I'm also trying to figure out other options at this price point that have better interiors - the Nissan Pathfinder Platinum is selling for $36.8k.

Since the Subaru Forester 2.0XT tows only 1500 lbs and the Pathfinder tows 5000 lbs i'm wondering if it's a better buy.

I would like to have at least 2000 lbs but could live with 1500 lbs but reading some posts here it looks like the Forester cannot even handle that unless the trailer has brakes. This is quite crazy...I used to tow over 1000 lbs with my car, an Acura TL, without issues - and that trailer did not have any brakes (UHaul motorcycle trailer)...how can I not tow anything over 1000 with this SUV?

 

Since the Subaru Forester 2.0XT tows only 1500 lbs and the Pathfinder tows 5000 lbs i'm wondering if it's a better buy.

If I was anticipating towing a lot I would not keep the Forester on my shopping list. There are too many better options out there....tho you will most likely pay a penalty in other areas (mpg on some of the best choices). Towing is not a Forester strong point...it is a compromise at best.

AWD is a Subaru strong point, but I would be willing to wager that many owner's don't need it. I don't (look at my location) but like knowing it's there. Not much of a mpg penalty in the Forester for AWD.

 

FXT over RDX

I just ordered a FXT touring without eyesight. I am paying 31K plus I got 16 for my 2010 outback 3.6R with 90k miles.
My wife pushed me hard towards the Acura RDX which I could've gotten a 2013 for $33.5ish. both nice cars.
I chose the subaru for a variety of reasons.
1-It costs less
2-It's sportier (turbo, suspension, sports drive, suspension, brakes)
3-More masculine. 90% of RDX drivers are women. same can be said for foresters i guess but not so much for fxt's
4- better in the snow
5- cheaper to maintain
6- made in japan
I am excited to get it but its going to be 2-3 months

 

3-More masculine. 90% of RDX drivers are women. same can be said for foresters i guess but not so much for fxt's

Really? You picked the wrong brand to show off your masculinity :discomonkey:

 

I shopped both and had a hard time deciding. In the end I went with the Subaru for superior AWD, ability to modify it, better visibility and slightly better MPG. I really did like the options on the RDX and it is definitely a luxury vehicle compared to the Subaru. It's a tough call, especially with close-out pricing on the RDX. Good-Luck!

 

Towing on the 2014 Foz is a bit of a disappointment. I think my '09 is rated at 2400 lbs.

As for the Acura in general, I had a '98 2.5 TL from 2000 to 2007 and it was a great car; parts and service were pricey (but the Subaru is not cheap to service either--I'm sitting at the dealer right now waiting for some 60k service items). I have nothing bad to say about Honda/Acura (my wife has an '07 Civic with 103k miles and all it's needed was fluid changes, tires/rotations, and a set of front brake pads).

I am guessing the Subaru has far better AWD for sure; I have not looked at resale prices. I am guessing RDX's are less common, making parts availability a bit more of a problem.

If you have not owned a Subaru in the past (my '09 is my first, bought in April '08), there is a sense of endearment and quirkiness that is hard to quantify. Sort of like when I bought a SAAB 900 in 1983 (used '79 model that was miserable to maintain). It was my first FWD car and had a cool quirkiness to it that I loved (and my wife, who I met shortly after buying the car, loved it as well). For what it's worth, one of the major reasons I chose the Foz is because I wanted a manual transmission--which for me takes it out of little old lady mode and adds to the endearment aspect.

Good luck with your choice. If you want a towing vehicle, I'd say neither the Foz nor the Acura will be that good.

George

 

Besides the better interior and luxury nameplate both vehicles seem to be similar. Is the better interior and luxury service features worth the extra $3k?

Try looking at it this way; when you come accross an unmarked trail leading up in the woods or down accross a small stream are you going to think, hmm, my Acura is nice, I really don't want to **** it up, I definetley don't want to get stuck or are you going to think, awww sh*t, hells yea, and hit that trail going way to fast because you are in a Subaru.

 

Yeah! I'm going to bust up my brand new $33k Subaru going down a trail too fast! Why? Because its a Subaru!



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

I guess that came out wrong.
At the end of the day I see myself more as a Subaru guy then an Acura guy.
I just got my wife a CRV and she loves it.
The Subaru just seems sportier and more rugged to me.
An extension of how i see myself as silly as that probably sounds also.
And its cheaper.

I like the disco monkey.

 

Cheaper is a good point, price is a big factor for most of us. 5 years ago I never thought an XT and RDX could be cross-shopped, but they are now. I can't see maintenance being that much different between the two, same for mileage. The downgrade of the RDX's AWD system to that of a CRV could be seen as a strike against it, being a much more time proven engine/tranny and not having Direct Injection can be seen as points for it. Seats, interiour, options etc -- can all play a role. Could be a tough desision based on your preference, but you can't go wrong either way IMO.

Stan

 

Acura vs. XT

Acura is a 3.5 V-6 with 273 H.P. Basically an Accord V-6. Subie XT CVT is 250 H.P.


Acura Interior a little more luxurious with like 76 plus cubic feet of storage although there is some qualifier on the spec sheet. Subie is almost 75 cublic feet. Mileage is 27 mpg highway for the Acura vs. 28 mpg highway for the XT and Acura is 19 mpg city vs. 23 mpg city for the Forester.

I saw one today in the parking lot at the market and that sloped back is gonna have a blind spot. Subie has much more leg room in the back seat.
Acura is like 2 to 3 inches longer.

The Acura RDX is like 39K with the Tech package. Discounted maybe 37.
Forester with Eyesight and VIP Program is 33 and change.

Subie has a generous guaranteed trade in program.

Subie has full time AWD and more of a greenhouse and rugged look.

I personally like the rugged look of the Subie and its like 3 to 4 grand cheaper.

I have never seen a canoe or bike rack on an RDX so its a different crowd in my opinion.

 

With a sunroof the 2014 Foz is under 70 cubic feet of storage.

I view the Foz as a stunning bargain in base trim; I came out of an Acura TL and purposely bought my '09 FX in April '08 with almost zero options and a stick, priced at $20,400 new. Absolute steal IMO. I love the Foz for the "utility" aspect.

I would be disappointed with the Foz interior (carpet and headliner, etc) at over $30k, and although I have not done serious off roading, it kills on campground trails, fire roads, etc.

If you truly want a luxury vehicle at the big bucks price level, the Acura may be appealing, but it's such a woman's car in my perception.

George

 

It's a bit of a shame really, if I could've got 2000 lbs towing and a kick *** sound system for $33k I would not need any further convincing, would buy the 2.0XT the RDX has a few negatives - I'm not crazy about the styling, it was not at all fun to drive - way too docile for my tastes and towing is 1500 lbs as well. The only positives are the interior and stereo.

I would concur with FXT newbie that the 2.0XT looks way more masculine than the RDX.

The question is, how bad is the HK system in the Forester? I guess I will have to take my tunes and check it out myself

It's funny - when I test drove the RDX the sales guy asked me what other vehicles I was considering, when I mentioned Forester he was offended and said that is not in this class, you should compare Audi Q5 and Lexus RX350, but to me i'm not sure there is $5k worth of luxury in the RDX over the Forester.

 

i'm not sure there is $5k worth of luxury in the RDX over the Forester.

It isn't all luxury. I would argue that Honda's build quality and design is better. AWD is the thing Subaru has going for it over the RDX.

Stan

 

For what it's worth, the 2.0 liter EcoBoost Ford Escape is rated to tow 3500 lbs. As a lifelong Detroiter, I will always consider American vehicles and in a patriotic sense, the Escape is appealing. I would have bought one in 2008 if they had offered a stick with AWD but have no regrets re the Forester. I spent some time in the back seat of a 2013 Escape pre-driving a 26 mile Marathon course and at 6'2" I was *OK* comfy, but a smaller woman was driving in the seat in front of me. Still, the leather smelled nice and it was a classy looking and feeling vehicle.

If you want to tow 1500-2000 lbs, having a vehicle with a 3500 lb towing capacity gives the kind of margin I'd be really comfortable with.

I also have a fetish for the Ford Edge and Explorer Sports, but I try to suppress that

George

 

The Harmon Kardon Sound System I think is quite good in the XT Touring....In the MT SUV of the Year Issue last fall they reviewed the Candidates and MT just said basically that the RDX was O.K. and that there was nothing special to note other than it was an upgrade to the outgoing model. Yawn

 

Trident
I have hk 440 watt in outback 36 I am trading in. It's a great stereo!! Couldn't be happier with it
I expect the new one to sound even better, unfortunately I have low expectations with nav you have to get it with




Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

Yo George
I test drove escape2.0 also
Really nice but in sync ford touch is way too complicated
It's so bad they are forced to have classes at ford dealers to try to teach customers how to use it
I was also really worried about resale
I am getting 16$k for outback with 90k miles
Pretty sure if it was a ford I'd getting way under 10in trade



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

I also drove the Ford Escape. It is the absolutely PERFECT vehicle for me in terms of cost, abilities, features, fun to drive etc. and I love the styling as well. Unfortunately I am too scared to buy a Ford... if you go to the Ford Escape forum all you see is a litany of complains about stuff not working, engines dying, peripherals going dead etc. etc. The Ford Sync system is terrific while it works - but it's built by Microsoft and I heard just like Windows it crashes and reboots all the time...scary!

The other negative about the Escape is the mileage, if you go to the forums you will see that people are getting MUCH lower mileage than advertised...some are getting below 17 mpg when the advertised for the 2.0 Turbo is 22.

 

I understand perfectly where you are, and would LOVE to buy an Escape in principle but would have a hard time pulling out the checkbook. If I were in your position, I would do my best to determine how much of the Internet noise is based on a small percentage of unhappy owners vs a large percentage of owners. Ford is selling a LOT of Escapes and people I know who own them are delighted.

I think mileage is gonna be based on how heavy you put your right foot into the throttle. Won't the EcoBoost even run on regular gas?

Like I said, 3500 lbs. of advertised towing capacity is where I would want to be if I wanted to tow anything regularly, even 1500-2000 lbs. But I completely understand where you're at, having owned Fords, Hondas, Acuras, Mazda, SAAB's, multiple GM, Chrysler, AMC, BMW, and various brands of English cars over 43 years....oh and a Toyota FJ40 Land Crusher and my Foz...

Good luck--I try not to bring prejudice into the equation. How about a 2013 Forester XT with 2400 lbs of capacity? You would have to settle for an old 4 speed automatic, but I spent the day at the Subaru dealer today, sat in everything they had on their lot, an still like my '09 Foz the best (maybe because the memory foam seat is shaped just like my butt and my spine).

Good luck,
George

 

The escape looks really nice, but they've had something like five recalls since it came out last year. Of course the new Forester just came out so you don't know what will come of it. I personally have found Japanese build quality to be higher than American build quality though.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

We looked at the Escape and I wasn't impressed. They've gone to that ridiculous slanted back window, which killed a lot of the usable room in the trunk. And, well, it is still a Ford.
I thought the XT drove noticeably better too.

 

Here is what Popular Mechanics had to say in May of 2012 about the RDX:


Driving Character: Acura’s new RDX is smooth, quiet, and nonintrusive. Contrary to industry trends toward turbocharged engines with fewer cylinders and less displacement, Acura has forsaken the original RDX’s 2.3-liter turbo four-cylinder for a naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V-6. It’s not quite as torquey as the turbo four, but at 273 hp it adds 33 ponies to the package. That’s enough to knock a tenth of a second or two off 0-to-60 sprints—expect the RDX to post times in the low 6-second bracket. Expect more body roll, too. On balance, what emerges is a driving experience that is pleasant, comfortable, competent, and as memorable as a bowl of oatmeal.


I like the bowl of oatmeal quote.....maybe if you decide to buy the RDX have the Acura Dealer throw in a case of oatmeal as part of the deal?

 

Towing is repeatedly mentioned, but not what. The NA towing specs are much less than the same Forester in Europe or Australia. I tow a Hobie 16 Catamaran, 8 ft wide and 27 ft long on trailer, 1000 lbs total. able to do 75 with traffic no problem. MPG drops to 22 hwy. I also drive on to the beach to launch and retrieve.

pic in my gallery

 

Depends on your needs. If you're more of a city dweller, I would go for the RDX. We don't know the long term reliability of the new Forester yet, as most of the major components are new. For a guy like me, who has moved away from snowboarding and camping and is focused more on just getting to and from work while having the useful space of a CUV (though, would prefer a sports wagon), the RDX makes more sense to me, especially considering the price gap is minimal. I also don't plan to mod my next car. Oh, and RDX towing capacity is also 1500 right?

 

Hondas certainly require less maintenance than Subarus but are certainly not perfect.

My '98 Acura 2.5 TL had a generic crack in the exhaust manifold (I had an extended warranty) at about 95k miles, along with a cracked radiator and frozen parking brakes on the rear calipers (about $4000 worth of warranty work at 95k miles so I did well to spend a grand on a warranty when I bought it CPO) but it was a GREAT car when I sold it with 132k miles.

My wife's '07 Civic (bought new, now with 103k miles) has been close to perfect BUT the 06-09 Civics have an 8 year extended warranty on the engine block, which due to a bad casting is prone to cracking in the cooling passages and dumping the antifreeze. Honda has graciously provided an 8 year no mileage limit warranty, transferable on resale, etc. but they sure ain't perfect and I would hesitate driving it to California or something. Fix is a new short block. Google "Honda Civic cracked block" if you want to research, and make a mental note not to tell the woman at work to buy a used 06-09 Civic...

I also have a bud with an Odyssey with some serious trans problems (shared with a bunch of Acura models with 5 speed autos), know that the '06+ Si's had some catastrophic manual trans failures, etc. And in Michigan, any older Honda is rotting at the rear edge of the rear wheel well at the bumper junction. (I sprayed my Acura with aluminized wax in that area bigtime when I bought it.)

My wife will likely retire prior to her Civic being 8 years old, and I think I might just put it up for sale when it's about 7 years and 10 months old...it'll have 135k+ miles on it at that point (engine origin is the USA) UNLESS it has a new short block by then. We do tell people it was "imported from Ohio"...

I would still buy or recommend just about any Honda, as I would almost any Subaru, Mazda, Toyota, etc. But as a Detroiter, I *want* to try to buy domestic. My wife will choose her next car based on what she wants--we'll have to see what's available at that point.

George

 

I don't have a regular need to tow, rather maybe once a month I would be pulling a motorcycle to the racetrack (I race bikes as a hobby)...my sportbike would be 450 lbs with gas, a lightweight motorcycle trailer would be around 250lbs for a total of 700 lbs. The trailer would have no brakes. I think the 2.0XT touring should be able to handle this without having adverse effect on the vehicle's suspension or transmission, right?

I may also move out of California in two years, at that time I would need to pull a small Uhaul trailer like this one:

about 900 lbs empty, 1800 lbs max loaded PLUS I will have other stuff loaded in the vehicle itself. I don't think the vehicle would be up to this task...I would be pushing it.

I don't think it's a big expectation for a SUV to do these things, it's this kind of limitation that makes me wonder if I would regret going for the Forester. But then again the RDX has this limitation too. But on the other hand this would be a 1 time thing only so it's not a regular event...although driving a UHaul to another destination would be very expensive when I could have a vehicle that could do it.

I have to decide whether eliminating what is otherwise a good vehicle is worth it to have a feature that I would use only once.

I'm also looking at the Pathfinder, for $36k I can get one almost fully loaded!

 

I was so close to purchasing a 13 RDX back in mid-Feb that I had my financing all in order and ready to go. The two major things that stopped me was the fact there's no rear HVAC and no reclining rear seats. Unbelievable, for a luxury CUV. It's as if they forgot all about the comfort of the rear passengers. I bought a 14 Foz instead, and though it also doesn't have rear HVAC it's also a fair amount cheaper than an RDX. If we're close to the next 14 RDX release, I'd wait to see if those issues have been corrected.

 

If we're close to the next 14 RDX release, I'd wait to see if those issues have been corrected.

The 14 has already been released (or close to being released) and it is the exact same vehicle - the only change is an additional color.

 

The '14 XT can tow more than 1000lbs (1500lbs). They say you need trailer brakes in order to tow more than 1000lbs. Either way If I was really worried about towing then there are plenty of full size pickup trucks you can get on sale (in some cases cheaper than either Forester or RDX). I actually considerd an Extended cab F-150 STX 4x4 for around the same price as the XT Premium.

 

If I was really worried about towing then there are plenty of full size pickup trucks you can get on sale (in some cases cheaper than either Forester or RDX). I actually considerd an Extended cab F-150 STX 4x4 for around the same price as the XT Premium.

While a pickup makes an ideal towing vehicle, most people are not willing to pay for the insurance/maintenance, etc for a dedicated tow vehicle. Especially when there are many medium sized SUV's that can tow from 3,500 to 5,000 lbs. Examples: Honda Pilot, FJ Cruiser, Nissan Murano, Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota Highlander, Toyota 4Runner....to name a few.

 

I wouldn't get a forester or an RDX if I was going to tow stuff. I'd stick with an actual SUV or a pickup truck. Both the RDX and forester are basically higher up cars with AWD. The forester even more so.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App