AWD or FWD, one better than the other?

[Chas]

I am really sorry to clutter up the forum with this question...

Trying to decide on Grand Touring or Touring, but more than that AWD or FWD and in automatic 6 speed of course. There are a few days where we have snow and ice, but it is not that bad...wondering if AWD is that much of a penalty in gas, reliability, and so forth, or should we just get the FWD because it will be quicker and get better gas mileage.

What are the real world experiences?

I say quicker because I am assuming there are a lot parasitic losses from the additional drive train friction and your are not really getting the full benefit of the engine power. I have read that losses, in general with FWD are like 15% but with AWD can be 35% or more.

I tried the advanced search with "CX5 AWD or FWD" in variations and nothing came up, always nothing found. So sorry again.

 

[erhayes]

Check the Mazda brochures for the difference in fuel consumption. I think it is like 2 MPG

 

[ALafya]

For me, there was no point in getting FWD. If I was looking for an FWD car, it would not be a cross-over, maybe a Mazda 3.
AWD is needed for ski trips, mostly to satisfy CalTrans and avoid having to put chains. I was looking for a fuel-efficient, fun to drive vehicle. I'd prefer to drive a lower center of gravity vehicle in wagon configuration.

I believe the AWD is slightly less efficient, because of increased friction. Internal combustion engines are notoriously inefficient, using perhaps 20% of the fuel's energy for motion and the rest for heat mostly. However, you can get a good estimate of extra losses by looking at gas millage. The penalty for AWD in gas millage is not bad at all. My Touring 2.5L feels very good. Off the line, it gets a little more traction then the FWD, but will probably get to 60 a fraction of a sec slower.
Also, keep in mind these AWD vehicles are 'mostly FWD', so it will under-steer like an FWD.

 

[nizzy1115]

For me, there was no point in getting FWD. If I was looking for an FWD car, it would not be a cross-over, maybe a Mazda 3.
AWD is needed for ski trips, mostly to satisfy CalTrans and avoid having to put chains. I was looking for a fuel-efficient, fun to drive vehicle. I'd prefer to drive a lower center of gravity vehicle in wagon configuration.

I believe the AWD is slightly less efficient, because of increased friction. Internal combustion engines are notoriously inefficient, using perhaps 20% of the fuel's energy for motion and the rest for heat mostly. However, you can get a good estimate of extra losses by looking at gas millage. The penalty for AWD in gas millage is not bad at all. My Touring 2.5L feels very good. Off the line, it gets a little more traction then the FWD, but will probably get to 60 a fraction of a sec slower.
Also, keep in mind these AWD vehicles are 'mostly FWD', so it will under-steer like an FWD.

Coming from a '10 Mazda3 I can say that the cx5 is worlds better in snow. Living in the Chicago burbs the snow storms were more than easily tackled with my fwd cx5. Even out accelerating awd subies at stop lights. Yes there's some slipping at acceleration but nothing that isn't easily controlled.

 

[SayNoToPistons]

This is dependent on the geography of which the CX-5 will be driven on. Had I bought the CX-5 for Southern California, or anywhere without snow, I would have went for a FWD. There is no real performance benefit in any situation other than snow. The electrohydralic clutch Haldex AWD system is front wheel biased at all times and is mediocre at best.

 

[jb's2014CX5]

Living in the northeast and in the Snowest city in the US this year I'm glad I have the AWD

 

[costermonger]

The relationship between AWD and snow/ice conditions is seemingly universally misunderstood. Aside from a situation where you need to get moving in a hurry because there's a transport truck or something bearing down on you, it's not a feature that contributes to safety. You can actually argue the opposite, because the torque-shift feature can kind of hide the lack of traction from you.

http://www.wheels.ca/guides/does-all-wheel-drive-actually-help-in-winter-driving/

Moral of the story: your tires are about a hundred times more important than how many wheels get power.

I live in the part of Ontario called the 'snow belt'. I have a FWD CX-5, and will use winter tires from early November to early April. Given the weight bias, AWD system function and ground clearance of these things, there is unlikely to be any situation in which my FWD ends up stuck where an AWD wouldn't.

 

[xtrailman]

I will only buy a AWD car now, for me the extra traction on wet roads, when setting off quickly at an island, easily off sets any extra fuel consumption.

This is my 3rd consecutive car with 4WD, none have had traction control simply because its not required.

Most of the time the CX5 drives in FWD, so the only penalty is the extra weight, if the rear wheels cut in then yes you will get extra friction losses, which is why the AWD versions usually are the more powerful versions.

Depending on the system fitted the handling can be improved, the BMW X3 for example.

Put winter tyres on a AWD and it will out perform any FWD, which is why the rally cars in snow and ice have 4WD with skinny tyres.

 

[V8toilet]

I agree with costermonger, AWD can get your vehicle off the line more quickly but it doesn't stop any better than a FWD. it can actually get someone in trouble because they will drive faster, lose control, and crash on snow covered roads.

The penalty is slightly less acceleration and fuel economy and if cost isn't a concern than it may not matter. It's cheaper and safer to get a set of winter tires over AWD and you'll be able to stop and turn much better on snow covered roads.

 

[TreyP]

Here in Vermont I would never get out of my driveway after a heavy snowstorm with FWD, even with good snow tires. I do agree that many people mistake AWD/4WD for an invincible safety net. AWD will not stop any faster than 2WD, but when properly used AWD is far superior for snowy conditions. That being said, if I lived in VA as the OP does, I would go with FWD.

 

[xtrailman]

I have no practical experience of the CX5 AWD, yet.

But I suspect its not as good as the Xtrails, which can be selected to run in FWD, auto, or lock via a selector switch.
The system is wasted on me however as mine never moves from auto position.

The Nissan will detect loss of traction in less than one revolution of the wheel, then apply rear wheel drive as required.

It's a shame the CX5 doesn't employ the system that the CRV uses, the latest version actually always sets of in AWD, thus ensuring a clean launch.

Something Mazda should consider?

This is dependent on the geography of which the CX-5 will be driven on. Had I bought the CX-5 for Southern California, or anywhere without snow, I would have went for a FWD. There is no real performance benefit in any situation other than snow. The electrohydralic clutch Haldex AWD system is front wheel biased at all times and is mediocre at best.

 

[Chas]

Do you have any good links on the Mazda AWD technology? I did some searching and it is mostly videos that don't give the nitty gritty, and press releases with tech info are hard to find.

I was kind of looking for stuff like this Acura news release which gives details at the very bottom on the AWD system (not that I can afford an MDX)

http://acuranews.com/channels/acura-automobiles-mdx-technical/releases/2012-acura-mdx-powertrain

thanks

I have no practical experience of the CX5 AWD, yet.

But I suspect its not as good as the Xtrails, which can be selected to run in FWD, auto, or lock via a selector switch.
The system is wasted on me however as mine never moves from auto position.

The Nissan will detect loss of traction in less than one revolution of the wheel, then apply rear wheel drive as required.

It's a shame the CX5 doesn't employ the system that the CRV uses, the latest version actually always sets of in AWD, thus ensuring a clean launch.

Something Mazda should consider?

 

[costermonger]

Put winter tyres on a AWD and it will out perform any FWD, which is why the rally cars in snow and ice have 4WD with skinny tyres.

True, but they use AWD because it enables finely controlled drifting. Probably not advisable on public roads, and it's the only manner in which AWD can get you around a corner faster.

Here in Vermont I would never get out of my driveway after a heavy snowstorm with FWD, even with good snow tires.

That's the area it really can help. I elected to forgo AWD because here we either get ~3-4 inches of snow from a storm (which FWD will handle just fine) or 12+, which is going to keep either model stationary until you excavate around it.

 

[xtrailman]

Not really this site has very little on the CX5, but does explain how most of the systems work, but there are quite a few different haldex systems.

The information on the BMW X3 AWD improving the handling was from the BMW brochure.

Found this

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2071712


http://www.awdwiki.com/en/mazda/

Do you have any good links on the Mazda AWD technology? I did some searching and it is mostly videos that don't give the nitty gritty, and press releases with tech info are hard to find.

I was kind of looking for stuff like this Acura news release which gives details at the very bottom on the AWD system (not that I can afford an MDX)

http://acuranews.com/channels/acura-automobiles-mdx-technical/releases/2012-acura-mdx-powertrain

thanks

 

[jabba]

I had an Audi wiith AWD for 8 years, and then a CX-9 with AWD since 2008, never an issue. So i would not necessarily worry about something breaking down.

The main benefit of AWD is getting going in snow, and maybe going up snowy hills. It does nothing to help you turn or stop, that all depends on the quality and tread depth of your tires. So if you live in a climate that sees occasional snow, the AWD might not be worth the expense: I live in Pittsburgh, and my Mazdaspeed 3 with good tires gets me around no problems in the winter, and that car is FWD.

With that said, I am considering the AWD for the CX-5!

 

[ALafya]

Tires are more important to road grip than AWD and AWD will not help you stop any better than FWD or no-wheel-drive.

Different AWD systems are better in different situations. Rally based AWD is good at getting power delivery on lower traction surfaces while driving fast. Wrangler-like systems are better at extreme off-roading or rock crawling. Acura SH-AWD type system is better for on-road, highway speed turn carving.
In theory, a good AWD can give you marginal better grip in turns, by reducing effects of under- or over-steer. However, not all AWD/4WD systems will get you this and right tires will get you better grip even in these situations.

The system in the CX-5, AFAIK, is constantly variable and reactive / on-demand system, which uses multi-plate clutch for the rear axle. It is not only when wheels slip, but also when the computer decides to transfer some of the power to the back. It does feel better in the first few feet when accelerating from a standstill, it will help you climb an icy driveway and get-out of snowed-in parking lot. From what I understand, it can send up to 50% of the power to the rear. It has no lock mode.
I would not take the CX-5 to anything close to real off-road because it has poor approach angle, no 'low' setting and no differential locking.

 

[DerlinStiles]

I just got my CX-5 FWD and I am impressed with the handling. I traded in an outback, and loved the Subaru AWD- it was fantastic in the rain and especially the snow. But in my opinion, for where I live (probably similar climate to OP), it doesn't snow enough to make it necessary or worth any MPG hit. It has rained several times since I got the CX-5 and, when I have deemed it safe enough, I have pushed the limits going around turns in the rain and it has performed admirably. Also, with the rather narrow stock wheels (7") and decent ground clearance, I expect it to outperform most other FWD cars in the snow. For me, that's good enough in an area where we get significant/heavy snows less than once per year. And I am LOVING the mpg. If the onboard computer is to be believed, with an average 28MPH I have been getting 30MPG!! Yeah! Lastly, I am leery of manufacturers/models that haven't been in the AWD game for a while (but this is admittedly unfounded since I really didn't do much research on the matter).

 

[TreyP]

I am currently just barely breaking 30 mpg with my AWD with about 1900 miles on the odometer.

 

[MikeM.]

Moral of the story: your tires are about a hundred times more important than how many wheels get power.

Yes! X 1,000,000

Most people do not have enough snow driving experience with various combinations of snow tires/all season radials/AWD/4WD/FWD/RWD to understand what's more effective when it's really hazardous conditions.

I purchased AWD simply because I make 50 trips/year to the snowiest ski area in the world and much of the winter the State Patrol mandates chains OR AWD. And who wants to have to chain up (especially 30 times a year)? If I made the rules I would mandate chains OR (real) snow tires (not mud and snow) instead of giving people with AWD a free pass to use all season radials (or, God forbid, summer tires).

I don't need snow tires to avoid chaining up but they are what makes the car handle so well when conditions are dicey (not the AWD). If it were not for the regulations enforced by the State Patrol, I would have purchased the FWD CX-5 which I know is very good in the snow. Like any car it is worlds better with snow tires.

 

[MikeM.]

Most of the time the CX5 drives in FWD, so the only penalty is the extra weight, if the rear wheels cut in then yes you will get extra friction losses, which is why the AWD versions usually are the more powerful versions.

Not true. AWD cars always have more drag (even when only two wheels are actively powered). They also have more rotational inertia.