Fuji SR sensors still uses a color filter array much like the standard Bayer CFA, and is nothing like Foveon X3 sensors. The Fuji SR difference is in a completely different direction: changing the photosite design behind the CFA to increase the highlight headroom. (Another distinction is having only 6 million photosites on the sensor, making them bigger than almost any other photosites on the market today, almost 5D or D3 sized.)
I know this. If you look at the discussion on this forum about "Zero Noise Software" - blending from bracketed shots gets rid of almost all of the artifacts and problems of a Bayer sensor. What the Fuji does is to take two shots at the same time 4 stops apart and blend them. Just all on the same sensor/at the same instant. In-camera perfect timing/alignment bracketing and blending. No tripod, no being limited to perfectly still scenery or interiors...
Also, as you pointed, out, the interleaved array of 6MP and 6MP on top of each other makes for much less points of data being needed to create a full color location(works like a "fatter" pixel at each location as a result. Also, the layout is a hexagonal pattern, so it has less problems with moires.
Not a Bayer pattern, even. Or even Bayer shaped pixels. Fuji realized that the Bayer pattern was creating far more problems than it solved, so they decided to try to find a better solution. That's why it really deserves to be in its own category like the Foveon.
*edit*
Half of the problem with Bayer pixels is their being square. This makes for easy manufacturing, but it leads to most of the problems as well, since most everything in printing and viewing photos works on round/circles. (round dot of ink, round lenses, round...) Octagonal is a far smarter design, even by itself.(standard HR sensor above)
The camera as a result has very clean and film-like qualities as far as color and contrast are concerned. Like the Foveon sensor, it looks "good" and not digital. Sure, it's not going to win resolution contests, but it does quite well, as it produces very clean results. Most people want clean and consistent images more than ultra-sharp ones if they have to chose. This is why ISO 100 and 50 film still sells incredibly well. It's soft and very fine-grained, but has a gorgeous look to it.
The output from a Canon, by comparison, looks crisp and kind of harsh. At least, IMO.