Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 78

Thread: Car and Driver doesnít seem to think the RAV4 beats the CX-5

  1. #16
    Registered Member

    CX5 GT-R

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    South-Central US
    Posts
    7,574
    Quote Originally Posted by jmhumr View Post
    Yep, Toyota will sell a ton of them because it*s the mainstream *comfort brand,* but I don*t understand who they*re appealing to with the toy truck styling. They even point out the rubber knobs as a desirable feature, haha. Imagine if Toyota had a great design language - they*d be running circles around other auto companies.
    No kidding. They need fake wood like Mazda and Honda.


    My main gripe is the shitty handling....but it has legit torque vectoring...da fuq?

  2. #17
    Registered Member

    2017 CX-5

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
    No kidding. They need fake wood like Mazda and Honda.


    My main gripe is the shitty handling....but it has legit torque vectoring...da fuq?
    Or itís not legit......

  3. #18
    Registered Member

    Mazda CX5 GT

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    17
    My only comment to anyone considering a Rav 4, CR-V or Santa Fe, is drive a CX-5 (preferably a GT). The CX-5 is so much more fun to drive. I like to drive, so for me, it was no contest.

  4. #19
    Registered Member

    CX5 GT-R

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    South-Central US
    Posts
    7,574
    Quote Originally Posted by jthj View Post
    Or it*s not legit......
    The torque vectoring supposedly is actual, real, true torque vectoring. Not brake dragging.

  5. #20
    Registered Member

    2017 CX-5

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
    The torque vectoring supposedly is actual, real, true torque vectoring. Not brake dragging.
    There are brake dragging systems that work better it sounds like...... Honestly Iím not that surprised. Sounds great on paper but that doesnít mean itís dialed in well regardless of how it works mechanically.

    Meanwhile the Mazda that handles better doesnít have torque vectoring at all. Brake dragging or otherwise.

  6. #21
    Work in Progress sm1ke's Avatar
    Donated: $25

    2018 Mazda CX-9 Signature

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    MB, Canada
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by jthj View Post
    There are brake dragging systems that work better it sounds like...... Honestly I*m not that surprised. Sounds great on paper but that doesn*t mean it*s dialed in well regardless of how it works mechanically.

    Meanwhile the Mazda that handles better doesn*t have torque vectoring at all. Brake dragging or otherwise.
    Couldn't G-Vectoring Control be considered "torque vectoring"?

    EDIT: Never mind, I understand the difference now.

  7. #22
    Registered Member

    2017 CX-5

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    2,048

    Car and Driver doesnít seem to think the RAV4 beats the CX-5

    Quote Originally Posted by sm1ke View Post
    Couldn't G-Vectoring Control be considered "torque vectoring"?
    No itís completely different actually.

    I think the fact that both have the word vector is maybe what confuses people. The key word Mazda isnít using is torque.

    Torque vectoring works in basic principle by overdriving the outside wheel, which will have more weight and thus grip while cornering, to artificially enhance handling. This can be achieved in many ways.

    What unob is talking about with brakes is a method that can be used with an open diff where you simply brake the inside wheel. These generally work fine until youíre putting too much heat in the brakes. So generally fine does fine for street but not so much for heavy track use.

    There are also ways to do this mechanically with the differential. The advantage of the mechanical ones mainly is they wonít heat up your brakes. Also using the brakes is also robbing power so there is that too.

    However in any case this is artificially enhancing the handling. Ergo regardless of how it works the positive or negative effects are highly dependent on how well or poorly the system is tuned.

    G vectoring is just pulling power a bit when you turn the steering wheel to shift weight to the front wheels. It doesnít do anything at all with torque.
    Last edited by jthj; 12-27-2018 at 12:11 PM.

  8. #23
    Work in Progress sm1ke's Avatar
    Donated: $25

    2018 Mazda CX-9 Signature

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    MB, Canada
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by jthj View Post
    No it*s completely different actually.
    Yeah sorry about that, just googled both and got a bit of learning in. Also came across this old R&T article from 2016 that explains the difference.

    "Mazda is quick to point out GVC is not a torque vectoring system. Technically, torque vectoring from Acura, Audi, Ford, and the like are "active yaw control" systems. They help a car rotate by altering torque delivered to a single wheel. In a left-hand turn, for example, the hybrid Acura NSX will instruct the electric motor powering its front-right wheel to add more torque, pushing the vehicle to the left and into the corner.

    *Done correctly, torque vectoring can be wonderful. But Mazda does not embrace the solution, as it finds it unnatural and disruptive to the purity of their driving dynamics. Further, torque vectoring systems are often set up to help only at higher speeds. This is not to discount torque vectoring*not at all. It's just not a solution Mazda loves.

    G-Vectoring Control, Mazda believes, is a pure solution and can improve dynamic feel with every steering input at nearly ever speed. The only time G-Vectoring Control is not activated by steering movement is when the driver is completely off throttle."
    Sigs are visible only in your first post on a page. To change your thread display preferences, click here and enable 'Always Show Signature'.

  9. #24
    Registered Member

    CX5 GT-R

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    South-Central US
    Posts
    7,574
    Quote Originally Posted by sm1ke View Post
    Yeah sorry about that, just googled both and got a bit of learning in. Also came across this old R&T article from 2016 that explains the difference.

    "Mazda is quick to point out GVC is not a torque vectoring system. Technically, torque vectoring from Acura, Audi, Ford, and the like are "active yaw control" systems. They help a car rotate by altering torque delivered to a single wheel. In a left-hand turn, for example, the hybrid Acura NSX will instruct the electric motor powering its front-right wheel to add more torque, pushing the vehicle to the left and into the corner.

    *Done correctly, torque vectoring can be wonderful. But Mazda does not embrace the solution, as it finds it unnatural and disruptive to the purity of their driving dynamics. Further, torque vectoring systems are often set up to help only at higher speeds. This is not to discount torque vectoring*not at all. It's just not a solution Mazda loves.

    G-Vectoring Control, Mazda believes, is a pure solution and can improve dynamic feel with every steering input at nearly ever speed. The only time G-Vectoring Control is not activated by steering movement is when the driver is completely off throttle."
    That's stupid and a cheap-out. What's un-natural is dragging the brakes on the inside wheel. Natural would be torque vectoring, which is to say, driving the outside wheel faster because it has to rotate faster then the inside wheel in a turn because of physics. What Mazda is doing is teaching class at an IQ level of 100 and telling the kid with an IQ of 130 that he needs to just slow the hell down, and then calling it "natural" because the average IQ is 100. This is one time where I feel it is 100% legit to call Mazda's marketing statement completely stupid lies for the sake of saving a buck. Of course, that's just my opinion because I understand mechanics at least on the level of the ASVAB, which is about all it takes to understand why torque vectoring results in better handling. Also, you don't "artificially handle better". That's like saying a turbo makes a car "artificially faster". Whatever.


    I'm just astounded that Toyota actually went to the lengths to use active torque vectoring in the RAV4, then called it "overkill" basically, and yet it handles like crap. I mean...why not fix the suspension and go on ahead and take advantage of the work your drivetrain guys and gals did?
    Last edited by Unobtanium; 12-27-2018 at 12:28 PM.

  10. #25
    Registered Member

    2017 CX-5

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    2,048
    Iíve seen your posts. You over-simplify everything. Itís intervention in either case. Iím not arguing one is stupid or not stupid. Just that g-vector (and g-vector plus that adds the braking the rear wheel thing) and torque vectoring are completely different. The CX-5 doesnít have any form of torque vectoring.

  11. #26
    Registered Member

    2017 CX-5

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    2,048
    I do agree with you though that itís perplexing they spent the money on the hardware to do it then just fell on their faces. Why not save the money......

  12. #27
    Registered Member

    CX5 GT-R

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    South-Central US
    Posts
    7,574
    Quote Originally Posted by jthj View Post
    I do agree with you though that it*s perplexing they spent the money on the hardware to do it then just fell on their faces. Why not save the money......
    My only guess is that they did it for control on ice and gravel roads, where it should add significant stability.

  13. #28
    Registered Member SignatureCX5's Avatar

    2019 Signature CX-5 Black Mica

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    110
    I drive performance cars at the limits. I race cars with no active handling or stability systems and this is my preference. I don't really care for any nannies that dial in 'reactions' when I'm have the foresight to know what is coming next.

    Is there anyway to completely turn off the nanny controls if I wanted to on the CX-5? As an example in my Z06 I just have to hold the TCS/AH button for 6 seconds and its all off and stays off until the car is shut down and restarted. My Duramax only allows everything to be off up to 30 mph and stability control automaticly turns on again at 31 mph.

  14. #29
    Registered Member

    2017 CX-5

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Omaha
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by SignatureCX5 View Post
    I drive performance cars at the limits. I race cars with no active handling or stability systems and this is my preference. I don't really care for any nannies that dial in 'reactions' when I'm have the foresight to know what is coming next.

    Is there anyway to completely turn off the nanny controls if I wanted to on the CX-5? As an example in my Z06 I just have to hold the TCS/AH button for 6 seconds and its all off and stays off until the car is shut down and restarted. My Duramax only allows everything to be off up to 30 mph and stability control automaticly turns on again at 31 mph.
    I get it and thatís why Iím calling it artificial. Itís not for everyone. I donít think you can turn everything off in the CX-5.

  15. #30
    Work in Progress sm1ke's Avatar
    Donated: $25

    2018 Mazda CX-9 Signature

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    MB, Canada
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by jthj View Post
    I get it and that*s why I*m calling it artificial. It*s not for everyone. I don*t think you can turn everything off in the CX-5.
    I think Chris_Top_Her mentioned that you can disable TCS/DSC by pulling a specific fuse, but that was on his '15 I believe. Not sure if it works on the '17+, and I'm not sure if there's a way to turn off GVC or GVC+.
    Sigs are visible only in your first post on a page. To change your thread display preferences, click here and enable 'Always Show Signature'.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Driver side low beam headllight doesn't always stay on 2013 Mazda5
    By Freerojo in forum Mazda5 Accessories & Appearance
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-27-2018, 09:30 AM
  2. New RAV4
    By Mondo in forum Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-18-2018, 06:52 AM
  3. Msp doesn't spool at idle, doesn't build boost..help!!
    By papadock73 in forum Mazdaspeed Protege
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 11:56 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-29-2013, 04:25 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-15-2011, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •