2012 CADILLAC SRX Complaints

The paint on this car is defective. It peels off of the car without any action or agitation by the owner or outside forces. This causes multiple parts of the car rust to under the painted areas, including the roof and hood. This is a common problem with this model and color as several owners have posted about the problem online.

In Nov 2021 we had the recommended recall repairs done at a Cadillac dealership which replaced the rear toe links with a non-adjustable bar. 2 months later we installed new tires at Big O Tires but they were unable to perform a rear alignment due to the stationary toe bar. We went back to the Cadillac dealership days later but were assured the alignment was fine. Just over one year later (approx 15K miles driven) we have significant wear on our inner tires. Last week we had Big O run an ExpressAlign report and the rear tires have severe negative values. The value even with the toe bar should be +0.020. I contacted Hunter Machine Alignment and they confirmed our concerns. They said Cadillac solve this problem immediately. At this time Cadillac is only agreeing to inspecting the installation of the recall repair however this does not resolve the safety concerns with this vehicle. Why would a stationary bar be installed if the customer would not be able to get their wheels properly aligned? This recall repair seem to have increased the safety and reliability of this vehicle further. From CR Reports https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/general-motors-recalls-suvs-for-rear-suspension-problem-a8620817999/ According to GM, certain SRX and 9-4X SUVs were recalled in 2014 (NHTSA No. 14V571) because part of the rear suspension called a toe link hadn’t been properly tightened during the assembly process. After that initial recall, the company received further reports that some toe links were still loose, and it revised the procedures outlined in the initial recall. In 2020 GM continued to receive field reports about suspension-related issues. These included traction control, electronic stability control (called Stabilitrak by GM), or "service rear axle" warnings, malfunctioning taillights, swaying or wandering at highway speeds, uneven rear tire wear, or loud clunking noises over bumps. NHTSA’s campaign number is 21V473. The initial recall number was 14V571.

The housing for the drive lights have failed. Replacing the bulbs does not resolve the problem. Cadillac wants to replace the entire unit because the plastic reflector has failed. Lots of Cadillac owners reporting this problem on the internet. Cadillac used an inexpensive plastic part that creates high risk when it fails. This is happening not just to the SRX, but to many GM models. Please see the video... https://youtu.be/i7GKpCgAee0?t=742

Vehicle low beam headlights are extremely dim, so dim that to see property at night, the high beam lights must be used constantly. This blinds oncoming traffic and risks a head on collision. General Motors will not replace the headlight assembly. The low beam headlight assembly interior housing is coated with a shiny reflective plastic material. Over time, the heat from the halogen bulb degrades this plastic coating, burning it off. See this YT video here at the 12:13 mark to have a very good understanding. The man disassembles the housing and shows exactly what the problem is. https://youtu.be/i7GKpCgAee0?t=733

Headlights are very dim and do not provide sufficient lighting at night. This is a known problem with this model and GM has been aware since 2010 that this is an issue. The exterior housing unit fails and allows moisture into the headlight unit and can cause dim lights and shorts. Car is unable to be driven at night without high beams on and this causes distress and blindness to other drivers. The vehicle is available for inspection. This problem has been confirmed by GM in years 2010-2016 and there is a class action suit resulting in recall in California

The front low beam headlights are very dim, due to a leakage defect in the headlight housing. (I have been told that is the reason for the defect by a Cadillac dealership) I feel that it is dangerous for me (I am 78 years old) to drive at night with this situation. There are many other complaints about this same problem as reported on The Cadillac Forum website. I don't know if there has ever been a recall concerning this issue. I purchased the auto in Aug. of 2022. It seems to me that there definitely should be a recall addressing this, with Cadillac making the necessary arrangements to fix the problem. I do not want the new recall part to be the same as the defective part, and have the issue happen again. Thank you. [XXX] INFORMATION Redacted PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).

VIN [XXX] My headlights are so dim, it is dangerous to drive at night even after replacing the bulbs for same reason in last year. Called Cadillac of Dublin. [XXX] tells me there is a reimbursement for the headlight assembly as a part of a lawsuit, but I need to bring in car to be sure that’s the problem. [XXX] checked me in, then called with estimate. Headlight Assembly Repair Diagnostic - $179.50 + $1,450 - $1,500 replacement cost Called GM Recall Department Headlight problem no longer has any reimbursement or recourse. Representative: [XXX] Reimbursements were given until 12/2021 Extended to June 30, 2022, which was a hard cutoff I asked how I was suppose to know. [XXX] says I was notified by a Different Team. He investigated and returned with this answer: Next to impossible to locate where mailed. I did not receive the notice. Handled by 3rd party mailing —- Analytics company 1st letter ~ 2020. [XXX] doesn’t think they will look anything up because the case is over now, but thinks it might be worth a try. He states that GM has no additional recourse for me at this time. Class action lawsuits have been filed against General Motors by plaintiffs who allege that moisture can become trapped in the headlights of the Cadillac SRX crossover, posing a potential safety hazard. According to Bloomberg, the lawsuits claims the headlights found in 2010-2015 model year Cadillac SRX crossovers have weather seals that may erode prematurely. This can allow moisture to enter the headlight casing, which may cause the bulb to either dim or burn out entirely. “Such malfunctions will necessarily result in low visibility at best, which can contribute to injurious, or even fatal, traffic accidents,” the lawsuit says. This is a known problem by GM since 2011. My car is a 2012 and assembly wasn’t redesigned or fixed. I’m bought my car in 2019 and did not receive any notice in the mail. This should be a recall! INFORMATION Redacted PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).

Headlights (low beam) are so dim that driving at night is dangerous. Lines on roads are not visible. Problem is not rectified by replacing bulbs. Something else must be the cause, Car is at the dealership getting assessment and estimate. No warning messages appear. Vehicle was inherited from deceased family member.

Water is getting inside of the car’s shell and interiors. The carpets and ceiling gets wet and drips. Mold is visible and inhaling causes allergic and breathing issues. Water is a major issue on the interior of the windshield and other windows. I can hear water traveling inside the roof when I drive. This is causing electrical problems. My trunk is not working to open. My sunroof is also not working.

The contact owns a 2012 Cadillac SRX. The contact stated that the brakes were replaced for routine services at a local dealer. The contact then stated that while driving at an unknown speed, she drove over a pothole and while attempt to stop the vehicle, the brakes failed to respond as needed. The contact stated that the brake failure reoccurred after driving over potholes and then depressing the brake pedal. The contact stated that no warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was then taken to an independent mechanic who was unable to determine the cause of the brake failure. The independent mechanic informed the contact that replacing the front brake pedals could possibly help with the brake failure. The front brake pedals were replaced; however, the failure reoccurred. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to another independent mechanic who was also unable to retrieve a fault code or determine the cause of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 100,000.