Hi,

Let me say that I really like our 2013 RDX, but I think the rear visibility could be better. My impression may be partly due to this being our first SUV, but I think the panels between the front and rear windows on the side are larger than on other vehicles I have driven, and the panels between the rear side windows and the rear tailgate window are huge (and really hinder visibility). Even the rear tailgate window seems like it could be a bit larger, maybe by having corners that are less round. Is there some reason that Acura does not use more glass in these locations?

Gregg

 

Probably a combination of looks and safety standards constantly getting more stringent. Glass that is thick enough for good soundproofing is also heavy and all manufacturers are trying to reduce weight as well.

 

I feel that way about all newer vehicles: cars and SUVs alike. The C and D pillars have grown and actual glass area has shrunk. I'm sure it's mostly for safety, partially for style.

The thing is if you look closely at almost every vehicle, a large part of what appears to be glass area is actually glass that is blacked out and sitting on top of metal, not transparent. It's a style thing to make the windows look larger.

What I'd give for something with the visibility of an early '60s GM bubble top!

 

Glass has probably shrunk, especially on SUVs due to the IIHS rollover/roof strength test. I think the rear visibility isn't great, but the rear camera definitely helps. I'm used to using the mirrors for backing up, so I can see most of the area by the sides. I'm still getting used to where the corners are though.

 

Yes, I agree about the backup camera. I had never used one before, but I think it is very helpful for backing out of (or into) parking spots.

When I said the visibility could be better, I simply meant that when I turn my head to see what (or who) might be in my blind spots, those blind spots seem larger than on our previous vehicles. Of course, I admit that we have not bought a new car for 14 years, so perhaps this is a trend (less glass, more structure for safety -- though I think more glass would help with certain aspects of safety).

Gregg

 

Auto companies get rated on how well the car protects you, not on how well you can see out.

 

I think the trend toward less glass is primarily for styling. The Forester's large greenhouse provides outstanding outward visibility and yet crash safety remains excellent. The GLK offers pretty good visibility, too. (Coincidence that the GLK resembles a first gen Forester?) They may not be styling leaders, but there is no denying the benefit of having more glass.

 

It's too bad the Forester XT comes with a CVT, I just can't look past that. I can maybe accept the boring Subaru interior (come on Subaru), but a CVT just isn't fun. If they had put a 6 speed auto (or even an 8 speed) in the XT, there's a good chance I would be driving away in one. I understand fuel economy, but other car makers seem to be able to pair turbo engines with non-CVTs just fine and still get good mileage.

I admit I do like the GLK's looks. When I see photos I am not impressed, yet I find myself doing double takes every time I see it in person. Quite pricy though when you start putting in options.

 

As we almost nver have rear seat passengers, I have removed the rear seat headrests to increase rearward visibility. They can be quickly reattached if need be.

 

I'm not a fan of CVT's either, although I have read good things about the Forester's when used in sport mode. I haven't driven one myself, so I'll reserve judgement.

It didn't happen quickly, but the GLK's looks have really grown on me. And while it does have a pretty steep MSRP, the GLK can be had for less than I thought possible. GLK forum members report some amazing deals - even on the Bluetec diesel. Too bad the diesel comes equipped with runflats here in the US.

http://mbworld.org/forums/glk-class-...good-true.html

 

Yes, we did the same thing! Even without the rear headrests, though, I still think the rearward visibility is worse than on other cars I've driven. Perhaps the key is that I've only driven cars (sedans and small wagons) before. This is our first SUV, which is a larger vehicle, so maybe less visibility should be expected.

In fact, even in the forward direction, I can't see over the hood as well as on my previous cars. It's not that the hood is any larger, but it's higher off the ground, so it blocks out more of my view of the pavement.

Gregg

 

When looking at vehicles, we test drove a Forester, but it wasn't one of the turbo models. It still had the CVT, and I didn't even realize it while out on the test drive as a passenger. It was smooth and seemed to increase/decrease RPMs almost like a standard transmission. Compared to the Nissan Rogue's CVT, it was a night and day difference.

Also, every SUV that I've ever driven has had less visibility than almost any car that I've driven. The only place that I have a hard time judging things so far on our RDX is the front corners. The rear camera and side mirrors have the back end pretty much covered.

 

Try driving an Infinit EX35/EX37, among the worst rear visibility of the group, I had one. RDX has far better rear visibility.

 

Funny about the MB vs Forrester...a few years ago, some neighbors came by in a new GLK and just as they went past, I wondered why in the heck they had traded down to a Subaru . Since then, the neighborhood has a few GLKs, but they still look like seven year-old Forresters to me.

The days of the Volvo shoebox station wagon are behind us. My '72 wagon had more glass than a greenhouse...visibility was fantastic for such a long vehicle. When we got the RX330, I was worried about the 'stylish' C-pillars, but the visibility wasn't reduced that much. Seems like almost everyone is styled that way now. The B-pillars have never been a problem for me in a Tribute, RX, XC60 and now the RDX. The big plus to the CUV config is picking up ride height without becoming a mega-vehicle. In a world of pick up trucks, a little higher vantage point height goes a long way.