Mazda CX-5 Vs. Acura RDX

Bird-Dog

2017 CX-5 Touring 2020 CX-5 GTR
About old Hondas, my 19 inch self propelled Honda mover, a close out buy in 1987 because they were moving to 21 inch mowers, is still running, and in the summer, I use it every week. Sure it burns a little oil, but when the weather is warm, one pull and it starts up. When it is cold, it can be 3-5 pulls, but it always starts up. The problem I have is trying to find spare parts such as new solid wheels, which are fine, they are just "bald"
Sure. But that 0-60 time... :sleep:

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
:
‘21 CX-5 Sig
The AWD system of the RDX felt better than the CX5 when pushing it. I could just hammer the throttle on an on ramp and it would just stick. That said I haven’t pushed the CX5 all that hard yet.

However, and I made a separate post about this, the RDX is flaky at best elsewhere. While they now seem to have addressed the limp mode during acceleration issue (what an embarrassment), I have about a dozen other common problems that happened to me on my 2020. Shameful to put out a car like that.

One might (might) just have better luck with reliability on a Jag or LR. Yeah, I said it.

Ok ok I might’ve gone too far there. 😅

A few minor quirks aside (no car is perfect), I am glad that I jumped ship and moved to Mazda. I love driving this thing. It feels a lot more refined than the Acura RDX that was, what, almost $8k more(?).
 
:
Texas
:
2019 MX-5 Miata
Indeed - Acura's superior SH-AWD system and, to a slightly lesser degree, Honda's nearly-identical iVTM-4 AWD system offer significantly better performance and handling than Mazda's "better than nothing" AWD system.

With only one clutch, Mazda's AWD system can only send power to the rear axle through an open differential - not to each wheel on command and there's no overdrive so there's no torque vectoring. While accelerating through a hairpin turn, the CX-5's inside tires will spin. In the RDX's overdriven, twin-clutch system, more power is sent to the outside rear wheel which helps create a yaw moment and gives it somewhat of a RWD feel.

When driven leisurely, most drivers would never notice a difference unless they drove both systems back-to-back the same way along the same route. When driven "with spirit", the differences are unmistakable.

I drove my CX-5 in the snow for the first time earlier this week. It was more than capable, but I could instantly feel the difference in AWD systems compared to my Ridglines with iVTM-4. The Mazda's front wheels slipped for a split second before power was sent to the rear. In my Ridgelines, the rear wheels proactively received power preventing front wheel slip from occurring in the first place.

Mazda's AWD system uses open front and rear differentials, so it's really a two-wheel drive system (the front wheel with less traction and the rear wheel with less traction). In order to transfer torque to the wheel with more traction, it has to brake spinning wheel on the opposite side. Honda's/Acura's system can send power to either rear wheel through one or both clutches similar to how a limited-slip or locking differential works without the need to brake the wheel with less traction.

In everyday driving, there's no significant difference to a non-enthusiast. When you drive the snot out it, the CX-5 spins its inside tires and cuts power where the RDX pushes you right on through. To be fair, there should be no need to drive in manner that exploits the differences between the two systems on public roads. :)
 
:
Virginia
:
2021 CX-5 White
Indeed - Acura's superior SH-AWD system and, to a slightly lesser degree, Honda's nearly-identical iVTM-4 AWD system offer significantly better performance and handling than Mazda's "better than nothing" AWD system.
......

In everyday driving, there's no significant difference to a non-enthusiast. When you drive the snot out it, the CX-5 spins its inside tires and cuts power where the RDX pushes you right on through. To be fair, there should be no need to drive in manner that exploits the differences between the two systems on public roads. :)
I agree with this. Having put the more complex SH-AWD in a 2006 Acura RL through some exercises at a BMW highway safety school, I can say when pushed, especially in the slalom, the Acura RL torque vectoring transformed the car's handling, making me look good even though I have never slalomed before. After about three times, the instructor said well, you have that down pretty well, especially when the guy before me kept spinning out or knocking over the cones. The power to the outer rear wheel really helped direction changes, when your foot was in the accelerator, counter intuitively.

Just as counter intuitively, I had real problems in the wet skidpad, almost always spinning out. Finally I got the feel of incipient front tire traction loss. At one point, the instructor wondered whether the SH-AWD was kicking in as I kept increasing the speed, with the rear outer wheel beginning to do its thing...
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Indeed - Acura's superior SH-AWD system and, to a slightly lesser degree, Honda's nearly-identical iVTM-4 AWD system offer significantly better performance and handling than Mazda's "better than nothing" AWD system.

With only one clutch, Mazda's AWD system can only send power to the rear axle through an open differential - not to each wheel on command and there's no overdrive so there's no torque vectoring. While accelerating through a hairpin turn, the CX-5's inside tires will spin. In the RDX's overdriven, twin-clutch system, more power is sent to the outside rear wheel which helps create a yaw moment and gives it somewhat of a RWD feel.

When driven leisurely, most drivers would never notice a difference unless they drove both systems back-to-back the same way along the same route. When driven "with spirit", the differences are unmistakable.

I drove my CX-5 in the snow for the first time earlier this week. It was more than capable, but I could instantly feel the difference in AWD systems compared to my Ridglines with iVTM-4. The Mazda's front wheels slipped for a split second before power was sent to the rear. In my Ridgelines, the rear wheels proactively received power preventing front wheel slip from occurring in the first place.

Mazda's AWD system uses open front and rear differentials, so it's really a two-wheel drive system (the front wheel with less traction and the rear wheel with less traction). In order to transfer torque to the wheel with more traction, it has to brake spinning wheel on the opposite side. Honda's/Acura's system can send power to either rear wheel through one or both clutches similar to how a limited-slip or locking differential works without the need to brake the wheel with less traction.

In everyday driving, there's no significant difference to a non-enthusiast. When you drive the snot out it, the CX-5 spins its inside tires and cuts power where the RDX pushes you right on through. To be fair, there should be no need to drive in manner that exploits the differences between the two systems on public roads. :)
I've not experienced this. Just push the car harder and it digs in. I've done 4-wheel powerslides around corners before and it's very nicely executed in power deliver.

Also, yes, Acuras system slips the tires first, too.


I do like Acura's system better on paper, but I have yet to have a functional complaint about Mazda's, and I bet it will last longer because it's less mechanically involved.
 
Last edited:

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
I've not experienced this. Just push the car harder and it digs in. I've done 4-wheel powerslides around corners before and it's very nicely executed in power deliver.

Also, yes, Acuras system slips the tires first, too.


I do like Acura's system better on paper, but I have yet to have a functional complaint about Mazda's, and I bet it will last longer because it's less mechanically involved.

I haven't pushed my CX-9 to it's limit in a corner yet, but there was a video review from TheStraightPipes on YouTube for the Mazda3 Turbo, and they basically said the same thing - put your foot into it and it just goes. The fact that Honda/Acura's system is able to make the car feel somewhat like a RWD car is something that cannot be ignored, though. A lot of premium/luxury car buyers prefer the RWD feel, and may stick to Acura/BMW just for that.
 
:
Texas
:
2019 MX-5 Miata
I've not experienced this. Just push the car harder and it digs in. I've done 4-wheel powerslides around corners before and it's very nicely executed in power deliver.

Also, yes, Acuras system slips the tires first, too.


I do like Acura's system better on paper, but I have yet to have a functional complaint about Mazda's, and I bet it will last longer because it's less mechanically involved.
Those tests are fun to watch, but their value is questionable since people don't normally drive around with any number of wheels off the ground and nobody drives on rollers with ball bearings that have practically no friction - even wheels on ice have some friction.

If you're driving on such uneven terrain where one or two wheels might lose contact with the driving surface, you need the right tool for the job - a part-time 4WD truck or SUV with locking differentials, solid axles, and a disconnected sway bar - not a pavement princess like a CX-5, RDX, etc. :)
 
Last edited:

Bird-Dog

2017 CX-5 Touring 2020 CX-5 GTR
The fact that Honda/Acura's system is able to make the car feel somewhat like a RWD car is something that cannot be ignored, though. A lot of premium/luxury car buyers prefer the RWD feel, and may stick to Acura/BMW just for that.
Sorry, but I'm scratching my head on this. A lot of people, maybe most, who buy a luxury car strictly for luxury (or a status statement) wouldn't know the darn difference. And it doesn't explain Audi's popularity or some of the FWD Lexus and Infiniti models.
 
Last edited:

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
Sorry, but I'm scratching my head on this. A lot of people, maybe most, who buy a luxury car strictly for luxury (or a status statement) wouldn't know the darn difference. And it doesn't explain Audi's popularity or some of the FWD Lexus and Infiniti models.

I should clarify - Modern luxury AWD systems that are based on RWD platforms behave differently from AWD systems based on FWD platforms. @zroger73 explained the difference between the RDX and the CX-5's AWD systems in a previous post, but here it is again:

With only one clutch, Mazda's AWD system can only send power to the rear axle through an open differential - not to each wheel on command and there's no overdrive so there's no torque vectoring. While accelerating through a hairpin turn, the CX-5's inside tires will spin. In the RDX's overdriven, twin-clutch system, more power is sent to the outside rear wheel which helps create a yaw moment and gives it somewhat of a RWD feel.

I won't assume what other people's preferences are when they buy their cars (or why they buy the cars that they do), but the fact is that the AWD systems are different. If you were to go from XXX vehicle with RWD-based AWD, to a Mazda with i-Activ AWD, you would definitely be able to tell the difference - if you were driving the cars in conditions that would allow you to explore the capability of each system. It's not that the Mazda system is inadequate by any means, it's just that there is a difference. IMO, Mazda appears to be targeting the luxury audience that prefers Lexus interiors and BMW driving dynamics. Thus, Mazda should be aiming to compete with BMW's AWD system, and it's mechanically limited to braking the inner wheel to regain traction while other systems have actual torque vectoring capabilities.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
I should clarify - Modern luxury AWD systems that are based on RWD platforms behave differently from AWD systems based on FWD platforms. @zroger73 explained the difference between the RDX and the CX-5's AWD systems in a previous post, but here it is again:



I won't assume what other people's preferences are when they buy their cars (or why they buy the cars that they do), but the fact is that the AWD systems are different. If you were to go from XXX vehicle with RWD-based AWD, to a Mazda with i-Activ AWD, you would definitely be able to tell the difference - if you were driving the cars in conditions that would allow you to explore the capability of each system. It's not that the Mazda system is inadequate by any means, it's just that there is a difference. IMO, Mazda appears to be targeting the luxury audience that prefers Lexus interiors and BMW driving dynamics. Thus, Mazda should be aiming to compete with BMW's AWD system, and it's mechanically limited to braking the inner wheel to regain traction while other systems have actual torque vectoring capabilities.

Not really, my CX5 behaves very similar to my Jeep Grand Cherokee with HEMI regarding low traction surfaces, etc. and even dry weather. Both just hook and go, or will get sideways if you want to do crazy things in the rain/ice, lol. In snow and ice, the Mazda may actually be better than my Quadradrive II was. Also, you're really selling it short. Go look up how the Mclaren P1 manages its system and what the drivers have to say about it when pushed. Mazda has an excellent system for pavement. Now for actual offroad? Well, wrong vehicle.
 
:
Virginia
:
2021 CX-5 White
...Thus, Mazda should be aiming to compete with BMW's AWD system, and it's mechanically limited to braking the inner wheel to regain traction while other systems have actual torque vectoring capabilities.
and interestingly, when Acura SH-AWD was introduced, both BMW and Audi worked on their own torque vectoring systems ....
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
Not really, my CX5 behaves very similar to my Jeep Grand Cherokee with HEMI regarding low traction surfaces, etc. and even dry weather. Both just hook and go, or will get sideways if you want to do crazy things in the rain/ice, lol. In snow and ice, the Mazda may actually be better than my Quadradrive II was. Also, you're really selling it short. Go look up how the Mclaren P1 manages its system and what the drivers have to say about it when pushed. Mazda has an excellent system for pavement. Now for actual offroad? Well, wrong vehicle.

Like I said before, it's not that the Mazda system is inadequate by any means, it's just that there is a difference. How much of a difference and whether or not it is a factor is up to the buyer - and we do have at least a couple of people who have driven both systems to compare.
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Like I said before, it's not that the Mazda system is inadequate by any means, it's just that there is a difference. How much of a difference and whether or not it is a factor is up to the buyer - and we do have at least a couple of people who have driven both systems to compare.
I punched it around a corner today. Flat out. I felt a clunk as the diff went solid, and it just hooked and went. Approached the corner at around 20ish, left it doing 35 accelerating hard. I could not ask for more honestly. It made use of every bit of power it had.

I think the tq vector may help with complex maneuvers like parking lot SCCA type stuff, where weight transfer and shift rapidly is a thing, but for 99% of my driving like windy roads, etc. The mazda system is just as good, and less complex mechanically.