I don't think this one was posted before and they are using a CX-3 instead of a CX-5 but interesting results on i-ACTIV
Last edited:
AWD system comparison
- Thread starter Kedis82ZE8
- Start date
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
It seems Mazdas predictive i-Activ all-wheel drive technology is indeed pretty good comparing to Subaru and Jeep. My only complaint is the fuel efficiency especially on the highway. With newly updated 2016 EPA fuel economy rating, the penalty for having an AWD on CX-5 is looming to 4 mpg on the highway, from 33 to 29, whereas others only suffer 1 mpg!
I wonder if they made some kind of economy mode electronic disconnect that worked off of the front transfer as well? Mechanically it is setup almost like an old school 4x4 with hubs engaged but transfer case disconnected. This is probably where most of the losses are IMO. If that driveshaft wasn't spinning all the time that would have to obtain additional MPG I would think...
EDIT: Just a note on ground clearance for those that don't know... CX-5 is 8.5"
EDIT: Just a note on ground clearance for those that don't know... CX-5 is 8.5"
Last edited:
Mazda's fuel-economy is still one of the best, but no longer class leading.
New CR-V, which I understand to have redone AWD system, is the class leader (still need to wait to see actual real owners' data) and needs to be checked again for how well it does in the snow.
The Forester is also pretty high. However, most others are not any better or not any better in reality (like the Rogue).
It is possible that the 2017 will be improved marginally, especially on highway numbers, however to go back to class leading, Mazda needs to either deliver SkyActiv 2 or improve the AWD system.
New CR-V, which I understand to have redone AWD system, is the class leader (still need to wait to see actual real owners' data) and needs to be checked again for how well it does in the snow.
The Forester is also pretty high. However, most others are not any better or not any better in reality (like the Rogue).
It is possible that the 2017 will be improved marginally, especially on highway numbers, however to go back to class leading, Mazda needs to either deliver SkyActiv 2 or improve the AWD system.
Last edited:
I know there is a lot of debate on the MPG and frankly I am more than happy with mine considering it is doing significant duties of something that is lucky to get 17MPG and I average around 28MPG with my CX-5.
I am interested to see how the new CR-V does in snow as well.
I am interested to see how the new CR-V does in snow as well.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Our old and faithful 1998 Honda CR-V AWD has similar AWD system setup mechanical wise with clutch pack in the rear differential like CX-5. But based on new EPA fuel economy ratings, 1998 CR-V FWD has 21/19/23 and 1998 CR-V AWD has 20/19/23 combined/city/hwy. See there's almost no penalty on fuel economy by having an AWD over a FWD! Not to mention in real world situation even with 175,523 miles on our CR-V, I still can easily and constantly get 22 mpg in city and 25.5 mpg on highway with my driving style which are way better than EPA ratings! On the other hand it's almost impossible for me to meet EPA highway rating at 30 mpg with my AWD CX-5 on the highway! This's something me and Unobtanium are complaining about since day one - EPA fuel economy estimates for CX-5 AWD are too optimistic... 
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
My Jeep Grand Cherokee was hammering 18-19 REAL WORLD 75mph mpg. It was the AWD QDII HEMI model. It drove the front/rear tires 52/48% all the time, unless power needed transferring, and had ELSD's front and rear, and a front drive-shaft. Pretty much identical mileage to the RWD JGC's.
It also had 3.73's out back.
Where Mazda is failing, is that they have a puny motor (NA I4), and so they need DEEP gearing to get it off the line/give it torque if they want it to be sporty. So even though the AWD system is less invasive, weighs less, blah blah blah, they use steeper final drive in the vehicle because I guess they figure AWD will be driven more aggressively, or on more aggressive terrain, or both, and they can't use a numerically low gear in the OD of the transmission, or the vehicle wouldn't have the balls to do 80 on the freeway.
It's not the AWD, it's the 4-popper and necessity of gearing to make that 4-popper viable that is making the mileage suck.
Put a stout V6 or I6 in the CX-5, and the mileage disparity would disappear, and it would be getting similar mileage as the Jeeps do, where speed doesn't matter, 70, or 85, same thing.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Our old and faithful 1998 Honda CR-V AWD has similar AWD system setup mechanical wise with clutch pack in the rear differential like CX-5. But based on new EPA fuel economy ratings, 1998 CR-V FWD has 21/19/23 and 1998 CR-V AWD has 20/19/23 combined/city/hwy. See there's almost no penalty on fuel economy by having an AWD over a FWD! Not to mention in real world situation even with 175,523 miles on our CR-V, I still can easily and constantly get 22 mpg in city and 25.5 mpg on highway with my driving style which are way better than EPA ratings! On the other hand it's almost impossible for me to meet EPA highway rating at 30 mpg with my AWD CX-5 on the highway! This's something me and Unobtanium are complaining about since day one - EPA fuel economy estimates for CX-5 AWD are too optimistic...
Yes, but what gearing differences are there with the FWD and the AWD CR-V?
I am showing they are identical at 4.36. However, Mazda did NOT do this with the CX-5 AWD.
Also, yes, I still feel that Mazda "gamed" the EPA test via programming etc. and once you push the rpm/load outside of the EPA test protocol, you see drastically diminished results.
The gearing differences explain FWD/AWD model disparities though, not the AWD system's function or weight.
Last edited:
"Put a stout V6 or I6 in the CX-5, and the mileage disparity would disappear, and it would be getting similar mileage as the Jeeps do, where speed doesn't matter, 70, or 85, same thing. "
Not the target market for Mazda. And they have to use one platform WW for their size. And they seem to know how to fit into the gaps left by the other players. If not, there wouldn't be here.
Not the target market for Mazda. And they have to use one platform WW for their size. And they seem to know how to fit into the gaps left by the other players. If not, there wouldn't be here.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
This is true. They have their 1.7% US market share to worry about defending (down from 1.8% this time last year).
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
This is not a puny motor, except when compared to domestic US vehicles, where fuel economy was until recently "un-American". The 2L AWD was in the US/is still sold in other markets.
I find it hard to believe they put final drive differences only for the small added weight. Perhaps it is there to get a more torquey 1st gear, for added usability in off-road situations? In any case, it can definitely play a role in how efficient the AWD is.
I think you'll find that high efficiency vehicle (i.e. your gas guzzler, or even an old CR-V, with significantly less weight and smaller engine, is no longer considered efficient and does not count) could easily go below their max efficiency when off optimal conditions. If they could have easily maintained it, they could have scored better in optimal conditions.
It is not because they "gamed" anything, it is because it is hard to get that efficient. I've seen it with my wife's former Prius, that with a lot of effort could get > 52 MPG, but with a heavy foot and apathy could fall below 45 MPG.
Also, with a V6 there will certainly be more power, unnecessarily so for most owners, but would also degrade the efficiency, increase price and thus make this vehicle less attractive.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yes, our Honda CR-V has the same final gear ratio between FWD and AWD. And yes I do agree the gearing difference does play the major role of making our CX-5 AWD less fuel efficient. This is also the reason why while I have no trouble meeting EPA city rating but have very hard time to meet EPA highway rating at constant highway speed!
I also agree that『Mazda "gamed" the EPA test via programming etc. and once you push the rpm/load out side of the EPA test protocol, you see drastically diminished results』. But I believe every car manufacture more or less is doing it under the pressure of competition and future tougher CAFE standard.
Last edited:
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
After the longest time of turning my TCS off completely, I now use it pretty much all the time. A little of a month ago I went on a cruise with my Mazda club. I decided to leave the TCS on this time, and I noticed that I was out gripping some of the mazdaspeeds when were doing the twisties. I'm talking cliffside, 90/180/270 degree turns. I expected the advantage in power on cornering over the wrong wheel drive Mazdaspeeds/3's but I realized from watching their vehicle movements (and listening) that I was outgripping them in similar gears. SO now I always leave TCS on, and I figured out that the TCS will allow a powerslide as long as the throttle is constant or RPM is increasing. In fact I went about 110* turn from a stop, redline and the car did not zigzag from DSC engaging like it does with the TCS off. I'm curious how the Honduh awd performs under low gear/high RPM cornering myself.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
My Jeep's worst performance (not counting 20mph headwinds and blinding rain) was EPA. It's best performance (cruising at 55-60) was 23mpg (about 4-5mpg over rated). My CX-5 is the opposite. The only time it hits EPA, is when I hypermile it and piss the world around me off by clogging the lane.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Maybe so. I do know my 370Z was the last "newer" car I had before this though, and I was averaging around 26-27mpg on road trips doing 75-85 (rated at 26mpg) and around down flogging the everloving hell out of it (the car is 53/47 or so, so all corners are throttle-on) I was getting about 16.5mpg out of it. Driving "spiritedly", I managed around 18-19mpg around town. It was rated as 18 city, 21 combined.
That was 2012. Maybe things have changed since then, but my 370Z delivered as advertised.
The CX-5 is literally the only car I've owned that fails every damn time to deliver.
-1988 Mustang GT (not fair, it was so far from stock it doesn't even factor)
-1993 Crown Vic P71 interceptor with a 5.4L V8 and a 4.6L manifold, 3.27 posi-trak, aluminum DS (truthfully, not fair. This was not a factory car, and the motor came out of an F150, lol)
-1995 Trans Am LT1 A4 (25mpg on the freeway)
-2001 Trans Am WS.6 MN6 (27mpg on the freeway)
-2002 Infiniti G20 A4 (30-31mpg on the freeway)
-2010 Grand Jeep Cherokee 5.7 AWD A5 (18-19 on the freeway)
-2011 C6 Z06 (26 on the freeway)
-2012 370Z MN6 (26-27 on the freeway)
-2015 CX5 2.5L AWD (27-28 on the freeway)
The only one on that list that uinderperforms is the CX-5. It's beyond excuse. It's not me. It's not the EPA. It's the car and how Mazda decided to game things, lie, send a ringer, or whatever. You think that's rare? Do some research on Ferrari and what they did to anyone who reviewed their cars.
Ferrari sent their OWN DRIVERS, and TWO+ cars for each review. One setup for handling, one for 0-??(?) acceleration tests. The cars even SOUNDED different from production cars. NDA's were also signed. It is absurd.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
TCS in this car and my 370Z are pretty tame, but still allow some fun. They are not as good as PTM, but they aren't crap like in the 90's. TCS in my Z06 was kindof like a parent that says "Have fun" and pushes you out the door and when the wife looks over says "What? I called the club and they close at 1am. He'll be fine!"
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yeah I agree with you on this as I had exact experience driving our AWD CX-5 on I-45 under 70 mph all the way at 75-mph zone just to verify if I could hit that phantom 30-MPG EPA highway rating! True that was a pretty dangerous experiment as everybody else was driving at least 80! And I also have to say the same thing that our worst fuel economy performance on the highway for every vehicle we've owned, except the CX-5, is EPA highway rating!
Actually I was skeptical when the first time I read your fuel economy complaint on highway with your AWD CX-5 when you had a road trip in Texas. Once I made our first road trip with our AWD CX-5 to Houston, I fully agree with your accessment.
Since there're people getting and surpassing 30 mpg with ease on their AWD CX-5, I also suspect each SkyActiv-G 2.5L engine would have drastically different performance on fuel efficiency and my particular engine just happen to be a one much less efficient assembled from factory!
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I honestly don't know how much I believe engines have variances THAT large. The CX-5 engine is modern, and is made to pretty exacting tolerances. I remember back when I bought my Z06, I asked about the engine dyno, etc. and it was pretty much established that all LS7's were +- about 10hp SAE or so. There were no "freaks", and there were no "dogs". That is a 500+hp engine, too. I am betting the CX-5's 2.5L mill is +- 2% at the very most.
I think part of the issue could be: Over-inflated tires. I run my tires at 36-38psi. I have read on here some people actually run them at 40+ PSI! That will queer the readings because the tire is "larger" in diameter now, as well as it does have less contact patch = less rolling resistance. The other aspect is that some people's roads may well be a different texture. Another factor is wheel/tire alignment. Millions of things can play a role here, but there are enough people who have seen what you and I are seeing, that I am not going to opine that our vehicles are vastly out of spec or some such regarding the engine.
Again, to others, I am quite pleased with my CX-5, I am just frustrated at the gap between expectation and reality. Much like you would be happy to have won $800K on a lottery, but I damn well bet you'd be irked if you were promised $1M USD after taxes, and the $800K was what you got. Can ANYONE on this forum say they wouldn't be asking some questions about that? And here I am, spent a helluva lot more than a lotto ticket, and I'm getting less than promised. Think about that one for a while.
The EPA rating is a government thing, therefor I had no expectations. I ignored it and went by testing from magazines I trusted. The CX-5 meets and exceeds my expectations.
Frank
I've seen same complains on other car forums, such as the Subaru Impreza forum and CR-V forum.
There is data to suggest CX-5 owners get less variance in fuel consumption then a CR-V. This does not mean they are all identical, but that most are pretty close.
I know you like to rehash the same points you made over and over, even ones that may be questionable. Free country, but perhaps keep it more interesting and factual.
What is the most fuel efficient vehicle you ever owned? It seems unfair to compare 20/22 MPG vehicles' fuel economy sensitivity to a vehicle which is significantly more efficient.
Especially 1998 CR-V with a 2L engine, 4 speed transmission, 3164 lbs / smaller frontal area, with 126 HP and with pretty shockingly low 19/23 MPG.
If making a comparison, please make it to a car of same class with relatively similar EPA numbers.
There is data to suggest CX-5 owners get less variance in fuel consumption then a CR-V. This does not mean they are all identical, but that most are pretty close.
I know you like to rehash the same points you made over and over, even ones that may be questionable. Free country, but perhaps keep it more interesting and factual.
What is the most fuel efficient vehicle you ever owned? It seems unfair to compare 20/22 MPG vehicles' fuel economy sensitivity to a vehicle which is significantly more efficient.
Especially 1998 CR-V with a 2L engine, 4 speed transmission, 3164 lbs / smaller frontal area, with 126 HP and with pretty shockingly low 19/23 MPG.
If making a comparison, please make it to a car of same class with relatively similar EPA numbers.
