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

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.
 
Last edited:
Car and Driver doesnt seem to think the RAV4 beats the CX-5

Couldn't G-Vectoring Control be considered "torque vectoring"?

No its completely different actually.

I think the fact that both have the word vector is maybe what confuses people. The key word Mazda isnt 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 youre 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 wont 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 doesnt do anything at all with torque.
 
Last edited:
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."
 
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:
Ive seen your posts. You over-simplify everything. Its intervention in either case. Im 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 doesnt have any form of torque vectoring.
 
I do agree with you though that its perplexing they spent the money on the hardware to do it then just fell on their faces. Why not save the money......
 
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.
 
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 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 thats why Im calling it artificial. Its not for everyone. I dont think you can turn everything off in the CX-5.
 
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+.
 
I think Chris_Top_Her mentioned that you can disable TCS/DSC by pulling a 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+.

I dont count pulling fuses but maybe. That also might have some unintended consequences like no ABS either. I think you want ABS working.
 
I don*t count pulling fuses but maybe. That also might have some unintended consequences like no ABS either. I think you want ABS working.

I'm not advocating it. SignatureCX5 just asked if its possible to disable the nannies, I put forth what Chris did, that's all. And if SignatureCX5 really dislikes nannies, technically ABS is a nanny as well.
 
I also wonder what the AWD does when its missing that info. Im guessing this car probably doesnt handle that well with all those systems disabled.
 
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.

Interesting. You have a Z06, so I presume you may have PTM, etc? Randy Pobst could BARELY out-drive the PTM, so unless you're truly a world-class driver (in which case, who are you?), then you have bad nannies if you're truly out-driving them.
 
Interesting. You have a Z06, so I presume you may have PTM, etc? Randy Pobst could BARELY out-drive the PTM, so unless you're truly a world-class driver (in which case, who are you?), then you have bad nannies if you're truly out-driving them.

I dont think at this point its about out driving them. Its about wanting to actually be the one driving. Similar to why people still want to row their own even if an auto can shift significantly faster. This is all very subjective of course and not something you can over simply into binary options. Its a lot of grey and what feels right to people.

Personally I dont have a problem with these systems when theyre well executed and seamless. But Im not really a purist and I went from rowing my own to a dual clutch because traffic.

In the end Im not surprised at all with the Rav4. Its exactly what I expected when people were all declaring it a winner based on specs on paper. After all its still a Toyota......
 
Actually, Car and Driver does not think the Rav4 is in the same league as the CX-5...
 
Interesting. You have a Z06, so I presume you may have PTM, etc? Randy Pobst could BARELY out-drive the PTM, so unless you're truly a world-class driver (in which case, who are you?), then you have bad nannies if you're truly out-driving them.

The C6Z06 (which is the generation I own) the nannies are intrusive. The C7Z06 is much less intrusive.

Example for the C6Z06. Try trail braking to point the car and the nannies try to corrected the trail brake you dialed in...not fun. I'm not Randy but not too shabby after 20 years of competitive racing and instructing. Plus I rather be the driver and rely on my own knowledge and instinct than having some blind computer that can't see the edges of a track.

This is my prefernece for my own driving. When I used to do right seat coaching i never let any students turn off the nannies when I was I the car. So it's not that I dont beleive they don't work but they are not the fastest way around a track. Nor do I use them on the street as there are times I want to have fun.
 
Mazdas long been a favorite at C&D. In 16 it was rated #2, the CX 9 was #1 and the CX 3 was #2. It was one of the things that got me looking at Mazda.
 
They are right. I drove both last week (Mazda Signtature and 2019 Rav4 limited), back to back. The CX5 looks better, drives nicer, is quieter, more responsive and faster. There is no doubt less room in the CX5. The back seat room in the Rave 4 is impressive. I didn't hate the Rav4, but that motor is a dog and the car is much noisier than the CX5. The Rav 4 interior is plastic on top of more plastic

I'm going to buy a CX5 Turbo this year

I completely agree. I owned a redesigned 2013 Rav4 Limited and after an accident, ended up buying a CX-9. I was a lifetime Toyota driver. Now I realize the Rav4 was a "dependable POS."

The Toyota started up every morning and got me point A to point B with no issues. However, the cheap plastic, rattling interior, appaling infotainment system, harsh suspension, hard seats and lackluster engine performance were negatives. The Limited line didn't even have real leather seats.

Of course, the blame is on me for buying the Rav4 to begin with. Honestly, I had a truly blind, ignorant allegiance to a car company that used to make higher quality cars. At that time, Mazda was never on my radar. It wasn't until after the wreck that I started deeply exploring other car brands. I'm so glad I did! 👍🏻
 
Back