I have a real 4WD truck now. I love having 4WD with TOD. Gas mileage blows though. But, I'm an active guy and live in the Chicago area (snow) so I like 4WD to get to work in crappy weather, also to go up/down steep grades around remote lakes that I need access to, etc. I am not sure how FWD would work in these situations.
Gas mileage between FWD vs AWD at $3.75/gal and 15000 m/yr figuring a 35%/65% split is a whopping $150 difference per year in gas cost figuring 2mpg penalty for AWD. Obviously initial cost of entry to AWD is a couple thousand more as well.
Any comments from FWD or AWD owners as to the justification for their choice? I'd love to hear if anyone thinks they should have gotten AWD and why, or if they think AWD is overkill, etc.
OP bought a GT AWD.So what's the conclusion here, given OP's original post ^....
I already gave the California snow skier/boarders perspective and the value of AWD to avoid chaining up in 98% of "chain controls" situations on highways going to all the major ski resorts.
We do not know how the system works exactly, no. But we know that the AWD only engages when significant slip is detected. In an understeer condition, the slip is mostly lateral (from the wheels perspective: wheels are turned, but the car goes staight), which is more difficult to detect. And even if it does detect it, the slip is already engaged, the front wheels are in a dynamic friction state, and the understeer will be very hard to recover from. That combined with the fact that the AWD is strongly front-wheel biased.
From experience (as mentionned in previous post), the only way to make the back wheels engage in an understeer condition is to jamb the throttle to realy make the front wheels spin. But this becomes a voluntary and conterinuitive maneuver from the driver that most would not do.
I think (personnal opinion here), that the CX-5 AWD was designed to help you get going from a stop on ice or on a slippery hill, period. Any AWD that can help in cornering should probably be engaged 100% of the time and finely monitoring each wheel's movement. Again, not the case for the CX-5. Note that I've never seen Mazda market their AWD system as a safety feature like other manufacturers (usually high end) tend to do... probably for a reason.
I think this assumption is not correct, especially the word 'only'.But we know that the AWD only engages when significant slip is detected.
Exactly, my point being that the argument of the FWD biased AWD system loosing control because the front wheels slip before the rear wheels kick in is moot because the stability control is there to help prevent the loss of control. Let me reiterate "help prevent" there, which means it cannot save stupidity.Simple: do what it was designed to do, attempt to stabilize the car when it losses control (by using quick applications of the brakes on individual wheels). Not sure how this should imply that the AWD was designed to do the same...
I've driven my CX-5 in lots of atrocious snow storms on mountain roads to ski areas in all kinds of conditions (recently we had over 10 feet of new snow in 10 days) and all I can say is the CX-5 just rocks. I don't need to know the electro-mechanical details of it's AWD and Stability Control to know that it works very well indeed.
And isn't that what matters?