We got enough snow to have fun in recently while coming home the other night I went into a corner hot setting it in a drift trying to see if this thing would let me have any fun at all. If you work the throttle it will do a drift nicely at speed but for anything slow no hope for fun it fixes it at the hint of fun to quickly. I hate that it is hard to have fun but going up and down from the ski slopes to have my fun is sure a pleasure.
AWD system comparison
- Thread starter Kedis82ZE8
- Start date
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
You totally missed my point here. If you read my posts I mainly compare the fuel efficiency penalty with an AWD than a FWD on the same model! With my old 1998 Honda CR-V both FWD and AWD have the same EPA ratings at 19/23 city/hwy, but my 2016 Mazda CX-5 AWD has 24/29 city/hwy, comparing to CX-5 FWD's 26/33! This 4 mpg panelty on the highway for having an AWD on the same model is indeed stiff, as all others are having 1 mpg, or 0 panelty like my '98 CR-V! The first post in this thread I said Mazda should concentrate more on fuel efficiency for its otherwise excellent i-Activ AWD system. I don't see anything unfair and nonfactual to make such comparison between AWD and FWD on the same model!
This is exactly the kind of repetition and unfair comparison I was talking about. This talk of penalty is not meaningful because your CR-V had pretty crappy MPG either as FWD or as AWD and, even today, there is a very short list of vehicles which get better EPA fuel economy when equipped with AWD, some of which have a hard time with getting average EPA MPG in reality, and there is a very long list of vehicles that get worse EPA economy.
The "penalty" for all of us is for you to keep repeating this for so many times.
By the way, still waiting for a more valid comparison.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Since you're repeating yourself and accusing me doing unfair comparison, I have to reiterate my point: CX-5's 4 mpg panelty on the highway with an AWD over a FWD is indeed stiff, as all other major Japanese competitors are having 1 mpg, or 0 panelty like my '98 CR-V! To me, it's a common knowledge that the penalty for choosing a modern AWD over a FWD on the same model should be about 1 mpg. One can easily go to fueleconomy.gov to verify the EPA ratings between the two on the same vehicle. If you don't bother to check, here are the EPA ratings for top 3 US best-selling compact CUVs in combined/city/highway format and see for yourself:
1. 2017 Honda CR-V 2.4L CVT FWD 28/26/32; AWD 27/25/31
1. 2017 Honda CR-V 1.5T CVT FWD 30/28/34; AWD 29/27/33
2. 2017 Toyota RAV4 2.5L 6AT FWD 25/23/29; AWD 25/22/28
3. 2017 Nissan Rogue 2.5L CVT FWD 29/26/33; AWD 27/25/32
⋯
9. 2016 Mazda CX-5 2.5L 6AT FWD 29/26/33; AWD 26/24/29
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
When you wanted more gas mileage comparison with newer and more compatible vehicles, I gave you EPA ratings of top-3 best-selling compact CUVs vs. our CX-5. Now you want actual MPG vs. EPA with similar vehicles?! Sorry even Fuelly couldn't help you on this as the website doesn't distinguish FWD and AWD! And I don't supply all the data by your request. All people saw the EPA fuel economy ratings I listed can understand CX-5 has less fuel efficient AWD system as it drops 4 mpg on highway and 2 mpg in city comparing to its FWD version while others drops only 1! If you can't see this simple comparison, that's your problem!
The way you present your data is misleading.
Check again how many AWD vehicles in this class get better fuel economy (EPA):
The new CR-V
Forester 2.5L
Outback 2.5L (if same class?)
Rogue
New Tuscon Eco (but not other trims)
Out of those I can tell you that the Rogue actual combined is lower than the CX-5.
The Tuscon Eco is all-new for 2016 and the CR-V new for 2017.
All others are less efficient period.
BTW, you forgot to use BOLD this time around on your repeated points.
Regarding fuelly, it is correct they mix data though you can also learn from the variance and from the fact that CR-V has a higher variance than the CX-5 tells you not everyone is happy in that camp either. Look at owner forums and you will find people complaining about fuel economy.
So, you are not the only one. Though, you are very good at complaining, multiple times over. We heard you the first time.
Also, using your 98 CR-V which is about the same size of an HR-V today, only with less power and significantly worse MPG to draw conclusions is just pointless.
If you want to do a comparison which will be valid, use a more recent CR-V or *similar* vehicle.
So, you are not the only one. Though, you are very good at complaining, multiple times over. We heard you the first time.
Also, using your 98 CR-V which is about the same size of an HR-V today, only with less power and significantly worse MPG to draw conclusions is just pointless.
If you want to do a comparison which will be valid, use a more recent CR-V or *similar* vehicle.
(iagree)
However, yrwei does have a valid point that the gap between AWD and FWD on the 2016 is larger than other brands.
The difference has nothing to do with the efficiency of the AWD system.
The 2013 with the 2.0L and the same exact transmission and the same exact AWD system as the 2016 got 31MPG on the EPA test while the FWD got 32MPG.
Mazda decided to give the FWD slightly taller gearing for 2016, so that bumped up the FWD a little while leaving the 2.5L AWD model with gearing originally designed for the 2.0L.
Some of the 4 MPG gap can probably be explained by rounding. The AWD is probably sitting at 29.4MPG after EPA adjustment while the FWD is at 32.5 so the gap might really be only 3.1 MPG.
1.5 MPG for AWD
1.5 MPG for gearing
1 MPG for rounding
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Regardless, I'm stuck with an anemic NA 4-banger if I want this kind of mileage, so I'll take the hit with the better gearing on the AWD platform. It has the traction to make use, and the OD gear isn't bad at all, so why not have a touch more off the line. Every little bit helps.
Note that all AWD crossovers which are more efficient then the CX-5 have a CVT transmission, except for the Tuscon Eco, which has a 7 speed dual-clutch (which is very slow to shift for a DCT, so not sure what's the deal). CVT can be great for highway fuel economy, as long as you drive in a constant speed. Perhaps Mazda should introduce a 7 or 8 speed transmission in its SkyActive 2 version.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I think I've said it before. Nothing beats a CVT, provided it is reliable. Subaru gets it. I know people who LOVE the Forester XT 2.0's transmission. They are not some geriatric either, but a friend I have had for some years who has had a tracked out Miata and a cammed up Camaro SS with full SPOHN suspension. They value driving dynamics. And chose the 2.0 and like the CVT.
Conrad 16.5
Banned
- :
- 2016.5 CX-5 GT AWD titanium/black 2016 Miata Club ST MT white
You're the first person that I've seen who has good things to say about any CVT.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
They are just better. More efficient use of power. Now, that is not to say that all of them hold up, or that they are "as fun", but they are the wave of the future just as sure as the DCT and paddleshifter has replaced the manual in Ferrari's...because it's better. Think about it...
Old drag cars (and still the fastest one's around) use 2-speed transmissions with unlocked tq converters with 5500+rpm stall speeds. Basically, if you ignore mechanics and look only at functionality, a CVT. That can handle the power.
Here is a video:
I especially like this video because you can see the tach on the left. Notice: That high-stall 2-speed PG acts JUST like a CVT, except a CVT is tons more efficient because instead of tq converter "elasticity", you're getting actual power delivery and the TRANSMISSION is what is creating the variable rpm vs. load to maximize acceleration due to the infinite (theoretically) ratios.
There is a reason that the fastest drag cars on the planet use a Powerglide and a huge stall. Keeps them in the powerband constantly.
Kindof like a CVT does a passenger car, albeit via different mechanism.
CVT is the wave of the future, once the kinks are worked out. I knew that the first time I ever drove one back in 2005 when the dealership I worked for took delivery of the first Ford CVT vehicles (not a CVT I'd buy...but the object lesson was what I meant).
Listen to this car as it goes down the track...that's the beast version, functionally, of a street-going CVT, even if the mechanics are all different, the end-goal is identical, and it is equally effective.
It is the nature of fuel powered engines to have RPM ranges with varying power and efficiency points. The closer you can come to keeping them in their "sweet spot", the better. The CVT does this better. So long as the CVT is durable and reliable, it cannot be beaten. This is slowly moving from "theory" to "reality", and the decades old Powerglide + huge stall converter is a simple case-study.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I have. I worked for Ford when they began using them. The CVT equipped vehicle was significantly faster 0-60 than the non-CVT equipped.
maintenance and durability are hurdles the CVT will need to overcome before it's functional advantage can become a practical one. Subaru is doing well in this regard.
Weren't CVTs banned from like GT racing or something because they were too fast?...and minimized the competition aspect. I'll wait and see how Honda's CVTs hold up 10 years later. Their current ones have lots of judder/shakiness at idle.
Please find me one production car with a CVT that is faster than its manual counterpart.
For fuel economy, sure, some CVT's are able to match/slightly outperform manuals on the EPA test, but in the real world, with a driver who know what he's doing, a manual will use lass gas than a CVT.
A CVT wastes a lot of power keeping the belt and pullies in place, it makes up for some, but not all of that loss by keeping the engine at optimal RPM.
A driver of a manual car can also keep optimal RPM by choosing the best cruising speed.
If anything, they were banned because they are too annoying. Not much fun hearing a bunch of loud chainsaws drive by.
Similar Threads and Articles
