New CX-5 Owner - AWD question

[Lazy2.5]

I have driven a CX-5 Turbo AWD. I got it to oversteer while turning with high throttle input (Power being sent to the rear.)

In my own car, FWD Mazda 6 NA, I can confirm that this chassis (CX-5/Mazda 3, CX-9/Mazda 6, Same chassis, just shorter/longer) And the suspension geometry, at least on the more sporty 3/6 is certainly setup to be tail-happy.

I can get my FWD 6 to oversteer all the time, so I can confirm that it is not just because of power being sent to the rear (Because in my case, there is none.) Luckily, if you are an attentive driver, you are not speeding according to the driving conditions, have good tires, you should not have an issue so long as you know how to counter-steer. It is very natural with this car, even my Mazda 6, which, while having a longer wheelbase, has roughly 5% more weight over the front axle than your CX-5 turbo.

You asked whether this can be adjusted - and I don't think so. However, the car is already beautifully setup from the factory.

My tip/suggestion is so simply get to know the car. Be precise and mindful with your steering, braking and throttle inputs. I find that the CX-5 Turbo I drove last year obviously is less eager to turn in than my 6 and seems to prefer defaulting to understeer. It is a safe car for the average driver. You should not worry about any excessive skidding/oversteer unless you do not know how to counter-steer and are actively pushing the chassis hard enough to force the AWD system to shove power to the rear, or your tires are simply no good. As you get used to the car, you'll probably get to have some fun with it.

 

[N7turbo]

No it is not. Dude. that is inaccurate and completely impossible.

A crossover with it's entire drivetrain suspended over the front axle, and nothing but a drive axle over the rear wheels cannot physically be 50/50.

The owner's manual > your knee-jerk reaction

NA: 51/49

Turbo: 52/48

Note this is GVWR so it's about 1,000 lbs of extra stuff vs curb weight.

 

[Lazy2.5]

The owner's manual > your knee-jerk reaction

View attachment 379983

NA: 51/49

Turbo: 52/48

Note this is GVWR so it's about 1,000 lbs of extra stuff vs curb weight.

This chart lists maximum structural load limits (GVWR/GAWR) rather than the vehicle’s actual weight or balance.


This chart does not explain weight distribution because it lists the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR), which are the maximum legal weight limits the vehicle and its axles are engineered to support when fully loaded, not the actual weight of the car itself. The GVWR represents the total maximum allowable mass including all passengers and cargo, while the GAWRs specify the structural ceiling for each axle; these figures include a built-in "payload buffer" that assumes the rear will be heavily loaded with luggage or passengers. Consequently, while these ratings might appear balanced, the actual curb weight of the vehicle is significantly different due to the heavy drivetrain, meaning these capacity limits offer no insight into how the car's mass is distributed during normal driving.

 

[N7turbo]

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating is simply Curb Weight plus maximum passengers and cargo.

 

[BoomerZoomr]

If the car can carry about 1,000 pounds, I would think more weight would be placed towards the rear to fully load the vehicle… also considering the cargo area is so far rearward. Not 500 pounds over the front and 500 pounds over the rear. In other words, to properly load the vehicle to maximum, you might add only 350 pounds to the front "axle" and 650 pounds to the rear "axle".
Using my theoretical weight distribution, when you subtract the payload over each axle from the gvwr, I came up with the vehicle weight being 2174 front and 1654 rear… which is an unloaded weight distribution of 56.8% front and 43.2% rear.
In other words… the maximum loaded weight distribution would be closer to 50/50 than the unloaded weight distribution, due to more of the payload being towards the rear of the vehicle.
When Mazda came up with the vehicle's gvwr, I have no idea how much was attributed to passengers, and how much was attributed to "luggage" in the cargo area.
If my numbers and theory is flawed, feel free to point it out.

 

[N7turbo]

If the car can carry about 1,000 pounds, I would think more weight would be placed towards the rear to fully load the vehicle… also considering the cargo area is so far rearward. Not 500 pounds over the front and 500 pounds over the rear. In other words, to properly load the vehicle to maximum, you might add only 350 pounds to the front "axle" and 650 pounds to the rear "axle".
Using my theoretical weight distribution, when you subtract the payload over each axle from the gvwr, I came up with the vehicle weight being 2174 front and 1654 rear… which is an unloaded weight distribution of 56.8% front and 43.2% rear.
In other words… the maximum loaded weight distribution would be closer to 50/50 than the unloaded weight distribution, due to more of the payload being towards the rear of the vehicle.
When Mazda came up with the vehicle's gvwr, I have no idea how much was attributed to passengers, and how much was attributed to "luggage" in the cargo area.
If my numbers and theory is flawed, feel free to point it out.

It's a nice thought, or it could be simply using numbers based on being loaded evenly, we don't know. I'm trying to find more information.

I did find one comment noting that the Miata is nearly 50:50 and the CX-5 can't be otherwise why doesn't it handle like one!? What a preposterous example. Not only does the Miata have a double wishbone front suspension and is just lighter, period, the CX-5 has a whole lot more car over the rear than the Miata does! I know, I have both. I have to be careful taking turns in the rain in the Miata--I've found myself sideways through intersections twice because there is so little weight over the rear tires.

 

[Lazy2.5]

If the car can carry about 1,000 pounds, I would think more weight would be placed towards the rear to fully load the vehicle… also considering the cargo area is so far rearward. Not 500 pounds over the front and 500 pounds over the rear. In other words, to properly load the vehicle to maximum, you might add only 350 pounds to the front "axle" and 650 pounds to the rear "axle".
Using my theoretical weight distribution, when you subtract the payload over each axle from the gvwr, I came up with the vehicle weight being 2174 front and 1654 rear… which is an unloaded weight distribution of 56.8% front and 43.2% rear.
In other words… the maximum loaded weight distribution would be closer to 50/50 than the unloaded weight distribution, due to more of the payload being towards the rear of the vehicle.
When Mazda came up with the vehicle's gvwr, I have no idea how much was attributed to passengers, and how much was attributed to "luggage" in the cargo area.
If my numbers and theory is flawed, feel free to point it out.

You are absolutely correct in your thinking. Hence which is why if you bring up the global owners manual, Mazda suggests like 42psi in the rear tires for a full load to account for the fact that, most passenger/cargo weight will be situated at or towards the rear axle.


Nonetheless, weight distribution of the vehicles curb weight doesn't mean much. No one considers side to side weight distribution, which also affects handling.

However, none of that matters as much once you are in the car, especially if you have passengers and cargo, because the rear axle gets loaded and stabilizes with weight, as we have seen.

I really don't want to continue derailing this topic, so I'm switching back to OP's original question. You guys do as you please (Though I'll probably get roped back into continuing with y'all, lmao)

When I test drove that CX-5 turbo, I obviously pushed it through it's paces through some turns and found that the weight distribution (With only me in the car, approx. 215lb) Felt more balanced than my 6, though obviously not at 50/50. However, the vehicle's balance sort of "improved" in real-time whenever I felt the AWD system decide to shove power to the rear suddenly. That also plays a role in how balanced the vehicle "feels," and leads to the very essence of this thread's question - How likely is that to cause oversteer in slippery conditions?

While I did answer this in my second post on here, I also forgot to mention that the CX-5 is a FWD-based car. The AWD system defaults to FWD. The suspension geometry and alignment, while capable, is designed to default to understeer for safety. It is a safe and boring-handling car for the average driver.

 

[N7turbo]

While I did answer this in my second post on here, I also forgot to mention that the CX-5 is a FWD-based car. The AWD system defaults to FWD. The suspension geometry and alignment, while capable, is designed to default to understeer for safety.

Correct. You really do need to be on the gas through turns, even a little, to get a balanced feel. Otherwise it will understeer. But that is how it's done in racing anyway, so if you already know proper turning technique, this is natural to you.

 

[Lazy2.5]

Correct. You really do need to be on the gas through turns, even a little, to get a balanced feel. Otherwise it will understeer. But that is how it's done in racing anyway, so if you already know proper turning technique, this is natural to you.

Well, it depends on which part of the corner you're talking about, how fast you're going, how much grip you have, but generally speaking, yes, it will help to balance out the chassis.

 

[N7turbo]

When racing, all braking is done well before the apex of the corner, and from mid-corner onward you are on-throttle.

I realize we aren't talking about racing on city streets, before anyone chimes on regarding that. But this is just the physics of the matter.

But it's also safer. Braking while turning is inherently unsafe.