspeed" message on the trip computer as the fuel flow was cut off. An early-production quirk, perhaps.
But wait, there's more. Despite being 8 to 12 inches longer than the others (and feeling the part from behind the wheel), the SRX was just average in cargo capacity and rear legroom. Rear headroom was worst-in-show, and the mediocre Bose stereo barely beat out the Audi's base system for third place. There's considerably less sun-reflecting chrome on the SRX's dashboard than on some other GM dashes we could name, but the shiny stuff is still employed to blinding effect around the analog clock and center-stack knobs. And the Cadillac turned in another fourth-place finish in ride comfort, thanks to a suspension that evinced the most impact harshness and the least overall sophistication -- a reminder that, extensive revisions notwithstanding, the SRX's "Premium Crossover" platform traces its roots to the plebian Saturn Vue.
Where It Leads:
Our SRX Luxury Collection test car ruled in the price category, undercutting the second-cheapest Volvo by about $6,500. Note, however, that comparably equipped versions of the Benz and Volvo cost roughly the same: a base rear-wheel-drive GLK350 with the Premium Package is $37,925, and a base front-wheel-drive XC60 sans turbo can be similarly spec'd for a little less. The SRX also took top honors in EPA fuel economy ratings at 18 mpg city and 25 mpg highway, though the all-wheel-drive Audi was right on its heels at 18/23, and an all-wheel-drive SRX returns 17/23.
Additionally, the Cadillac had some nifty items that the competition lacked, including a "U-rail" cargo containment system for securing loose items and a height-adjustable power liftgate that's perfect for tight garages. We liked the interior design and materials, too, which are certainly class-competitive, as well as the circular trip computer's colorful and sharp graphics, which are leaps and bounds beyond what the monochromatic dashtop dot-matrix display has to offer. Furthermore, the SRX was a pleasant surprise on our handling drive, where its responsive steering and satisfactory body control earned it our collective nod over the more capable but softer Volvo.
In the end, though, the SRX's mediocrity killed its chances against such stiff competition. If you want a Cadillac badge on your next utility vehicle, we'd advise you to put your anti-wagonism aside and wait for the 2010 CTS Sport Wagon to arrive.
Best For: OnStar lovers, Cadillac fans who don't want to wait for the CTS wagon, people with low garage ceilings.
2nd Place (tie): 2010 Mercedes-Benz GLK350 4MATIC
Base MSRP (with destination): $36,775
As-Tested Price: $46,655
For more information, please read the 2010 Mercedes GLK-Class Model Review
Where It Follows:
The Benz's most glaring flaw is the lack of legroom in its rear quarters -- 1.2 inches down on the second-snuggest Cadillac. That may not sound like a lot, but in our standardized real-world testing, the GLK350's backseat was the only one in which our knees were crammed against the front seatbacks. It's something to think about if you plan to ferry multiple adults around on a regular basis. There are kid-carrying consequences as well: our rear-facing child safety seat did fit behind the front passenger seat, but anyone attempting to sit up there will have her knees pinned to the dash.
The Mercedes also has the least maximum cargo capacity, trailing the Volvo by a whopping 12 cubes. Storage space behind the rear seatbacks likewise lags the pack on paper, though the GLK's boxy shape makes the most of what's there. The Benz has the worst EPA fuel economy ratings, too, if only by a whisker (16 mpg city/21 highway vs. 16/22 for the Volvo), and it was the only one here without an electronic parking brake. The latter two are minor complaints, however; the space issue is the one that should give you pause. We'd also consider keeping our tester's Multimedia Package but foregoing the Premium Package ($3,150), special paint ($720) and Sport Appearance Package ($970), which would bring the price down to a more palatable $41,825.
Where It Leads:
Frankly, the Mercedes is good at just about everything else. The robust yet refined 3.5-liter V6 delivers 268 horsepower and a drama-free 7.3-second sprint to 60 mph. The seven-speed automatic wasn't big on downshifting in manual mode -- sometimes it simply ignored our commands -- but leave it in Drive Sport and you'll be rewarded with butter-smooth responses. In typical Germanic fashion, its ride is firm but supple, with none of the flintiness we noted in the SRX. As for handling, don't let those baby G-Class looks fool you; thanks to its C-Class underpinnings and clever chassis tuning, the GLK zips around corners with more verve than all save the Audi, and a couple of us actually deemed it the most entertaining at the limit.
In ordinary driving, we loved the commanding views afforded by the GLK's ample glass and elevated front seats. The optional Harmon Kardon stereo vied with the Volvo's Dynaudio system for top honors, and it was the only one that inspired us to blast Dr. Dre with the windows down in the company parking garage. The iDrive-style COMAND interface (part of the Multimedia Package) became intuitive in short order, and the iPod interface won points for allowing unusually rapid playlist scrolling via the COMAND knob. Materials quality throughout the cabin was first-rate, and the doors closed with that reassuring thunk for which Benzes are renowned.
With classic SUV styling and sightlines along with impressive performance and an impenetrable feel, the GLK350 embodies what this crossover craze is all about.
Best For: DINKs and empty-nesters who can do without lots of space and overtly sporty handling.
2nd Place (tie): 2009 Audi Q5 3.2 Quattro
Base MSRP (including destination): $38,025
As-Tested Price: $48,275
For more information, please read the 2009 Audi Q5 Model Review
Like the GLK, the Q5 has compact interior dimensions. Maximum cargo capacity is barely ahead of the GLK (57 cubic feet vs. 55), though the Q5 compensates with 29.1 cubes behind the backseat, 6 more than the Benz and nearly as much as the Cadillac and Volvo. The Q5's cargo area was the least accommodating for golf clubs, however, forcing us to insert our standard bag at an angle. Overall, we'd put the Q5's utility quotient above the GLK's but below the Cadillac's and Volvo's.
The Q5's other memorable shortcomings are mostly of the roadgoing variety. The ride is never harsh, but it's still the firmest of the bunch, which explains why the Audi eked out a third-place finish in ride comfort. The electric power steering has a disconcerting tendency to weight up suddenly during low-speed maneuvers, a trait we've noticed in multiple Audis of late. The "Drive Select" system -- which provides four driver-selectable modes for suspension firmness and steering and transmission response -- is an option we'd skip, as it adds $3,000 to the bottom line without notably improving on the standard configuration. We also dinged the Q5 for its unremarkable base stereo and its asinine two-step procedure for adjusting the fan speed. And as with the Benz, the Audi's options can be pricey, though if you go without Drive Select and the Premium Plus package, you're looking at a reasonable $41,025 including the MultiMedia Interface (MMI) -- Audi's COMAND counterpart -- and navigation.
Where It Leads:
On our comparison drive, we quickly identified the Audi as the sports car of the bunch. The steering feels artificially heavy at speed, but its precision is simply in a different league. Within its rather modest limits of adhesion (0.74g on the skidpad), the Q5 is uniquely athletic and poised, though it'll slap you with pronounced understeer if you push harder, which most buyers surely won't. The 270-horsepower 3.2-liter V6 fees and sounds just as eager as the GLK's 3.5-liter power plant, an impression borne out by its 7.2-second dash from zero to 60 mph, and the transmission delivers quick, smooth shifts on demand -- "always in the right gear," reads the logbook.
The Q5 also proved its mettle during the daily grind, thanks to a comfortable driver seat, good visibility and the least combined wind and road noise of the bunch. Rear legroom is tops on paper and pleasant in practice, handily beating the GLK's. Our test car's MMI system was the new third-generation version, and we appreciated its streamlined menus and the trick new joystick button atop the control knob, though less tech-savvy drivers might prefer COMAND's simpler layout. Furthermore, despite the stereo's ho-hum sound, the iPod interface was lauded for both responsiveness and ease of use.
Alphabetically speaking, the Audi should precede its fellow penult, but its slight edge in practicality and performance earns it pride of place. Bottom line, though: these Germans are like a pair of fine wines -- distinct in character but equally desirable.
Best For: DINKs and empty-nesters in search of a well-rounded mix of sport and sensibility, enthusiasts unmoved by the four-cylinder A4 Avant.
1st Place: 2010 Volvo XC60 T6 AWD
Base MSRP (with destination): $38,025
As-Tested Price: $44,240
Where It Follows:
The XC60 posted the highest slalom speed at the track -- an eye-opening 65.0 mph -- but you'd never know it from the way it corners in the real world. Unlike the agile European-spec XC60 we'd driven previously, this U.S.-market model drew criticism for its numb steering and marshmallow-grade suspension tuning. "If you really enjoy driving," the most damning assessment reads, "you'll be disappointed." Check the finishing order, though: sporty handling is hardly a requirement in this segment, so the Volvo's softness wasn't enough to keep it out of first place.
Inside, the XC60's Achilles' heel is its miserable DVD-based navigation system, which is controlled via buttons on the back of the upper-right steering-wheel spoke. Even simple operations require too much trial-and-error fiddling with controls you can't see. To make matters worse (or perhaps better), the unusually small screen handles navigation functions only, so the audio display is farmed out to a separate tumor-like screen sprouting from the dashtop. If the nav didn't come bundled with the superb Dynaudio stereo and a backup camera, we'd tell you to save your $2,700 and get a Garmin instead.
Our other criticisms are mostly quibbles. Front-seat comfort is fine for this crowd, but it's not up to Volvo's historically high standards. Some of us felt that the XC60's interior materials were a bit lacking in quality, though others deemed them up to par. The integrated rear booster seats are a neat option, but one editor felt they compromised seat comfort, so that's something to check out at the dealership. Not deal-breakers by any means; just things to be aware of.
Where It Leads:
This Volvo certainly packs a punch under the hood. With 281 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque, its turbocharged inline-6 had the most power in this test, and that translated into a brisk 7.3-second jaunt to 60 mph and the highest speed at the end of the quarter-mile (92.3 mph). Fuel economy was less impressive, but transmission performance was deemed satisfactory. As long as we weren't hurtling through sharp corners, the XC60 had no trouble keeping up with its European rivals. Also, the cabin made for an aesthetically pleasing driving environment, what with its trademark floating center stack, distinctive tan wood trim and attractive two-tone color scheme, and the Dynaudio stereo delivered unparalleled crispness and clarity.
However, the XC60's victory-clinching virtues were mainly on the functional side of the ledger. With 67 cubic feet of maximum cargo space and 30.8 cubes behind the rear seats, the XC60 was our most capacious crossover by a comfortable margin, and while the test car was the only entrant without a power liftgate, you can easily add one via the desirable Convenience Package ($1,000). The Volvo's backseat was our favorite due to its ample cushioning and elevated seat bottom, and with a child seat installed in back, the XC60 had the most front passenger room to spare. The Volvo also boasts safety features galore, as you'd expect, including a "City Safety" low-speed collision warning system with automatic braking. As noted, practicality is a central consideration for many crossover shoppers, and by this measure the XC60 has no peer.
None of our editors would personally choose the Volvo (can you tell?), but we'd unanimously recommend it over the others to most consumers, especially those with families. It's the most sensible new compact luxury crossover on the market -- a standout modern station wagon that does everything but look the part.
Best For: Families, folks favoring functionality, inattentive drivers.
The manufacturers provided Edmunds with these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
- Posted by
- Josh Sadlier August 13, 2009, 12:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Audi, Cadillac, Comparison Road Tests, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo
Interesting test. Surprised at the Vovlo win, as it sounds like the speed and space were its only really impressive features.
Y'all have a very different outcome than what I've read elsewhere. Some other publications can't enough of the SRX. I prefer the Benz among these four - best motor, RWD, best looking IMO. But it sounds like the Lexus is probably the best all-arounder.
Josh already made it perfectly clear from Straightline that he felt the SRX was trash. No surprise here.
^These tests are written by a rotating roster of Edmunds editors, and they are vetted prior to production by all participating editors (four, in this case) as well as our managing editor. The words are those of the author; the opinions they express are those of the staff.
Josh Sadlier
Wow; the editors practically trashed the SRX.
Someone is gonna be pretty pissed at the perceived bias.....
I'm not sure what to think of this comparison as with the Cadillac, it seems it was destined for last place from the start. That's the vibe I get from the article.
There is no perceived bias, it is real.
Just look at what IL does. They complain all day about the CTS squeaking, but never once do they take it to the dealer.
Then we have the GT-R, which has a second home at the Nissan dealership. What do we hear from the IL editors, this is the best car ever!!!!
While the CTS and GT-R are two different types of vehicles, face it, IL gives love and lots of it to BMW, Honda and the GT-R. GM and Ford products have to be perfect, or else. It is, what it is.
SadButTrue also applies to the real IL bias.
No surprise, I would take the XC60 too.
I like the Volvo XC60 too.
It's so comfortable inside.
Volvo makes the best seats. Just try it folks!
Yep, they hate American cars. Oh wait, what's that? A Ford won the last two comparison tests? Nevermind then.
Play a different song.
Not impressed.
Frankly, none of these mini-utes do much to impress me. While agree that most folks don't need a Suburban/Expedition class vehicle, at least those deliver real utility. These 4 provide about the same "utility" as a Taurus SHO, Avalon, M35, 300C, etc. All at a higher price with less fuel efficency and driver enjoyment. If extra cargo space (height) is important, I'd like to see a CX-9 compared against this group. Outside of the frou frou and glittery grills, I'd thing those "lux" utes would have a difficult time measuring up.
Wjtinatl, you mean a CX-7 compared to this group. The CX-9 is the Ford-Flex-Sized-3row-of-seats-family car as the CX-9 is the smaller Turbo Sporty model.
That would be interesting to compare as it hasn't been mentioned much anywhere since its introduction 2 years ago.
I'm surprised the Volvo won first place. My recommendation for someone from this group would have been the Mercedes GLK. I'm sure if the seasoned veterans were entered, the results wouldn't change too much.
6)SRX
5)RDX
4)X3
3)Ex35
2)Q5/GLK
1)Xc60
"Wow; the editors practically trashed the SRX."
What else did you expect? If you read the road test this was predictable. Everytime they put a domestic car in last place they say they can't get a press car with the right equipment. Same excuse was used when the Accord beat the well equipped Taurus.
The SRX was doomed from the start and Josh made it clear that he thinks the SRX is a bad idea vs the CTS Wagon. So since they think the CTS wagon is better the SRX is to be trashed.
"Yep, they hate American cars. Oh wait, what's that? A Ford won the last two comparison tests? Nevermind then."
What two tests? The Fusion won a test and it should have. Find 2 other comparos involving imports in which a domestic car won. Good luck. These are the same people who did a sport compact comparo and put the CObalt SS in 4th or 5th place when others said it was likely the best in class.
dax:
The Fusion winning has nothing to do with this test at all. As others have noted the SRX was doomed from the start based on the initial road test and Josh's extensive venting about how inadequate the vehicle is vs the Europeans. They test a FWD version vs AWD competitors and complain. They say its the cheapest in the test by a HUGE margin but then complain it lacks nav and HIDs. They praise its handling numbers but still suggest its lacking in that department. This vehicle doesn't even have the Performance Collection which adds larger wheels and other upgrades. This is basically the Lexus fighting version of this vehicle and its not properly equipped to do battle with sportier European counterparts.
BTW, in the initial road test they said the ride was great. Totally contradicting what's said above. The fact that they are saying its a rebadged Vue explains a lot- they discounted it based on what they perceive to be its low end DNA.
I don't think they are biased most of the time or this time.
Isn't Volvo owned by Ford anyway?
Yes, but Volvos are all imported and Volvo still operates virtually independently from a vehicle design standpoint. They don't even share engines with Ford.
kingkhalas: "I don't think they are biased most of the time or this time.
Isn't Volvo owned by Ford anyway?"
Yes it is. But apparently it's more "American" to buy the Mexican-made Cadillac SRX.
Frankly, the model that I suspect would have given them all a run for their money is the Nissan Murano LE. While some may not favor its CVT, when it comes to handling, performance, fuel economy, and comfort -- few can or do compare.
^I actually brought up the Murano when we were doing backseat testing. Murano's got more legroom (if I recall correctly), heated rear seats, HVAC vents on the B pillars. In general, yes, I think the Murano is an interesting alternative here. And I for one am a big fan of the CVT.
-JS
With comments like this "There's considerably less sun-reflecting chrome on the SRX's dashboard than on some other GM dashes we could name" it's obvious that the Cadillac was always going to place last. Edmunds continues its transformation into Car and Drive...sigh...
Edmunds put the SRX at a disadvantage; had they entered the 2.8L turbo version in the comparo, the results would have been very different. And please, don't give us the excuse that the turbo wasn't available (you tested one recently for IL).
Dear edmunds,
When you do a comparison, instead of slanting it, compare vehicles with similar options and pricing. Don't compare a base Cadillac to loaded competitors. Compare a base Cadillac to base competitors. Or, here's a thought, a loaded/similarly optioned 2.8T to the competitors before trying to pass this garbage off as a good comparison.
My favorite part of this article is where the Volvo, Audi, and Mercedes all had more options and then you guys complained about its lack of features. I've noticed the problem of some test cars not having the right features like someone else mentioned. Good job guys!
No amount of protesting against Edmunds from the "faithful" is going to change the fact that the SRX just doesn't cut it in this class of vehicle.
"Edmunds put the SRX at a disadvantage; had they entered the 2.8L turbo version in the comparo, the results would have been very different. And please, don't give us the excuse that the turbo wasn't available (you tested one recently for IL)."
I'll allow that the results *might* have been different. GM's 0-60 estimate for the SRX 2.8T is 7.6 seconds, which would have put it last among these four. However, it would have been competitive at least, and the upgraded suspension might have left us with a more favorable impression of the SRX's ride comfort/sophistication.
Having said that, the SRX 2.8T would have been the most expensive vehicle in the test, and the poor visibility would have remained. So: slowest, priciest, worst visibility, potentially better ride. Maybe that would have added up to a better finish; maybe not.
As for vehicle availability, we were limited to the vehicles present at the west coast SRX press introduction. No turbos were among them; Cadillac elected to give us the Premium Collection test car. I don't know if other trim levels were unveiled at that press intro or not.
"Dear edmunds,
When you do a comparison, instead of slanting it, compare vehicles with similar options and pricing. Don't compare a base Cadillac to loaded competitors. Compare a base Cadillac to base competitors."
I've seen a lot of comments to this effect, which is to say, I've seen a lot of comments from people who didn't read the test closely.
From the test: "The SRX's missing features..., a consequence of limited press-car availability, were balanced out by its lowest as-tested price."
Note the crucial phrase "balanced out." The Caddy lost points for missing features but gained points for its much lower price. The two canceled out. Got it?
-JS
As recent purchaser of the XC60--I can agree with the Edmunds reviewers comments. Volvo did soften the ride for the US market, but I do not do hairpin turns or slaloms everyday. We have had it on the back (dirt) roads of Arizona's Rim Country and it did great with the all-wheel drive and stability control system. I have a 50/50 freeway and streets commute which so far is giving me 19 to 20MPG which is better than the 16 or 18 all the reviewers talk about. We went from a Volvo sedan to this crossover. I tested the Lexus, the Q and the GLK (too boxy), the Nissan Murano and sorry the Cadillac was not available when we went for test drives at the dealers. We are happy with the XC60-we ordered it as the T6 base model with all the standard options no navigation or back-up camera-and that City Safety does work--I did a test with some boxes and cones in our drive way. There are some side visibility issues because of the tinted rear glazing, but we like the ride and the T6 engine is great on the highway and the street. We are happy with our decision on the Volvo.
Volvo obviously paid for this review.