2017+ CX-5 Moose Test

I think the sports cars not doing as well is probably because there is a much higher threshold before intervention. A more skilled driver would probably do better.
 
I think the sports cars not doing as well is probably because there is a much higher threshold before intervention. A more skilled driver would probably do better.

Yes, but the moose test is for regular people trying to avoid a moose. You're supposed to be unprepared for it like in everyday driving. At least, that's what I think the test is for. So basically what the test shows, is that regular drivers will probably be able to avoid the moose and maintain control in a CX-5, versus most likely spinning out in the Alpine sports car. Porsche of course earns their reputation with the MR Cayman passing it convincingly as well.
 
Back when Volvo was first introducing the XC-90, they held a demo day in the parking lot of a horse racetrack complete with a road course with different conditions to show off the strengths of the SUV. The Moose Test was one of obstacles with an lifesize dummy Moose. We had to go with a test driver and he would floor it and head right at the moose and then do the sharp left and right maneuvers to avoid it. That was fun. He said he got in trouble because he was killing the treads on the tires.
 
Yes, but the moose test is for regular people trying to avoid a moose. You're supposed to be unprepared for it like in everyday driving. At least, that's what I think the test is for. So basically what the test shows, is that regular drivers will probably be able to avoid the moose and maintain control in a CX-5, versus most likely spinning out in the Alpine sports car. Porsche of course earns their reputation with the MR Cayman passing it convincingly as well.

But if you tried to sell a sports car with the CX-5 stability control aggressiveness people would turn it off. And if you set it such that they could not you probably wouldnt sell very many.
 
The CX-5 is impressive though for sure.

Also its worth noting that on the GTI and Im assuming the Alpine the steering ratio is quicker so if youre blinding yanking the wheel its a much larger (too much) input.
 
But if you tried to sell a sports car with the CX-5 stability control aggressiveness people would turn it off. And if you set it such that they could not you probably wouldn*t sell very many.

Its honestly not nearly as aggressive as many sports cars of yesyeryear. My ws.6 was a lot more likely to shut you down. The cx5 is pretty lenient for a little 4banger family car.
 
The more Im thinking about this I think the ratio of the steering rack might have as much to do with this as the stability control if the driver is just carelessly yanking that wheel.
 
The first time I saw this test was as a passenger getting a demo of a 1969 BMW 2002 I was thinking of buying. There was a discarded Christmas tree that had blown into the road. The driver made a very quick swerve around it pointing out it could have been another car or a pedestrian. He stated that the best crash protection was handling good enough to avoid the crash.

I bought the car. My first really good handling car.

Since that time I have preformed a little milder version of that test as part of the test drive on every car I have driven. It is very revealing. I did it with a VW Tiguan and was shocked at how bar it was. The ford SUV was bad but I expected that. The CX-5 was fun.
 
*cringe* at oem body roll.. also they should have used an AWD variant rear LSD ftw
 
But if you tried to sell a sports car with the CX-5 stability control aggressiveness people would turn it off. And if you set it such that they could not you probably wouldn*t sell very many.

It's only aggressive in cornering with an OEM suspension and poopy economy tires. I leave mine on when I do canyon runs and I can tell the difference in cornering compared to being behind a subie wrx/sti or a FWD mazdaspeed 3... I like to do twisted sisters runs. I do not want sliding on sheer cliff switchbacks. One of the top 5 canyon carving in the nation. Really biggest change with DSC off (require pulling a fuse which also disables ABS) is that you can get as sideways as you want with 0 intervention.
3s61.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's only aggressive in cornering with an OEM suspension and poopy economy tires. I leave mine on when I do canyon runs and I can tell the difference in cornering compared to being behind a subie wrx/sti or a FWD mazdaspeed 3... I like to do twisted sisters runs. I do not want sliding on sheer cliff switchbacks. One of the top 5 canyon carving in the nation. Really biggest change with DSC off (require pulling a fuse which also disables ABS) is that you can get as sideways as you want with 0 intervention.
3s61.jpg

So when are you coming to Deals Gap and The Tail of the Dragon?

You think 65 turns in 15 miles at Twisted Sister is something else, wait till you experience 318 curves in 11 miles...
 
So when are you coming to Deals Gap and The Tail of the Dragon?

You think 65 turns in 15 miles at Twisted Sister is something else, wait till you experience 318 curves in 11 miles...

Twisted sister may be 15, but the whole hill country loops is over 100. But yes I definitely intend to make my way out there in the next 5 years at least once!
 
LOL It*s a CUV

What's your point? Does the title "CUV" somehow takeaway from any performance capability of the chassis? Is there something specific about a "CUV" that precludes it from any kind of performance? Because you can go to Porsche and spend 90g's on a performance SUV right now.

If you think a few inches of extra height on the body makes a "CUV" incapable you are sorely mistaken. My 2015 CX5 (65.7"), is only 7.3 taller than a 2018 Focus RS (58.4"); actual chassis height.. CX-5 is 6" longer, and less than 1" wider. Ground clearance on the RS is 4.1" OEM, 8.5" OEM on a cx-5.. The higher roofline is offset with extra weight (awd components) at the lowest and central points on the chassis + aftermarket chassis bar which help shift the CG lower as well. My CX-5 is about 5" depending on which series tire I am running (usually 255/40/20 currently 255/45/20, which is taller than I wanted), and my multilink suspension is completely adjustable for height (can go lower than I would ever want for practicality) and camber, front and rear. As is the spring rate, dampening rate on each corner of my suspension and the stiffness of both of sway bars, front and rear.
Total weight difference is less than 100lb.. obviously the RS is a higher performance vehicle.. but in terms of straight size, it's really not much smaller than a CX-5.
I have AWD, front electronic and rear mechanical LSD. The biggest thing I don't have is high horsepower which is the most difficult to add.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Since Mazda is trying o upscale, they need to start adding wider wheels to their stuff (bmw. audi)... these 7" wheels sacrifice on handling
 
Since Mazda is trying o upscale, they need to start adding wider wheels to their stuff (bmw. audi)... these 7" wheels sacrifice on handling

Agree 100%...first upgrade we did on ours was to increase the wheel/tire size...lighter by 7 pounds per corner compared to my OEM pizza wheels/Toyo tire combo and improved cornering performance. Our CX-5 handles 90% as good as my previous 70K 2016 Audi SQ5 (which had 21" wheels). Once I get off my lazy butt and order some coilovers for the Mazda, it will perform as well as the Audi at half the price. It really is a good platform, it just needs a couple of tweaks to make it a great platform.

By the way Chris, your CX-5 is freaking badass...

IMG-6813.jpg

20180916-150524-HDR.jpg
 
Back