Mazda Ice Academy: Trial By Ice And Snow CX-5, CX-3 And MX-5

[MikeM.]

Excellent! but would love to see a side by side comparison of the CR-V and Forester!

The article comparing snow performance of Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4, Honda CRV and Mazda CX-5 is out:

http://www.mazda-motors.com/news/snow-testing-mazdas-i-activ-all-wheel-drive/

Unsurprising to me, the CX-5 was judged the most capable noting that it climbed steep slippery hills with less struggle vs. even the Subaru. Mind you, all vehicles had the same tires mounted on each vehicle. This is very uncommon for this type of head-to-head winter test and is what makes the results so much more meaningful. All other comparisons I've seen serve to highlight the small differences in snow/ice traction of the OEM tires. It's nice to see a proper winter test with all cars wearing the same rubber. Here are some key quotes from the article:

A big change in the world of differentials is the movement away from hydraulic looking center couplings to electronically controlled ones like found in Mazdas i-ACTIV. By using an electromagnetically activated clutch, the rear wheel torque matches exactly what the computer is dictating unlike a hydraulic clutch pack that cannot vary the amount of torque to the rear wheels as quickly or as often. Its like the gracefulness of ballet replacing the hammer forward approach of crunk.

This mirrors what I have been saying about the refined feel of the CX-5's AWD and how a graceful AWD system will beat a clunky AWD system every time on snow/ice.

First up I drove the CX-5. Along a snow covered, steeply angled mountain road the vehicle never felt like it was fighting for traction. Grip was always there. It felt sure footed under acceleration, braking and cornering.

On the snowy test roads, the RAV4 felt less certain under braking, as the rear end would dart around under moderate braking. It also produces more rear-end rotation during throttle-off over-steer, which is fun for someone like me, but may be a bit unnerving for a consumer.
The Toyota also fought harder for traction when climbing some of the steeper hills.

Next up was the Honda CR-V, which also now uses an electronic center coupler but feels cruder than all the other systems here. It allows the front tires to spin quite a bit before the clutch engages the rear tires. It had the hardest time finding traction on inclines and was the most apt to produces moderate amounts of throttle-off over-steer. Easily, the CR-V was the least predictable crossover on snow and ice.

And when climbing a steep, snow covered incline, the Forester struggled for grip more than the CX-5 did.

So much for the famous Subaru AWD that people who haven't even driven a CX-5 in the snow claim is so superior to Mazda's system. Or that Mazda doesn't have "real" AWD. Nevertheless, I'm sure the same peanut gallery will find some way to try to belittle Mazda's AWD. But, without actual winter experience, all they can do is theorize and speculate.

 

[Unobtanium]

The article comparing snow performance of Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4, Honda CRV and Mazda CX-5 is out:

http://www.mazda-motors.com/news/snow-testing-mazdas-i-activ-all-wheel-drive/

Unsurprising to me, the CX-5 was judged the most capable noting that it climbed steep slippery hills with less struggle vs. even the Subaru. Mind you, all vehicles had the same tires mounted on each vehicle. This is very uncommon for this type of head-to-head winter test and is what makes the results so much more meaningful. All other comparisons I've seen serve to highlight the small differences in snow/ice traction of the OEM tires. It's nice to see a proper winter test with all cars wearing the same rubber. Here are some key quotes from the article:



This mirrors what I have been saying about the refined feel of the CX-5's AWD and how a graceful AWD system will beat a clunky AWD system every time on snow/ice.










So much for the famous Subaru AWD that people who haven't even driven a CX-5 in the snow claim is so superior to Mazda's system. Or that Mazda doesn't have "real" AWD. Nevertheless, I'm sure the same peanut gallery will find some way to try to belittle Mazda's AWD. But, without actual winter experience, all they can do is theorize and speculate.

Mazda sponsored event. Null. (I recall you had the same opinion of all the Subaru sponsored events where Subaru destroyed Mazda).

Are there ANY third-party comparisons to be had between them?

 

[MikeM.]

Truth is such a gray area. For example, you feel like Christians who died knew the "truth". Yet a Muslim would disagree, and a Jew would disagree with the Muslim and the Christian, and an Atheist thinks they are all wrong. None of them can logically prove their "truth" over the other...so they simply pick and choose what "feels right", and a VAST majority of them choose based on where they were born pretty much. Regardless, the person who's head got lopped off is dead.

Can you take your meaningless rants somewhere else? This thread is about Mazda's AWD snow and ice trials. I know you don't have any experience to contribute to this topic so just be a silent participant. You might actually learn something.

 

[Unobtanium]

Can you take your meaningless rants somewhere else? This thread is about Mazda's AWD snow and ice trials. I know you don't have any experience to contribute to this topic so just be a silent participant. You might actually learn something.

I'm still waiting for you to post something I can learn from. You posted a Mazda sponsored test that showed Mazda winning. Yawn. I mean, if you can't trust a Subaru sponsored event showing Subaru winning, why should we trust your Mazda event with Mazda winning? 3rd party data, please!

http://www.torquenews.com/1084/awd-crossover-challenge-2014-forester-smokes-field

But you didn't like that because
a) Mazda lost
b) Subaru sponsored it.

You used b) to disqualify it out of hand, kindof like I'm going to do with your data. Meaningless as it's sourced from Mazda, right?

So is there any 3rd party info?

 

[fdew]

Truth is NEVER a gray area. There are those who know it and those who don't. There are truths that can be proven like 2+2 and truths that can't but in all cases there is a truth and just one truth. The Christians who died rather then renounce truth have eternal life in heaven.

 

[Unobtanium]

Truth is NEVER a gray area. There are those who know it and those who don't. There are truths that can be proven like 2+2 and truths that can't but in all cases there is a truth and just one truth. The Christians who died rather then renounce truth have eternal life in heaven.

If you believe that is the truth, then that's what is true for you...but like you said...there is only one truth. And noone knows, regarding religion. People just think they do.

 

[MikeM.]

Mazda sponsored event. Null. (I recall you had the same opinion of all the Subaru sponsored events where Subaru destroyed Mazda).

The Subaru event consisted of a singular "test" which consisted of a steep sheet of wet polyethylene on a steel trailer and the cars were not fitted with equivalent rubber.

The Mazda event invited real journalists to drive each car on real snow covered roads and hills and all cars were fitted with identical rubber.

The one thing the Subaru event was good for is to prove that your negative hyperbole about Mazda's AWD was false. You claimed that Mazda's AWD only sent torque to two wheels at a time yet the Subaru video clearly showed all 4 CX-5 wheels slowly spinning simultaneously as they tried to find some grip on the wet polyethylene. But of course you shrugged off the video proof.

 

[fdew]

If you believe that is the truth, then that's what is true for you...but like you said...there is only one truth. And noone knows, regarding religion. People just think they do.

No, There is one truth That is an important concept for cars governments and religion. Whether or not you or I know or believe the truth on any subject has no effect on the truth.

 

[MikeM.]

I'm still waiting for you to post something I can learn from. You posted a Mazda sponsored test that showed Mazda winning. Yawn. I mean, if you can't trust a Subaru sponsored event showing Subaru winning, why should we trust your Mazda event with Mazda winning?

I would recommend real world experience. I've driven both AWD systems in the snow/ice and the supposed superiority of the Subaru AWD in snow/ice is pure fiction. The CX-5 is the best snow/ice car I've ever driven, bar none. And I've driven a lot. Sometimes we use each others vehicles to shuttle other boarders to fresh powder runs. You get to drive a lot of different vehicles doing this.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

2016 Mazda Ice Academy and Mazda i-Activ AWD system with engineer Dave Coleman

 

[MikeM.]

2016 Mazda Ice Academy and Mazda i-Activ AWD system with engineer Dave Coleman

Good video, thanks for posting!

Mazda R&D engineer David Coleman confirmed a few things:

1) CX-5 has a functionally identical AWD as the CX-3. Same sensors, same logic, just bigger, stronger hardware.
2) AWD CX-5 gets BETTER MPG on snow vs. FWD CX-5 due to wheel slippage of FWD.
3) Steering feedback is important for the driver's performance on snow/ice. Without sufficient feedback the driver cannot perform optimally.
4) AWD uses data compiled from 27 sensors to figure out when the tires are going to spin, before they spin. This increases driver confidence.
5) Electric power steering can detect impending loss of traction by measuring required steering force 200 times per second.
6) It took a long time to program and perfect the predictive AWD. This is due to the huge data streams from 27 sources being constantly processed by the on-board AWD computer.
7) Mazda's goal is to get the AWD to the point that AWD returns BETTER MPG (vs. FWD) due to optimized power transfer that minimizes friction between the tires treads and road surface.

This puts to rest a lot of unfounded speculation. I don't think Subaru has this kind of amazing technology built into any of their AWD platforms.

 

[Unobtanium]

Good video, thanks for posting!

Mazda R&D engineer David Coleman confirmed a few things:

1) CX-5 has a functionally identical AWD as the CX-3. Same sensors, same logic, just bigger, stronger hardware.
2) AWD CX-5 gets BETTER MPG on snow vs. FWD CX-5 due to wheel slippage of FWD.
3) Steering feedback is important for the driver's performance on snow/ice. Without sufficient feedback the driver cannot perform optimally.
4) AWD uses data compiled from 27 sensors to figure out when the tires are going to spin, before they spin. This increases driver confidence.
5) Electric power steering can detect impending loss of traction by measuring required steering force 200 times per second.
6) It took a long time to program and perfect the predictive AWD. This is due to the huge data streams from 27 sources being constantly processed by the on-board AWD computer.
7) Mazda's goal is to get the AWD to the point that AWD returns BETTER MPG (vs. FWD) due to optimized power transfer that minimizes friction between the tires treads and road surface.

This puts to rest a lot of unfounded speculation. I don't think Subaru has this kind of amazing technology built into any of their AWD platforms.

Sounds good, but people here are seeing a massive gap in FWD and awd mileage. That undermines the rest of the talking points, too, somewhat, imo.

That said, I'm impressed with that data

 

[MikeM.]

Sounds good, but people here are seeing a massive gap in FWD and awd mileage. That undermines the rest of the talking points, too, somewhat, imo.

Not really, the goal of developing the AWD to better the MPG of their FWD is a goal, not current reality. And there isn't a "massive gap" between AWD and FWD. More like 1-2 mpg. I have AWD and my lifetime avg. mpg is over 32 mpg. That's darn good for an AWD of this size and utility. Having owned a number of AWD and 4X4 vehicles in my life I know the importance of maintaining equal tire diameters front/rear and also side/side. I maintain my pressures accurately to achieve this. If I let the tire shop do it, they can never inflate them equally. I also rotate the tires twice/year to maintain consistent tread depths. Efficiency of any AWD vehicle will suffer if this basic maintenance is not performed or is performed in a sloppy manner due to binding.

I believe the few AWD owners who report really low mpg numbers likely experience additional drag due to tires with different rolling diameters due to inaccurate tire pressures or delayed tire rotations.

I'm very pleased with my AWD mpg's, let me know which comparable vehicle would be equal or better!

 

[Unobtanium]

The Subaru event consisted of a singular "test" which consisted of a steep sheet of wet polyethylene on a steel trailer and the cars were not fitted with equivalent rubber.

The Mazda event invited real journalists to drive each car on real snow covered roads and hills and all cars were fitted with identical rubber.

The one thing the Subaru event was good for is to prove that your negative hyperbole about Mazda's AWD was false. You claimed that Mazda's AWD only sent torque to two wheels at a time yet the Subaru video clearly showed all 4 CX-5 wheels slowly spinning simultaneously as they tried to find some grip on the wet polyethylene. But of course you shrugged off the video proof.

No it didn't. It consisted of 5 driving instructors taking the vehicles off-road in icy and snowy conditions. Real roads. Not some snow-plowed for a media event. You poo-pooed all over it because Subaru sponsored it. I recall it quite vividly.

 

[Unobtanium]

Not really, the goal of developing the AWD to better the MPG of their FWD is a goal, not current reality. I wonder how that will work in non-slip conditions. And there isn't a "massive gap" between AWD and FWD. More like 1-2 mpg. I have AWD and my lifetime avg. mpg is over 32 mpg. That's darn good for an AWD of this size and utility. You also have a 2.0, which I am convinced has a higher volumetric efficiency and lower BSFC than the 2.5. I would LOVE to see BSFC numbers on both engines! Having owned a number of AWD and 4X4 vehicles in my life I know the importance of maintaining equal tire diameters front/rear and also side/side. I maintain my pressures accurately to achieve this. If I let the tire shop do it, they can never inflate them equally. This is one thing that blows my mind about my Mazda dealer. I always double check, and they ALWAYS! have all 4 tires within 0.5psi of each other. It's absurd. I also rotate the tires twice/year to maintain consistent tread depths. I do it every oil change. I probably drive a lot more than you do, though. Efficiency of any AWD vehicle will suffer if this basic maintenance is not performed or is performed in a sloppy manner due to binding. Yep!

I believe the few AWD owners who report really low mpg numbers likely experience additional drag due to tires with different rolling diameters due to inaccurate tire pressures or delayed tire rotations. Well, if you're implying me, then I must disagree, unless it's unpreventable. All my tire pressures are checked at least monthly by me, and tires rotated every 5,000 miles. They were all 4 purchased at the same time. If you have any other tips on how to maintain them though, I'd be interested.

I'm very pleased with my AWD mpg's, let me know which comparable vehicle would be equal or better!

The 2.0 is a very efficient vehicle. AWD, or no. As I consider getting a "fun vehicle", I will become less and less pleased with my decision to get a 2.5L, lol!

 

[rwortman]

Agreed, but there is a lot on the table with the cx5 suspension from the factory , and most tuner cars thay turn worse 0-60 times do so because they are traction limited. With awd, it shouldn't be an issue...check out tuner evo and sti cars...

I'd say he legitimately has a faster, better handling car than factory, but driveability has definitely suffered by my standards based on his posts about his transmission/shifting, etc

I was thinking about a Top Gear episode where they took modestly powered sporty hatchbacks and did the usual mods. Lowered suspension, low profile tires, hi-flow intake, catback exhaust. They did before and after lap times and they all went slower after the mods. Lowered suspension makes it feel different but it screws with the angle of the tread on the road and the low profile tires exacerbate the effect. The poorer cornering wasn't overcome by the tiny little power gains from the intake and exhaust. The bottom line is that it's not much different from when I was in high school all those years ago. It's more about looking and sounding bad--- than any real performance gains.

 

[Unobtanium]

I was thinking about a Top Gear episode where they took modestly powered sporty hatchbacks and did the usual mods. Lowered suspension, low profile tires, hi-flow intake, catback exhaust. They did before and after lap times and they all went slower after the mods. Lowered suspension makes it feel different but it screws with the angle of the tread on the road and the low profile tires exacerbate the effect. The poorer cornering wasn't overcome by the tiny little power gains from the intake and exhaust. The bottom line is that it's not much different from when I was in high school all those years ago. It's more about looking and sounding bad--- than any real performance gains.

Exactly. This is craptastic modding at its best, and why I don't mod factory cars heavily AT ALL anymore. Struts/shocks are "big mods" for me, lol!

I was thinking of the Dinan M3 with the $30K motor...pulling similar 0-60 times as OEM M3's...traction.

The factory does A LOT to optimize the combo...when you mess with it, you better know damn well what you're doing, and it WON'T be cheap. For example, I have a friend with a 1992 Mustang GT. He wanted it to handle, and he was smart. He dumped $10K into the suspension...all from the same company, all well-matched. It would pull over 1g and it tore up the same corners I had been on in an S2000, and it DOMINATED. Stoopid impressed. But yeah...he spent 2-300% the value of the car just on suspension mods...

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Exactly. This is craptastic modding at its best, and why I don't mod factory cars heavily AT ALL anymore. Struts/shocks are "big mods" for me, lol!

I was thinking of the Dinan M3 with the $30K motor...pulling similar 0-60 times as OEM M3's...traction.

The factory does A LOT to optimize the combo...when you mess with it, you better know damn well what you're doing, and it WON'T be cheap. For example, I have a friend with a 1992 Mustang GT. He wanted it to handle, and he was smart. He dumped $10K into the suspension...all from the same company, all well-matched. It would pull over 1g and it tore up the same corners I had been on in an S2000, and it DOMINATED. Stoopid impressed. But yeah...he spent 2-300% the value of the car just on suspension mods...

People can pull over 1g with a mazda 3 sedan and far, far less $ in suspension; but then again you are talking about a 1992 ford. People at my local SASCA chapter pull oever 1g easy, and they autox pretty much all the tuner cars you would expect, from 1989 miatas, s2000's to brand new subies evos ad the occasional audi r8.. there even a guy who autox's *the* turbocharged (he's a texas local) Mazda 5 and he get's some damn good times. I seriously doubt that the majority of them have spent 10k on their suspension. You don't even have to spend that much to sup up the suspension of an wrx for example. And about being traction limited by the mods, funny you bring that up because there is a guy on the mazda3revolution forum who tracks his 3 bigtime; he has made his own aero, and splitters (professional quality, some of which he now sells) to steadily decrease his times. And most of his time is modeled aerodynamically. I guess the point being, don't just take a show like top gar for face value because that's not exactly typical. Of course I don't need functional lips and aero because I don't have wrong wheel drive, nor do I drive at speed on a track that I would need them.

 

[Lbear]

Not really, the goal of developing the AWD to better the MPG of their FWD is a goal, not current reality. And there isn't a "massive gap" between AWD and FWD. More like 1-2 mpg. I have AWD and my lifetime avg. mpg is over 32 mpg. That's darn good for an AWD of this size and utility.

I've had a verified 32mpg highway with my 2016 CX5 AWD 2.5L with OEM roof rails and OEM mud flaps. This was on numerous 50 mile round trips.

Around town I get 25mpg

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

I was thinking about a Top Gear episode where they took modestly powered sporty hatchbacks and did the usual mods. Lowered suspension, low profile tires, hi-flow intake, catback exhaust. They did before and after lap times and they all went slower after the mods. Lowered suspension makes it feel different but it screws with the angle of the tread on the road and the low profile tires exacerbate the effect. The poorer cornering wasn't overcome by the tiny little power gains from the intake and exhaust. The bottom line is that it's not much different from when I was in high school all those years ago. It's more about looking and sounding bad--- than any real performance gains.

Just because they lowered the car doesn't mean the cornering is automatically better. If I reduced the dampening on my struts my s*** would wallow badly. There are a lot of cheap ass lowering springs with worse than oem spring rates available for previous gen mazdas. Did they disclose what the used to lower it? Did they lower it to a point that the oem shock was pretty much ineffective? Did they get an alignment? did they check oem sway bar angles after lowering (if equipped)? And if they did put low-pro tires on it, there's a good chance that contributed to the crappy run more than anything else. Fact is there are too many unknown, especially considering something assembled for a tv test on a budget to really say. The intake and exhaust on an NA motor isn't supposed to give a significant power gain on it's own, especially on a small displament and that being said I doubt they actually got the ecu remapped considering the changes they made to the induction and exhaust. The stock motor is calibrated for the oem intake, even if your aftermarket intake has the correct sizing to satisfy the oem maf (if equipped) if it's not tuned to flow more air then it can't flow more air... Period. Low profile tires, if you look at people who are tracking their car, or modding similarly they typically aren't slapping on low pro tires. That's stance and style groups who do that. I mean, yea if they just threw some commons mods on with no adjustment, I wouldn't be surprised at the outcome. And while it's certainly something people do, it's not my case, and frankly it's kind of hard to do with the new gen mazdas because suspension wise, their aren't many "cheap" parts out.