Does CX-5 always start in AWD?

Any comments on this video? It is a Subaru sponsored event! The CX-5 had trouble although it appeared the XV also struggled for a bit. My previous car is a 2008 Outback. So far I haven't had a real opportunity to compare the Subaru to the CX-5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDTAOe8XNyA
 
Anchorman said:
IMG_1327_zps0uw69jl3.jpg


You can see two wires. One goes to the actuating collar and one goes to a temperature sensor that would postpone service if it got really hot and you would get a dash light warning for this. They rarely get hot enough to shut down. You would have to be really trying to fight your way out of a snowdrift or swamp for that to happen.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic but there is another wire similar to the one show here ^ with the black housing clip. This said wire is located at the rear driver side of the vehicle and is actually the AFS sensor which detects load as to alter road leveling for the HIDs/LEDs. Long story short I unclipped mine and forgot to clip it back on when I was inspecting it after driving through heavy mud. I drove around with an AFS warning light for days and my AFS headlight system to refused to "turn". One day I clipped it back on after noticing it was loose and AFS warning light went away and everything is back to normal. Don't mess with those clips man!!! So if you guys ever get some type of AWD fault check those clips.
 
pdlpsher said:
Any comments on this video? It is a Subaru sponsored event! The CX-5 had trouble although it appeared the XV also struggled for a bit. My previous car is a 2008 Outback. So far I haven't had a real opportunity to compare the Subaru to the CX-5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDTAOe8XNyA
Click to expand...

Subaru has putting out sales material that feature their AWD in the best possible light for a number of years now. In all my years off-roading, I've never encountered rollers with ball bearings that I needed to navigate. But, even more important is that the CX-5 went right over it as soon as the driver backed off the throttle (which is the normal reaction a skilled off-reader has when hitting a patch with minimal (in this case zero) traction. The first go he was very aggressive with the accelerator the minute his front wheels hit the rollers and the rear didn't kick in enough until he finally eased off the throttle a bit.

The CX-5 is a "smart" AWD and has certain protections built in. One of these protections is to reduce or eliminate torque to the rear wheels if the speed differential between the front and rear is too high. Even ice has more traction than ball bearings so you will never encounter this specific condition in nature. But, if you did, the "trick" to getting through it is to go gentle on the accelerator, good advice for low traction situations in general.

That has got to be the stupidest demo I've ever seen (but the wet sheets of polyethylene is a close second). Apparently, most consumers are stupid and Subaru does not embarrass easily! Their marketing department has no shame.
 
Last edited:
Subaru is trying to showcase their 4WD technology in Vietnam of all places, LOL. Perhaps there are loose ball bearings on the roads? Or hidden slick oil patches?
 
pdlpsher said:
Subaru is trying to showcase their 4WD technology in Vietnam of all places, LOL. Perhaps there are loose ball bearings on the roads? Or hidden slick oil patches?
Click to expand...
More like hidden ordinance lol
 
Mazda's AWD is a joke. It's very inefficient, and only part-time, and can't send 100% of the torque to any one tire. It's very "city slicker". Drive it in the city, never as much of it, take the absurd mpg hit, and it's fine. That said, I am pretty sure it will handle the light snow of my region okay.

That is the ONE thing I do miss about my Jeep. AWD with 1mpg or less penalty, 100% torque split capability PER TIRE, etc. and the components were WAY beefier than Mazda, so don't give me "rotating mass", as the JEEP drove all 4 tires 100% of the time. Mazda just fails at AWD, comparatively. However, for most users of CUV's, myself included, I'm sure it will work alright.
 
MikeM. said:
It would surprise me if the entire system was 100% identical (due to the fact that the CX-5 is a heavier vehicle with a longer wheelbase) but from a functional perspective they work the same way.

I don't know. GM used the same rear-end under the S10 pick-up as it did the LS1 F-body. Ford used the same 8.8 rear-end under a TON of vehicles. Mazda may have crunched the numbers and found that using the CX-5 parts would be just fine for the Mazda 3, and the cost of setting up 2 source lines was a pointless expense.

Has yours ever gone into fail-safe mode? I'm sure you've had it in some challenging conditions getting to your mountain cabin. I've driven through deep/wet snow a couple of inches deeper than the ground clearance with
an ice layer underneath. The CX-5 was shockingly capable, even able to drive up gentle rises under these most challenging conditions. As soon as I took my foot off the accelerator the car would grind to a stop instantly and as I
stepped on it, it would lurch forward. I've never seen the over-heat fail-safe light go on, even when driving icy hairpins winter rally style. I'm sure if I continued this long enough it would eventually over-tax the system but that is not typical real world usage. I'm sure the most likely over-heat situation is deep, dry beach sand in summertime temperatures. But, IMO, only idiots drive a car they care about in deep, dry beach sand. Still, it's nice to know it can do it in an emergency. But don't plan on doing it for miles! In my Nissan Patrol 4x4 I've been in dry sand and it took around 80 hp just to maintain forward motion on level ground at 5 mph! But it was dug in nearly to the axles.

Having put the 2013 CX-5 AWD through the paces on/off road, summer/winter, I can say there is far too much skepticism on these forums about it's capabilities. Yes, every system has it's limits if you push it hard enough but those limits are a lot higher than many people (mostly non-owners) allude to.

Here is a short video showing my CX-5 climbing a wet, cold and slippery steep lip with half worn out Geolanders on it. This hill is much steeper than it looks in the photos. I high-centered on the first failed attempt but succeeded the second time with a slight adjustment to my line to avoid high-centering. Note that the hill was so steep and slippery I slid backwards about 6 feet with all four wheels locked up on the first failed attempt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZCROYEK1DM
Click to expand...
The CX-5 has a good AWD system for a CUV, but Mazda could have made it a lot better (more efficient).
 
pdlpsher said:
Any comments on this video? It is a Subaru sponsored event! The CX-5 had trouble although it appeared the XV also struggled for a bit. My previous car is a 2008 Outback. So far I haven't had a real opportunity to compare the Subaru to the CX-5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDTAOe8XNyA
Click to expand...
Mazda can only split 50/50, and has open diffs. Basically, it's 2WD, with a 50% torque bias. Technically about the weakest AWD system that can legally be advertised as "AWD". This is what I'm used to, and it doesn't really have MPG penalty. Sticker says 1mpg, but real-world it's maybe 1/2 that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpjGFCykV1Y

If Mazda could build a Grand Jeep Cherokee...that would be great. An awesome vehicle that's ALSO reliable, lol!

That said...I went with the CX-5 to replace my Jeep...because reliable > capable.

*In before MikeM brags about how is tight suspension would destroy the Jeep for offroad capability because of all the "steering feel" he would have over those rocks...
 
Last edited:
Unobtanium said:
*In before MikeM brags about how is tight suspension would destroy the Jeep for offroad capability because of all the "steering feel" he would have over those rocks...
Click to expand...
lel

Well, it's may not be the best AWD, but in conjunction with the handling I get, it serves me well. Pretty decent at WOT from a stop on wet road, pretty damn good for power on cornering as well. Applying power on a high speed curve actually takes some of the pull out of the steering I've noticed.
 
Last edited:
wbw said:
The CX-5 finally made it. Hopefully Anchorman will have some input on this when he gets a chance.
Click to expand...

You know me quite well! First of all, lets settle this question of whether it is the same drive unit. Here’s the CX-3 parts list and you can see the part number is KE01-27-97X and an eye watering price of about $1700!

CX3%20drive_zpsgdl75mvg.jpg




Now to the CX-5 and lo and behold, exactly the same part



CX5%20drive_zpsehocwokr.jpg


As for that YouTube video that compares the Subaru with the CX-5, lets think about how this drive system works. In its most basic form, it uses information from the speed sensor on each wheel. If it were to detect both front wheels spinning and and both rear wheels stationary, it would recognise a very basic imbalance that could be addressed by simply locking up the drive unit. That would generate the drive to the rear wheels and cause the vehicle to climb off the roller as you see in the earlier clips with the blue CX-3 (side to side imbalance is overcome by using the ABS system to lock up the spinning wheel).

If I watch the video, it appears that when the CX-5 becomes stuck that it “sets down” on the rear suspension. I also notice that they are using an earlier model with a mechanical handbrake lever and very, very tinted side windows. My suspicious mind suspects that the driver is applying the handbrake in there - naughty, naughty!

MikeM. said:
Subaru has putting out sales material that feature their AWD in the best possible light for a number of years now. In all my years off-roading, I've never encountered rollers with ball bearings that I needed to navigate. But, even more important is that the CX-5 went right over it as soon as the driver backed off the throttle (which is the normal reaction a skilled off-reader has when hitting a patch with minimal (in this case zero) traction. The first go he was very aggressive with the accelerator the minute his front wheels hit the rollers and the rear didn't kick in enough until he finally eased off the throttle a bit.

The CX-5 is a "smart" AWD and has certain protections built in. One of these protections is to reduce or eliminate torque to the rear wheels if the speed differential between the front and rear is too high. Even ice has more traction than ball bearings so you will never encounter this specific condition in nature. But, if you did, the "trick" to getting through it is to go gentle on the accelerator, good advice for low traction situations in general.

That has got to be the stupidest demo I've ever seen (but the wet sheets of polyethylene is a close second). Apparently, most consumers are stupid and Subaru does not embarrass easily! Their marketing department has no shame.
Click to expand...

Agreed - especially about how pointless a test that is although I’m not sure about this speed differential protection capability. Where did you get that info from?

Unobtanium said:
Mazda's AWD is a joke. It's very inefficient, and only part-time, and can't send 100% of the torque to any one tire. It's very "city slicker". Drive it in the city, never as much of it, take the absurd mpg hit, and it's fine. That said, I am pretty sure it will handle the light snow of my region okay.

That is the ONE thing I do miss about my Jeep. AWD with 1mpg or less penalty, 100% torque split capability PER TIRE, etc. and the components were WAY beefier than Mazda, so don't give me "rotating mass", as the JEEP drove all 4 tires 100% of the time. Mazda just fails at AWD, comparatively. However, for most users of CUV's, myself included, I'm sure it will work alright.
Click to expand...

OK, lets just put this into perspective. Neither the CX-3 or the CX-5 are true off roaders. If you want such a vehicle you need a 4WD and not an AWD. The former would have lockable diffs and transfer box.

I’m all for people giving their opinion based on facts or to state if they think its an opinion (none of us know everything) but when you try to convince me that an every day ordinary Jeep SUV has a fully lockable transmission, you can easily make a fool of yourself with such daft comments.

Unobtanium said:
The CX-5 has a good AWD system for a CUV, but Mazda could have made it a lot better (more efficient).
Click to expand...

How?

Unobtanium said:
Mazda can only split 50/50, and has open diffs. Basically, it's 2WD, with a 50% torque bias. Technically about the weakest AWD system that can legally be advertised as "AWD". This is what I'm used to, and it doesn't really have MPG penalty. Sticker says 1mpg, but real-world it's maybe 1/2 that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpjGFCykV1Y

If Mazda could build a Grand Jeep Cherokee...that would be great. An awesome vehicle that's ALSO reliable, lol!

That said...I went with the CX-5 to replace my Jeep...because reliable > capable.

*In before MikeM brags about how is tight suspension would destroy the Jeep for offroad capability because of all the "steering feel" he would have over those rocks...
Click to expand...

Somebody did build a Grand Cherokee - Jeep. I would get one if they were so good. I’m really trying to understand what you are saying but what on earth is an open diff?

I’ve sat in engineering meetings with Japanese vehicle builders and they do not consider Jeep as a serious competitor and they certainly don’t admire their reliability record.

piotrek91 said:
These "tests" are nothing but silly marketing. Here is one comparing a cx-3 to the crosstrek sponsored by mazda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J66v5hdHAxw
Click to expand...

Aye, those guys do not do Mazda any favours by setting up a test that is no more representative than the spivs in the Subaru test. It might convince the more gullible I suppose.

Dave Erickson going through the mud holds much more credence to me, g’lad Dave.
 
Last edited:
An open differential is one that has no slip limiting function. Most passenger vehicles have them. You can put one side on ice and the other on dry pavement and the ice side will spin freely with forward motion. The next step up is a limited slip differential which used clutch packs, worm gears (Torsen), or hydraulics to limit the amount of differential action. Some also have lockable differential with manual controls for the driver to lock them on slippery surfaces. It is not correct to say that a 4wd vehicle with open differentials front and rear is really 2wd. The system applies torque to all four wheels when the traction available across the axle is similar. We really don't spend that much time driving with snow on one side of the car and dry pavement on the other.

BTW I owned one Jeep that I purchase brand new. As a result of the experience, I will own another Jeep maybe if it is the only car being made. I might even choose to walk instead.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Top_Her said:
lel

Well, it's may not be the best AWD, but in conjunction with the handling I get, it serves me well. Pretty decent at WOT from a stop on wet road, pretty damn good for power on cornering as well. Applying power on a high speed curve actually takes some of the pull out of the steering I've noticed.
Click to expand...
I have been very impressed with it on wet roads, so far. It's also nice and nimble/dainty compared to the ELSD's front/rear my Grand Jeep Cherokee had.
 
rwortman said:
An open differential is one that has no slip limiting function. Most passenger vehicles have them. You can put one side on ice and the other on dry pavement and the ice side will spin freely with forward motion. The next step up is a limited slip differential which used clutch packs, worm gears (Torsen), or hydraulics to limit the amount of differential action. Some also have lockable differential with manual controls for the driver to lock them on slippery surfaces. It is not correct to say that a 4wd vehicle with open differentials front and rear is really 2wd. The system applies torque to all four wheels when the traction available across the axle is similar. We really don't spend that much time driving with snow on one side of the car and dry pavement on the other.

BTW I owned one Jeep that I purchase brand new. As a result of the experience, I will own another Jeep maybe if it is the only car being made. I might even choose to walk instead.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong, my Jeep was a bag of fail, but the AWD system was flat out amazing. I loved the traction I got on ice with that thing.
 
rwortman said:
An open differential is one that has no slip limiting function. Most passenger vehicles have them. You can put one side on ice and the other on dry pavement and the ice side will spin freely with forward motion. The next step up is a limited slip differential which used clutch packs, worm gears (Torsen), or hydraulics to limit the amount of differential action. Some also have lockable differential with manual controls for the driver to lock them on slippery surfaces. It is not correct to say that a 4wd vehicle with open differentials front and rear is really 2wd. The system applies torque to all four wheels when the traction available across the axle is similar. We really don't spend that much time driving with snow on one side of the car and dry pavement on the other.

BTW I owned one Jeep that I purchase brand new. As a result of the experience, I will own another Jeep maybe if it is the only car being made. I might even choose to walk instead.
Click to expand...

Good explanation - thanks. Things can get lost in translation sometimes :)
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
    • Like
2016 CX-5 AWD System Questions
2 3
Replies
52
Views
8K
Just_Steve
Just_Steve
mazda-mania
CX-5 fuel pump shutoff reset button?
Replies
4
Views
4K
Kedis82ZE8
K
M
High RPM on cold start
Replies
12
Views
6K
ColtX-5
C

Latest posts

Back