When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Seriously considering trading up from my current 2014 Subaru Forester XT Touring to an RDX.
Here's the Forester:
It's a good car for what it is, and it's been good to me for the last year, but the driver's seat is the most uncomfortable thing I think I've ever sat in.
Never seriously considered the importance of researching driver's seat comfort, but I also never thought it was possible to create a seat this uncomfortable. One just cannot seem to get the adjustments to the right spot. It's as if the seat is mounted at a bad angle, or the seat itself is just built wrong. The whole thing just results in me having lower back pain on any trip longer than 30 minutes, which is why I didn't catch this during the test drive. Lots of other Forester drivers have since confirmed the same thing, but I'd already purchased the car at that point.
I've also thoroughly looked into whether this is a recalled issue or can be fixed in some way. Turns out this is known to be normal for this generation of Foresters, and it isn't an "issue" at all, but rather just that the seat isn't comfortable for everyone. Some folks have altered the padding in the seat, some have gotten in there and changed the lumbar adjustment mechanics, and a few even went to the extreme and completely remounted the driver's seat using spacers or longer bolts to permanently change the angle. I don't think it's as simple as adding or removing padding, I've unsuccessfully tried using lower back cushions while driving, and I'm not willing to screw with the seat mountings.
I think I'm just done messing with it. I know I'll lose money, but I've been considering trading up to a 2016 RDX this spring. The only reason I ever looked into the Forester was because the current generation CR-V is ugly, but otherwise I've always been a Honda guy. I have yet to find any reports of driver's seat discomfort for the RDX.
^^ Sorry to hear about your seats in the Forrester. I will say that I LOVED the seats in the RDX except for one HUGE problem....the driver side had no height adjustment and was set quite low. If your passengers aren't tall, they will dislike that as well.
I am confident that the 2016 RDX will address this issue but if you are buying a 2015, PLEASE TEST THIS carefully before signing the papers.
I no longer have the RDX but it was a great vehicle for sure....
^Yeah, every RDX I've ever been in has had driver power height adjustment. But I totally agree, the passenger seat is way too low. Hopefully that'll be fixed.
I have lower back pain too,so when I went looking/sitting in new vehicles,I'd tell the salesperson, "If the seat feels great,I'll buy what it's bolted onto",and the '15 RDX was the best! It has lots of support,and not to firm,not too soft,and just perfect for me.I have not had many passengers,but the ones I have had,I asked how they felt about their seat,and they all said they liked it.It does seem low to me though, but maybe only since I've used to the driver's seat.
It sure would be nice though if the '16 has that feature.You wouldn't think it would cost much.If they offered it for an option you pay for,I'll bet folks would pay for it.It sounds like that's what they are going to do about the spare tire.
You definitely aren't alone. Uncomfortable seats have been a common complaint from Forester owners. I logged a lot of highway miles in my 2009 Forester and didn't like the seats then, and the new model's are even less comfortable. It's a shame, because the rest of the vehicle is pretty decent considering the price point. Manufacturers would be wise to scrutinize the way Volvo builds seats. They are without question the most supportive, most comfortable chairs in the industry. Most people seem to like Nissan's "Zero Gravity" seats, too, although I've read more than one less-than favorable review. In my limited experience, I was quite impressed with the RDX's seats.
On a positive note, few brands hold their value as well as Subaru. That should help minimize the financial penalty.
Buy a RDX seat for your Foresturd? I test drove one before buying my RDX. I got fifty feet off the dealers lot and turned around and went back. Salesman was surprised...
I told him that it was a nice Unitarian tree hugger's car. But, Not for a conservative with a bad back, like me. Good looking vehicle with the worst seats in a car that I ever I've driven.... and that includes WW2 jeeps... They had better seats.
Buy a RDX seat for your Foresturd? I test drove one before buying my RDX. I got fifty feet off the dealers lot and turned around and went back. Salesman was surprised...
I told him that it was a nice Unitarian tree hugger's car. But, Not for a conservative with a bad back, like me. Good looking vehicle with the worst seats in a car that I ever I've driven.... and that includes WW2 jeeps... They had better seats.
I love Subaru's.. I just don't like wagons or the B9 Tribeca - Any Subaru I've ever driven has been 10x better in snow than my RDX is.
I've owned a 1st gen TSX, 2nd gen TSX wagon, and a Subaru Forester. My Forester was a 2009 premium model with the cloth seats, which I found to be pretty comfortable. I miss the all wheel drive, but Subaru needs to work on their interiors. It was one of my best winter vehicles. I sold it to a family member who had a 2002 Forester with over 125,000 miles and very few problems. They love it.
The seats in my TSX wagon are definitely more comfortable. The Acura feels like a more solid vehicle, is quieter on the highway, and has a much better sound system.
I love Subaru's.. I just don't like wagons or the B9 Tribeca - Any Subaru I've ever driven has been 10x better in snow than my RDX is.
-----***
I don't know about 10X better but I do agree as my 1997 Subaru SW Outback climbed snowy/icy hilly road with ease while my RDX AWD, did make it through the same hilly road but it spins the wheels quite few times to get there. That is one reason why I hold on to my 1997 Outback.
drove a '14 Forrester for a week while they were rebuilding my Subaru legacy engine, found it to be just as comfortable as my CLS overall good support holds you in place well
Having driven both the Subaru Legacy and the RDX in the snow, I can tell you that the Subaru > RDX. It does not slide around like the RDX does until it decides to engage the rear wheels.... the RDX is good in the snow but the Subaru is superb...
downside to the older Subaru cars is they chug gas faster than frat boys at a keg party....
Last edited by YeuEmMaiMai; 01-24-2015 at 06:05 AM.
One of the reasons may be that, Subaru has four wheel drive permanently installed but the RDX is essentially FWD until it detects a slip and then engages AWD mode.
I'm so glad you created this thread. I am currently considering selling my 2013 RDX AWD w/ Tech for a 2015 Forester XT with Navi Eyesight.
My wife is 5'1" and finds the RDX seats too low even at max height settings. Turning Ratio sucks on all Accord/Acura's SUV's. No SH-AWD. Otherwise the RDX is GREAT and the luxury is awesome and Seats are Really comfortable.
the new 2015 Forester now has more power, more room and has HID which it didn't in the previous. It Has Eyesight with a horrible navi unit. Better Turning Ratio and the AWD system is way better then the current slip and Grip AWD system that the RDX has.
This is what is making me consider the Forester over the RDX. for my wifes sake, I'm stuck in a situation
I Almost forgot to agree with everyone else. The RDX passenger seats need to have height adjustments. It's low for the passenger sitting in it. Also for the passenger behind him. You can barely put your feet under the front passenger seat.
I Almost forgot to agree with everyone else. The RDX passenger seats need to have height adjustments. It's low for the passenger sitting in it. Also for the passenger behind him. You can barely put your feet under the front passenger seat.
I believe you are aware about the refreshed RDX which addresses some of your concerns.
Space under the passenger seat??? Don't know which vehicle has lots of space over there? Unless it's an airline seat. Oops... that even more crammed. RDXs rear seat leg room is adequate (for me) and as a general consensus as well. But if driving a Subaru is one of your things, go for it. We like Subarus too .
Not even in the same ballpark. The Subaru is so overated & the RDX is truley a great car. I'm 6'2" & 225 lbs and was very comfortable in my 2014 RDX base (until it was recently totaled.)
I'm so glad you created this thread. I am currently considering selling my 2013 RDX AWD w/ Tech for a 2015 Forester XT with Navi Eyesight.
My wife is 5'1" and finds the RDX seats too low even at max height settings. Turning Ratio sucks on all Accord/Acura's SUV's. No SH-AWD. Otherwise the RDX is GREAT and the luxury is awesome and Seats are Really comfortable.
the new 2015 Forester now has more power, more room and has HID which it didn't in the previous. It Has Eyesight with a horrible navi unit. Better Turning Ratio and the AWD system is way better then the current slip and Grip AWD system that the RDX has.
This is what is making me consider the Forester over the RDX. for my wifes sake, I'm stuck in a situation
I dont think the turbo Subaru are oil burners but I would research it. If you read the Subaru there are some many people who have to add 1 quart of oil every 1,500 miles.
Not even in the same ballpark. The Subaru is so overated & the RDX is truley a great car. I'm 6'2" & 225 lbs and was very comfortable in my 2014 RDX base (until it was recently totaled.)
Subaru sold 138,792 Outbacks last year, exactly how many RDX did Acura sell despite both of them being similarly priced with the RDX more expensive with less safety tech... btw Acura's total RX sales were about 44,865
Goodcarbadcar.com
I have driven a new RDX and an Outback and while the RDX is faster, it feels more top heavy and does not have the nice integrated vehicle information system that the new Outback does, lacks dual piston calipers for solid fade free repeated braking performance..
Also lacks HID, NAV, Keyless Entry, and Eyesight with Standard AWD for $37K Acura starts at 35K and offers NONE of that... until you reach 38K where you get FWD and tech and 40K for AWD and tech...
I am telling you from Personal Experience I love the RDX for what it is but when you compare it to an Outback overall it is severely lacking in available technology and it does not feel nearly as sporty as the Outback does... from my POV the RSX CLS and OUTBACK seats are identical comfort wise...
Won't even get into the VCM and suspension issues that the current RDX have...nor the limited rearward visibility
I'd gladly trade 17HP for more features, AWD and the same fuel economy any day of the week.
I dont think the turbo Subaru are oil burners but I would research it. If you read the Subaru there are some many people who have to add 1 quart of oil every 1,500 miles.
Some Subaru have trouble with the cats before the turbo breaking down toasting an engine. $7K on average to fix that mess...
Subaru sold 138,792 Outbacks last year, exactly how many RDX did Acura sell despite both of them being similarly priced with the RDX more expensive with less safety tech... btw Acura's total RX sales were about 44,865
OK, so you are comparing sales of a mainstream 25-30K car to a luxury car costing 30-40K and saying the sales are higher for the former. Is that a surprise?
A CRV/ RAV 4 will be cheaper than Outback and sell in even higher numbers. .
I get what you are saying about the 4WD prowess and safety features of Subaru Vs RDX, but the ride and interior feels different enough in these two cars. The RDX rides like luxury car and that was one big factor for me to choose between the two (while I was shopping). The tech scarcity in RDX is being addressed anyway but these are not head on competitors. The lower end of RDX will compete with the higher spec of Outback. Both are great cars in their own way and will satisfy their owners ...(and the company's shareholders..).
No, I am comparing the sales of two very similarly priced cars. Obviously in your haste you overlooked that....hence the price comparison provided. Like it or not the Outback 3.6R is FIRMLY in RDX territory $33 vs $35K starting point
The only major differences between an outback and rdx is acceleration and the outback having a better controlled ride due to significantly lower center of gravity.
and like I said I LOVE the RDX for what it is but to say that it is superior to an Outback is ludicrous especially when you see the new updated interior of the 2015 outback and do a direct comparison of what you get for the $$$.
BTW I think it's asinine for Honda to charge damn near $34K for a fully optioned out CR-V at that point you might as well pony up the extra $2K for a V6 RDX...or an extra 5K for FWD tech
btw 3.6R standard options that RDX does not have standard are
dual piston calipers HID *real*AWD that does not mind seeing constant duty and actually be used effectively off road heated rear seats
Last edited by YeuEmMaiMai; 03-07-2015 at 08:16 AM.
OK, I see what you are trying to say.
Few thoughts being
Now the advance model of RDX (which will be a comparison - feature wise) will cost significantly more that that of Outback.
I don't think that the sales of 138,792 reflect the top trim of 3.6R (I'm guessing it'll probably be a small percentage) But like I said the higher end of Outback will compete with the lower end of RDX.
One other problem is the exterior design of Outback..it looks more like a wagon than an SUV which is simply not to my taste. I understand that many don't have a problem with it and some even prefer that. The interior also, looks pretty in pictures but when you actually drive...looks and feels lackluster. The RDX interior is an improvement (not by a large margin) though. The updated RDX version has covered some other issues you have raised.
Road/ wind noise appears better suppressed in RDX.
Image perception: Subaru doesn't have a luxury tag. So how would you feel if others have paid 25K for a car which you paid 40K even though you have some more options loaded..... you'd feel worse if some of your friends say... Man you paid that much for a Subaru..you could have gotten an Acura for that price...
IMO its a very personal choice. What you want and expect in a luxury vehicle (depends on your definition of luxury)?
Yes, if you prefer the snow/ rough riding capability more, then obviously Outback is your default choice. In regular (99% of mine) driving the permanent AWD doesn't offer much benefit.
It will be interesting to see how the RDX stacks up to the competition in the coming months.
A general chat forum becomes less interesting if it becomes a one to one chat.... my apologies.
I have test driven the 2015 Outback several times and it remains on my short list due to it's solid features and unique characteristics that are unmatched by any one car. However, even though Subaru has most all the boxes checked with the OB, IMHO the interior build quality is in no way on par with luxury vehicle standards. I will not pull the trigger on any vehicle until I see the 2016 RDX because Acura has finally caught up in terms of features and I feel they will offer above average quality at a value price as usual.
^^ I concur...I feel the 2016 RDX will offer an amazing package (except the hideous wheels) and a much more upscale interior. Subaru, in my opinion, have the most bland interiors on the market. It is a shame as they are fun to drive, reliable and decent exterior styling. My buddy has a forester and there are so many rattles in that thing.
The outback is a wagon... that has effectively morphed into a midsized SUV...
You all remember when Acura started, they were about best bang for the buck. Their first cars only had one choice..... auto or manual but were otherwise completely loaded... now most models have a min of 4 trim levels and imho that is adding costs... RDX should be awd standard and with or without nav and every thing else standard...
I have test driven the 2015 Outback several times and it remains on my short list due to it's solid features and unique characteristics that are unmatched by any one car. However, even though Subaru has most all the boxes checked with the OB, IMHO the interior build quality is in no way on par with luxury vehicle standards. I will not pull the trigger on any vehicle until I see the 2016 RDX because Acura has finally caught up in terms of features and I feel they will offer above average quality at a value price as usual.
Acura interiors are bad for a luxury car... they wear extremely fast....3rd gen dash crack like no tomorrow and the leather on anything 2000+ wears out well before 100k under normal use..
bringing this thread back to life. any other forester owners chime in?
The stop sale on RDX CPOs has me looking at 2014 XT Touring with Eyesight. The visibility and panoramic roof are truly amazing. It has a pretty close feel to a Wrangler with the T-Tops removed above the driver. Plus the cargo hold is superior for hauling two dogs. Really on the fence here. However, my wife and I are a bit sensitive to seating comfort.
I wonder what the best way is to test the seats...maybe go to a local dealer and ask him to let me hang out for an hour, uninterrupted, in a 2016 Forester in the lot? Dont know of any rental car companies nearby that carry Foresters.
bringing this thread back to life. any other forester owners chime in?
The stop sale on RDX CPOs has me looking at 2014 XT Touring with Eyesight. The visibility and panoramic roof are truly amazing. It has a pretty close feel to a Wrangler with the T-Tops removed above the driver. Plus the cargo hold is superior for hauling two dogs. Really on the fence here. However, my wife and I are a bit sensitive to seating comfort.
I wonder what the best way is to test the seats...maybe go to a local dealer and ask him to let me hang out for an hour, uninterrupted, in a 2016 Forester in the lot? Dont know of any rental car companies nearby that carry Foresters.
I have a 2015 forester XT and a 2016 RDX.
If you want a forester I highly recommend waiting until the 2017 model later this year. Mid cycle refresh with newer eyesight, led DRLs, and projector HIDs. Also supposed to be more refined with less noise.
Keep in mind the forester is an economy suv and not at the same level of luxury as the RDX.
Also not as reliable as Acura. Already had a check engine light and some recall work done on my forester.
IMO, if you get a 2014 XT, which is the first model year, you are asking for trouble.
If you want a forester I highly recommend waiting until the 2017 model later this year. Mid cycle refresh with newer eyesight, led DRLs, and projector HIDs. Also supposed to be more refined with less noise.
Keep in mind the forester is an economy suv and not at the same level of luxury as the RDX.
Also not as reliable as Acura. Already had a check engine light and some recall work done on my forester.
IMO, if you get a 2014 XT, which is the first model year, you are asking for trouble.
Thanks. I reached out to guys on the Forester forum, and none really raised red flags for the 1st year Turbo and 1st Year CVT.
I saw the 2017s, they look awesome. I promised myself I would not finance the car to free up some cashflow. Dont have a trade-in either...So I am more sensitive to the price of the car - which is why I'm looking at 2014 CPOs. So I will feel every dollar of the sale price difference between a 2017 vs 2014 used. Heck, I wish I could even get a 2013, but then I jump into the last generation. At this rate, I am kind of waiting for the 2017 to come out to lower the prices on the 2014s; also it will provide a few months for 2014s to come off lease, trade-ins, etc.
However, for me, HIDs are a must. The 2014-2016 dont have projector style, so you cant go aftermarket. You need to get factory HIDs. On the 2014s, you need to get the Touring plus the Eyesight package (dont care for the eyesight). Sticker new is a whopping $36k, used is $25-28k. Alternatively, the 2015 Touring came standard with HIDs, but a 2015 Touring (no eyesight) have a lower sticker price, but are still more on the secondhand market, given they are not old enough to have ~15k+ miles on the ODO.
Maybe if I get a 2017 XT, no HIDs, but leverage off of the new projector style headlamps to install aftermarket HIDs...Maybe it could be doable to negotiate below $30k OTD.
Last edited by ThermonMermon; 03-23-2016 at 08:30 AM.
Thanks. I reached out to guys on the Forester forum, and none really raised red flags for the 1st year Turbo and 1st Year CVT.
I saw the 2017s, they look awesome. I promised myself I would not finance the car to free up some cashflow. Dont have a trade-in either...So I am more sensitive to the price of the car - which is why I'm looking at 2014 CPOs. So I will feel every dollar of the sale price difference between a 2017 vs 2014 used. Heck, I wish I could even get a 2013, but then I jump into the last generation. At this rate, I am kind of waiting for the 2017 to come out to lower the prices on the 2014s; also it will provide a few months for 2014s to come off lease, trade-ins, etc.
However, for me, HIDs are a must. The 2014-2016 dont have projector style, so you cant go aftermarket. You need to get factory HIDs. On the 2014s, you need to get the Touring plus the Eyesight package (dont care for the eyesight). Sticker new is a whopping $36k, used is $25-28k. Alternatively, the 2015 Touring came standard with HIDs, but a 2015 Touring (no eyesight) have a lower sticker price, but are still more on the secondhand market, given they are not old enough to have ~15k+ miles on the ODO.
Maybe if I get a 2017 XT, no HIDs, but leverage off of the new projector style headlamps to install aftermarket HIDs...Maybe it could be doable to negotiate below $30k OTD.
Also, another big thing in consideration is that the 2016s represent the change over to the old school double-din navi system to the 21st century touchscreen setup.
Ideally, finding a 2016 Touring XT (no eyesight) from some guy that racked up 30k miles in his 1st year of ownership would be most ideal to bring down the price. But that's like finding a diamond in the rough.
Thanks. I reached out to guys on the Forester forum, and none really raised red flags for the 1st year Turbo and 1st Year CVT.
I saw the 2017s, they look awesome. I promised myself I would not finance the car to free up some cashflow. Dont have a trade-in either...So I am more sensitive to the price of the car - which is why I'm looking at 2014 CPOs. So I will feel every dollar of the sale price difference between a 2017 vs 2014 used. Heck, I wish I could even get a 2013, but then I jump into the last generation. At this rate, I am kind of waiting for the 2017 to come out to lower the prices on the 2014s; also it will provide a few months for 2014s to come off lease, trade-ins, etc.
However, for me, HIDs are a must. The 2014-2016 dont have projector style, so you cant go aftermarket. You need to get factory HIDs. On the 2014s, you need to get the Touring plus the Eyesight package (dont care for the eyesight). Sticker new is a whopping $36k, used is $25-28k. Alternatively, the 2015 Touring came standard with HIDs, but a 2015 Touring (no eyesight) have a lower sticker price, but are still more on the secondhand market, given they are not old enough to have ~15k+ miles on the ODO.
Maybe if I get a 2017 XT, no HIDs, but leverage off of the new projector style headlamps to install aftermarket HIDs...Maybe it could be doable to negotiate below $30k OTD.
For the 1st year turbo, the most common problem I saw on the forums was the "hard start". Long story, but I also had a 2014 XT (got totaled, not my fault) and it had this problem. Sometimes your new car would sit there and just crank and crank but not start your engine. I heard there was a software update for it that fixed it but I never got a chance to try it.
The most current problem with the 2.0DIT engine is the pre-ignition recall. You have probably read about it, but it can be as simple as a software update or as bad as a new engine replacement.
And that is not including my check engine light which was due to a bad OCV (oil control valve).
I've seen a handful of people reporting leaks with their CVTs, with at least one needing a new transmission.
IMO, lots of stuff for a new car. Kinda got me disappointed with Subaru.
Also, go and join one of the groups that give you a discount on new Subarus. I joined Leave No Trace for like $50 and I got a fixed price of 2% below invoice for both my 2014 and 2015 XTs. Maybe this way, you can just jump to a loaded 2017 XT.
I just ditched a 2010 Subaru Forester Turbo for a 2016 RDX Advanced due to an engine issue which the dealership couldn't fix. I've never been more disappointed in a car brand....go with the RDX and don't look back.
I've had lots of 'luxury' cars (BMW, Audi, Volvo, etc.) and the three Acuras I've owned have all had excellent seats. 2006 TSX, 2008 RDX, and now the 2016 RDX Advance AWD. I'd take the Acura seats over all the other cars I've owned.
01-04-2015, 02:29 PM
but I do agree as my 1997 Subaru SW Outback climbed snowy/icy hilly road with ease while my RDX AWD, did make it through the same hilly road but it spins the wheels quite few times to get there. That is one reason why I hold on to my 1997 Outback.
.
.
).
