CX-5: How's the AWD do in winter? Is it fun to drive?

[MikeM.]

Is everyone in Washington state incapable of understanding that a system which drives all wheels, all the time, is going to provide better traction than one that says "oh crap!" once wheels are already slipping?

Is everyone in Arkansas so ignorant about driving in the snow? I've been driving in snow in the North Cascades and Western Montana, Idaho and British Columbia on a regular basis (due to my snow sports addiction as well as working at two different ski areas) for over 35 years. In Montana I drove a skier shuttle van to the lifts making up to 8 round trips a day. In the North Cascades I drove employees to the mountain in the company 4x4's and delivered beer kegs, soda pre-mix, frozen burgers, dogs, buns, and other edibles in a one axle dually truck. And in personal rigs I've driven AWD Subaru's, AWD and FWD Volvo's, FWD and RWD VW's, Ford 4x4's, a Nissan Patrol 4x4 and probably a few I can't remember. I've never been stuck more than 5 minutes. So it amazes me how you know so much about winter driving.

Why don't you find me some evidence of your own that the CX-5's system is better than Subaru's for slick surfaces.

I've never said the CX-5 is better, I said both systems have advantages and disadvantages. On fast icy roads the CX-5 is better, climbing a steep dicey hill the Subaru might have a small advantage. But you seem to be ignorantly splitting hairs when comparing these different AWD systems. Even the difference between two brands of winter tires is a bigger deal than any difference between Subaru and Mazda AWD systems. You are really splitting hairs with your nonsensical statements.

I'll be waiting for this comparison video...

I don't need no stinking video! My knowledge didn't come from watching videos, it came from over 100,000 miles of actual snow and ice driving in every condition imaginable. Being a powder hound I throw my gear in the car when the storm fronts are coming in. I park in parking lots where cars get buried out of sight in three days time with not even a window showing and I dig my car out to get back home. I know what works and what doesn't work. The roads are steep, the hairpins are tight and narrow and the results of going over the edge are serious. I don't need no stinking videos (especially not ones with policemen paid by Subaru) to tell me what works and what doesn't.

Seriously, find such a video so I can take you seriously.

Collect some winter driving experience so you will someday actually know what you're talking about.

It sounds to me like you are emotionally bias because if your financial investment (CX-5 owner).

No, I've never considered cars an investment. I've bought every car I've ever owned with cash (save for that Nissan Patrol, charged the last $600 on my Visa card and paid it off the following month). Cars are tools, not investments. Investments appreciate, cars depreciate. If you think I'm emotional it has nothing to do with what you consider my "financial investment", it has to do being told what works in winter conditions by a youngster who learned primarily by watching videos on the Internet and reading marketing propaganda. If the CX-5 did not perform well for my needs I would dump it in an instant and go get something that worked better. I have a 2010 F-150 4x4 with limited slip differential. Even with the bed filled flush with firewood for even weight distribution it can't climb steep snow/ice like the CX-5 can. And that's true even when the CX-5 has the OE all-season Geolanders on it.

 

[GP 2004]

I just got back from two test drives. A Mazda CX-5 vs. a Subaru Crosstrek. IMHO the Mazda did everything better . It was quieter, faster and seemed to handle better. It was much more responsive then I expected with the 2.5. The Subaru seemed somewhat primitive - kind of hard to explain. (maybe the Outback would have been a better choice for a test drive matchup.)
I'll probably get the Mazda.

Subaru Crosstrek is more like a Mazda CX-3. The Subaru Forester is most like a CX-5.

 

[Unobtanium]

This video showed CX-5 AWD does have good capability for casual off-roading.

Although I don't think CX-5 AWD is the best for the adverse road conditions, I have to agree with MikeM. that Subaru Forester "commercials" proved nothing on AWD system. After having some casual drives on the winding road, they claimed Forester has the best handling due to its AWD system? And showing a split second of single left-front wheel spinning in the snow with the rest three wheels stationary on a CX-5 AWD simply proved nothing. As a matter of fact the CX-5 AWD wouldn't let a single wheel spinning unless the AWD system was having problems! The compromised hill-climb test on the other video was a joke to me too. It should be a tire traction competition, as the test has very little factor on how effective the AWD system is! After watching these Subaru Forester commercials, it made me have the same feeling like MikeM. did. The Everyman Driver off-road testing on CX-5 AWD looked more creditable and realistic.

Honestly, the driving skill has more to do than AWD/4WD system in those adverse conditions.

Almost every video I've seen of the cx5 shows at lower Rpms sometimes only 1 tire moves.

 

[yrwei52]

Why don't you find me some evidence of your own that the CX-5's system is better than Subaru's for slick surfaces. I'll be waiting for this comparison video...
Seriously, find such a video so I can take you seriously.

This video showed CX-5 AWD does have good capability for casual off-roading.

Although I don't think CX-5 AWD is the best for the adverse road conditions, I have to agree with MikeM. that Subaru Forester "commercials" proved nothing on AWD system. After having some casual drives on the winding road, they claimed Forester has the best handling due to its AWD system? And showing a split second of single left-front wheel spinning in the snow with the rest three wheels stationary on a CX-5 AWD simply proved nothing. As a matter of fact the CX-5 AWD wouldn't let a single wheel spinning unless the AWD system was having problems! The compromised hill-climb test on the other video was a joke to me too. It should be a tire traction competition, as the test had very little factor on how effective the AWD system was! After watching these Subaru Forester commercials, it made me have the same feeling like MikeM. did. The Everyman Driver off-road testing on CX-5 AWD looked more creditable and realistic.

Honestly, the driving skill has a lot more to do than AWD/4WD system in those adverse conditions.

 

[yrwei52]

Almost every video I've seen of the cx5 shows at lower Rpms sometimes only 1 tire moves.

On first Subaru commercial the CX-5 left front wheel brought up snow while it was spinning fast without any of the rear wheels catching up. It looked very suspicious to me. In no time I saw a front wheel spinning without the rear wheel catching up during the compromised hill-climb test in the second video which was moving very slowly. It could happen but it has to be a tiny split second to let the rear wheels react when one of the front wheel starts spinning. The CX-5 AWD in Everyman Driver video performed exactly like I expected.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Guys, guys, just enjoy that we opted not to get wrong wheel drive.

 

[MikeM.]

Almost every video I've seen of the cx5 shows at lower Rpms sometimes only 1 tire moves.

Keep watching those videos. I'm sure in no time at all you'll be an expert off-road driver.(wink)

In the Subaru produced and funded video comparison using wet slick plastic tracks on inclined planes, all four wheels of the CX-5 can be seen scrabbling for traction (all turning slowly in a well controlled manner) simultaneously but the car couldn't make any forward progress. All this proved is the Subaru tires had a higher coefficient of friction on that particular surface. So we can deduct that the OEM Subaru tires are more suitable for climbing steep and wet plastic.

I'll have to get some of those tires before I sneak into the mega waterslide park in the middle of the night and look for some good off-road challenges.

 

[yrwei52]

... I had my iPhone recording video my experience driving home on two of the most extreme nights. Here's a screenshot from that ideo of me passing a Subaru Outback that slid off the road and got stuck in a ditch.. This is the difference between real world and marketing videos.

I think you clearly realize why I put a picture of me passing a stuck Subaru in the snow. All those commercials, YouTube videos etc market their cars and their AWD system as if this never happens. Never happens to them because their superior AWD.

This further proves these two Subaru Forester AWD superiority videos are simply just commercials...

 

[yrwei52]

... In the Subaru produced and funded video comparison using wet slick plastic tracks on inclined planes, all four wheels of the CX-5 can be seen scrabbling for traction (all turning slowly in a well controlled manner) simultaneously but the car couldn't make any forward progress. All this proved is the Subaru tires had a higher coefficient of friction on that particular surface. So we can deduct that the OEM Subaru tires are more suitable for climbing steep and wet plastic.

Exactly! That's why I said it was a joke for testing different AWD systems. It should be a tire traction competition! But we don't know if Subaru put the best wet traction tires on its Forester replacing the OEM tires for the test. After all, it's just a commercial.

 

[Unobtanium]

Keep watching those videos. I'm sure in no time at all you'll be an expert off-road driver.(wink)

In the Subaru produced and funded video comparison using wet slick plastic tracks on inclined planes, all four wheels of the CX-5 can be seen scrabbling for traction (all turning slowly in a well controlled manner) simultaneously but the car couldn't make any forward progress. All this proved is the Subaru tires had a higher coefficient of friction on that particular surface. So we can deduct that the OEM Subaru tires are more suitable for climbing steep and wet plastic.

I'll have to get some of those tires before I sneak into the mega waterslide park in the middle of the night and look for some good off-road challenges.

You do realize that 17" Geolanders G91 tires are OEM on the forester and cx5...right? I thought the same as you until I Google it and noticed that.

 

[maxwax]

Backgrund:
I want to sell my '12 2dr Jeep Wrangler and am shopping for a small SUV with AWD. (My Jeep just doesn't have any room, the ride is just too harsh for everyday driving and I just don't do any offroading)

I want good winter AWD performance, some fun to drive and room for my Golden Retriever and some gear in the back. Subarus are being considered but they just seem so boring. (Forester/Crosstrek)

1. How does the Mazda AWD system perform compared to Subaru's system?

2. Is the 2.5 engine enough to provide any "fun to drive"?

3. Any regrets with the CX-5?

TIA

You should read all my other threads. They're long but I've been writing them to answer these kinds of open ended questions to satisfy poster like you.

I drive up and down windy mountain roads almost every day and I know I do it a lot more confidently and have much more fun than when I started living up here. A lot of that has to do with how comfortable and confident I am with the CX-5.p because of its characteristics,

Colorado is Subaru country and there are A LOT of them of them out here. There is something about the current years Outback that looks inviting to me, it's clearance, stature, features, etc are compelling.

But I remember test driving the cross trek and the forester just before the CX-5: the manual transmission is AWFUL. Like night and day the sub manual is unnatural and cold and the CX-5 manual felt like a perfectly fitting baseball glove. Just right. I reluctantly got a an automatic transmission CX-5 and after two years I hardly ever think about it. No regrets while the sub cvt auto was emotionless and boring.

If you go looking for character when you do test drives, I think you'll find some. Test drives aren't going to communicate the long term and extreme experiences, but if you combine your instincts with posts like mine I think you'll be able to make the right choice for you (sub or Mazda) confidently.

Good luck!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Unobtanium]

You should read all my other threads. They're long but I've been writing them to answer these kinds of open ended questions to satisfy poster like you.

I drive up and down windy mountain roads almost every day and I know I do it a lot more confidently and have much more fun than when I started living up here. A lot of that has to do with how comfortable and confident I am with the CX-5.p because of its characteristics,

Colorado is Subaru country and there are A LOT of them of them out here. There is something about the current years Outback that looks inviting to me, it's clearance, stature, features, etc are compelling.

But I remember test driving the cross trek and the forester just before the CX-5: the manual transmission is AWFUL. Like night and day the sub manual is unnatural and cold and the CX-5 manual felt like a perfectly fitting baseball glove. Just right. I reluctantly got a an automatic transmission CX-5 and after two years I hardly ever think about it. No regrets while the sub cvt auto was emotionless and boring.

If you go looking for character when you do test drives, I think you'll find some. Test drives aren't going to communicate the long term and extreme experiences, but if you combine your instincts with posts like mine I think you'll be able to make the right choice for you (sub or Mazda) confidently.

Good luck!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The forester only has 0.2" more clearance than the cx5. Are it's appraoch and departure angles what you meant?

 

[MikeM.]

You do realize that 17" Geolanders G91 tires are OEM on the forester and cx5...right? I thought the same as you until I Google it and noticed that.

Here's the video in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcKSbCq7lDA

As you watch it you will note that all 4 wheels of the CX-5 are spinning slowly and continuously in a controlled manner. You will also notice that the CX-5 is on the verge of climbing the ramp.

You will also notice the Forester is also spinning it's tires but in a slightly jerky manner and that it barely makes it up the ramp, it too is very close to being a no-go but it barely makes it..

The 2014 Forester Owner's Manual says it has 225/60R17 98H and 30psi (front) 29psi (rear)

The CX-5 Owner's Manual says 225/65R17 100H and 34 psi (front and rear)

I would expect the cars would be prepped to manufacturers specifications (including tire size and pressure). Not only are the tires different diameters and load ratings (the tires on the CX-5 are rated for more than 400 lbs. higher cumulatively) but they are adjusted to quite different pressures. The Forester is adjusted 4 psi less in the front and 5 psi less in the rear. That alone is enough to explain how it got enough traction to barely make it while the CX-5, with it's tires pumped 4-5 psi higher could not. Additionally, with only a driver and no passengers or cargo you can expect the tires on the Forester, with a lower load rating, were more in their sweet spot in the unloaded vehicles.

This video also demonstrates that the CX-5's AWD kicks in faster than the eye can see. It looks like all four tires start slipping at the same instant.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so impressed with this video. IMO, it just illustrates how little difference there is between the two AWD systems. At least if you commonly find yourself trying to drive up steep ramps coated with polyethylene and water on a regular basis. I wonder how much it cost Subaru's advertising department to set-up the test, pay everyone involved and produce the video? I guess was worth it if it can convince people like you the Subaru has superior AWD.

 

[Unobtanium]

Here's the video in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcKSbCq7lDA

As you watch it you will note that all 4 wheels of the CX-5 are spinning slowly and continuously in a controlled manner. You will also notice that the CX-5 is on the verge of climbing the ramp.

You will also notice the Forester is also spinning it's tires but in a slightly jerky manner and that it barely makes it up the ramp, it too is very close to being a no-go but it barely makes it..

The 2014 Forester Owner's Manual says it has 225/60R17 98H and 30psi (front) 29psi (rear)

The CX-5 Owner's Manual says 225/65R17 100H and 34 psi (front and rear)

I would expect the cars would be prepped to manufacturers specifications (including tire size and pressure). Not only are the tires different diameters and load ratings (the tires on the CX-5 are rated for more than 400 lbs. higher cumulatively) but they are adjusted to quite different pressures. The Forester is adjusted 4 psi less in the front and 5 psi less in the rear. That alone is enough to explain how it got enough traction to barely make it while the CX-5, with it's tires pumped 4-5 psi higher could not. Additionally, with only a driver and no passengers or cargo you can expect the tires on the Forester, with a lower load rating, were more in their sweet spot in the unloaded vehicles.

This video also demonstrates that the CX-5's AWD kicks in faster than the eye can see. It looks like all four tires start slipping at the same instant.

Frankly, I'm surprised you are so impressed with this video. IMO, it just illustrates how little difference there is between the two AWD systems. At least if you commonly find yourself trying to drive up steep ramps coated with polyethylene and water on a regular basis. I wonder how much it cost Subaru's advertising department to set-up the test, pay everyone involved and produce the video? I guess was worth it if it can convince people like you the Subaru has superior AWD.

The amazing cx5 awd in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSj9UEVYI8o

That said, I'll attempt to take a course of action divergent from the tangent we are on. I apologize for insulting you/your locale/etc. You have a lot of valuable experience I could benefit from, and I recognize that. The reason why I differ with you on this, is that I simply have no exposure to an AWD system like the Mazda has, and the various videos of it that I've found range from "good" to "worthless", with it performing differently every time.

I used to drive a mustang GT with a "clutch" type diff in the back. One wheel would peel out a LOT harder than the other, the car would get a bit sideways, etc. Then I moved to a WS.6 with a Torsen unit. Traction was VASTLY improved. Then I went to a C6 Z06, and it had its own setup, which was phenominal. Then I bought a 370Z, it used a viscous diff.

All of these vehicles had "limited slip differentials", but I can tell you that the one in the 370Z and my 5.0 mustang were meant for soccer moms. They locked up gently and progressively and wouldn't upset the car if you didn't know what you were doing. They also were complete junk for any sort of actual performance driving. The diffs in my WS.6 and Z06, on the other hand, were phenomenal.

So I am very distrustful of "Well it says AWD...", so I go digging for...well what KIND!? and I find videos like the one above, and I think "Oh...yeah, AWD exists for the sake of the sales brochure and that's about it." Then I find videos where it works well. So what am I to think? My current opinion is that it's a lazy half-ass soccer-mom setup like my 370Z and mustang GT were. Brochure, sales, light driving only.

I still love my CX-5, but I'm trying to ferret out just what I can expect from it, and the response so far seems to be "Who knows?" because I've seen it do great, and seen it do nothing at all. Won't even spin all 4 tires on wet grass. Front just digs a hole.

 

[V8toilet]

I'm tending to think these videos really only represent the available traction from the tires and do not measure the true capabilities of the AWD systems from each manufacturer. I'm willing to bet as Mike has already pointed out with his sensible comments that if all the vehicles were fitted with the same correct tires for the job in the wet slide test that they all would have made it up that ramp. The tires make all the difference because they are what's in contact with the road. I think all the AWD systems in these vehicles are within being 90% capable from the best to the worst from each other. Considering that these small SUV's are not designed to be high performance off road vehicles, one should look at all the other attributes of these vehicle's cumulatively and make the decision to purchase one based on the vehicle's sum of its attributes. Having driven a FWD CX5 through 3 very snowy winters now I can say that the CX5 handles extremely well in the snow and so having AWD with the right tires for the job in my opinion would make the CX5 almost unstoppable. In fact of all the 2WD/FWD vehicles I have ever driven in slippery conditions I think that my CX5 is one of the best I have ever experienced. The CX5 is very stable and predictable in slippery conditions with decent tires.

 

[Unobtanium]

I'm tending to think these videos really only represent the available traction from the tires and do not measure the true capabilities of the AWD systems from each manufacturer. I'm willing to bet as Mike has already pointed out with his sensible comments that if all the vehicles were fitted with the same correct tires for the job in the wet slide test that they all would have made it up that ramp. The tires make all the difference because they are what's in contact with the road. I think all the AWD systems in these vehicles are within being 90% capable from the best to the worst from each other. Considering that these small SUV's are not designed to be high performance off road vehicles, one should look at all the other attributes of these vehicle's cumulatively and make the decision to purchase one based on the vehicle's sum of its attributes. Having driven a FWD CX5 through 3 very snowy winters now I can say that the CX5 handles extremely well in the snow and so having AWD with the right tires for the job in my opinion would make the CX5 almost unstoppable. In fact of all the 2WD/FWD vehicles I have ever driven in slippery conditions I think that my CX5 is one of the best I have ever experienced. The CX5 is very stable and predictable in slippery conditions with decent tires.

My concern is that the cx5 awd system isn't robust enough to do more than spin the front tires in some situations (wet grass on a hill ) while th3 backs sit motionless, as shown in my video.

So maybe the tires aren't the problem...they aren't spinning. Awd is just too weak to make it happen?

 

[MikeM.]

My concern is that the cx5 awd system isn't robust enough to do more than spin the front tires in some situations (wet grass on a hill ) while th3 backs sit motionless, as shown in my video.

So maybe the tires aren't the problem...they aren't spinning. Awd is just too weak to make it happen?

Let's step back and look at the facts of the wet grass video. I've already addressed the most important advantages and disadvantages of different types of AWD for winter driving in other posts. For winter driving the differences in various AWD systems are splitting hairs. Still, I prefer the type of AWD that excels at stability on icy highways as opposed to the one that allows me to climb a hill that is marginally steeper. Because the former is a matter of life and death and the latter is primarily a matter of bragging rights. But that's my opinion, even if it is based on years of experience using many different types of AWD systems. Here are the facts:

1. Hills are far steeper in person than they appear in photos/videos.
2. The slope gets progressively steeper right up to the top of the dike.
3. The feature is not a hill but a flood control dike constructed on the banks of a river.
4. To reduce the immense amount of material needed to build dikes, they are built to the maximum angle of repose from fill materials that have better than average angle of repose (different fill materials have different maximum angle of repose).
5. They are planted with grass to help hold it in place over time, reduce slumping and erosion.
6. The dyke is so steep/slippery than not one of the vehicles was able to make it all the way to the top of the dike.
7. The dike is so steep at the top that all vehicles would have been high centered had they been able to proceed to the top.
8. The BMW made it the farthest and it was the only car equipped with winter tires.
8. No 4 wheel vehicle with the same tires and conditions could have topped that feature without using momentum/running start. This is a fact proven by the car that slid backwards six inches with all four wheels locked up and it was not even close to the steepest part of the hill. In other words, the coefficient of friction was too low regardless of the AWD or 4WD system deployed.
9. The extreme steepness of this feature is not applicable to winter AWD performance because ice/snow driving does not contemplate slopes of even 1/2 that steepness.
10. None of these vehicles is designed for extreme off-roading, they are designed to solve problems encountered on slippery roads, rain and ice/snow. No one buys them for extreme off-roading.


One simple question for you. How does this video tell us anything (anything at all) about the winter performance of the AWD of the CX-5?

Answer: It doesn't. These ascent angles are completely irrelevant to winter driving.

 

[Unobtanium]

Let's step back and look at the facts of the wet grass video. I've already addressed the most important advantages and disadvantages of different types of AWD for winter driving in other posts. For winter driving the differences in various AWD systems are splitting hairs. Still, I prefer the type of AWD that excels at stability on icy highways as opposed to the one that allows me to climb a hill that is marginally steeper. Because the former is a matter of life and death and the latter is primarily a matter of bragging rights. But that's my opinion, even if it is based on years of experience using many different types of AWD systems. Here are the facts:

1. Hills are far steeper in person than they appear in photos/videos.
2. The slope gets progressively steeper right up to the top of the dike.
3. The feature is not a hill but a flood control dike constructed on the banks of a river.
4. To reduce the immense amount of material needed to build dikes, they are built to the maximum angle of repose from fill materials that have better than average angle of repose (different fill materials have different maximum angle of repose).
5. They are planted with grass to help hold it in place over time, reduce slumping and erosion.
6. The dyke is so steep/slippery than not one of the vehicles was able to make it all the way to the top of the dike.
7. The dike is so steep at the top that all vehicles would have been high centered had they been able to proceed to the top.
8. The BMW made it the farthest and it was the only car equipped with winter tires.
8. No 4 wheel vehicle with the same tires and conditions could have topped that feature without using momentum/running start. This is a fact proven by the car that slid backwards six inches with all four wheels locked up and it was not even close to the steepest part of the hill. In other words, the coefficient of friction was too low regardless of the AWD or 4WD system deployed.
9. The extreme steepness of this feature is not applicable to winter AWD performance because ice/snow driving does not contemplate slopes of even 1/2 that steepness.
10. None of these vehicles is designed for extreme off-roading, they are designed to solve problems encountered on slippery roads, rain and ice/snow. No one buys them for extreme off-roading.


One simple question for you. How does this video tell us anything (anything at all) about the winter performance of the AWD of the CX-5?

Answer: It doesn't. These ascent angles are completely irrelevant to winter driving.

It does tell us that the CX-5's AWD system will refuse to work in some situations. When the front tires are digging a hole, and the rear tires are sitting still, I hesitate to call it "AWD", even.

 

[yugrus]

Besides the center AWD coupling, there are two open differentials. You don't see the rear wheel on the other side that is spinning. In conditions like that you get mostly 2 wheel drive, one wheel in front, another in the rear, until TCS kicks in. No locking diffs, so...

 

[MikeM.]

Besides the center AWD coupling, there are two open differentials. You don't see the rear wheel on the other side that is spinning. In conditions like that you get mostly 2 wheel drive, one wheel in front, another in the rear, until TCS kicks in. No locking diffs, so...

If you are talking about the inclined slippery ramp test funded by Subaru, you can clearly see all four tires slowly spinning simultaneously.