Question about how the AWD system actually functions

[CodyZoom]

Hello all!

I'm brand new to the thread but have already checked out many of the posts on the site and have found it very informative. I pick up my CX-5 in about 8-10 days and can't wait! My question is about the AWD system. I understand that all sorts of cars that claim AWD, Intelligent 4 wheel drive, systematic AWD, or whatever they think will sound catchy will differ from one another. Subaru has many different actual AWD systems on there vehicles depending on the model and the transmission. I know Honda just changed their's for the 2012 CR-V - it now uses all 4 wheels to power the vehicle up to 18 mph (if I remember correctly) then the back wheels lose power, instead of sending power to the rear wheels after the computer senses tire spin.

Can anyone explain the system on the CX-5? Are US, Canadian and European specs all the same system? Thanks to everyone for sharing, this seems like a great group.

 

[inodes]

As far as I know, the system is an update of the ATS (Active Torque System) found on the CX-7 and CX-9.
The following video is from Mazda Australia explaining the basic concepts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRfimXH6oY

It seems to err on sending torque to front when cruising for fuel economy. But can send as much as 50% back to the rear when required.
Pretty typical. Can't see any information that would suggest it differs from competitor systems. Although Subaru's symmetric always gets excellent write ups.

 

[inodes]

As far as I know, the system is an update of the ATS (Active Torque System) found on the CX-7 and CX-9.
The following video is from Mazda Australia explaining the basic concepts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRfimXH6oY

It seems to err on sending torque to front when cruising for fuel economy. But can send as much as 50% back to the rear when required.
Pretty typical. Can't see any information that would suggest it differs from competitor systems. Although Subaru's symmetric always gets excellent write ups.

Also see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_b06FYls1g

 

[JTNY]

On a somewhat similar note, before deciding on wanting to buy a AWD CX-5 I had considered the '12 Imprezz wagon which claimed 36MPG (highway) on a AWD CVT-based tranny. After some reviews by folks on the subaru forum, the MPG rating dropped considerably when using the car in the city (folks were avg. 18-20 mpg) and only if you do straight 100% highway would you even come close to the advertised 36mpg highway rating.

Anyway , I'm guessing the symmetrical awd system no the subbie + CVT transmission makes for vary wide ranges in MPG.

 

[inodes]

On a somewhat similar note, before deciding on wanting to buy a AWD CX-5 I had considered the '12 Imprezz wagon which claimed 36MPG (highway) on a AWD CVT-based tranny. After some reviews by folks on the subaru forum, the MPG rating dropped considerably when using the car in the city (folks were avg. 18-20 mpg) and only if you do straight 100% highway would you even come close to the advertised 36mpg highway rating.

Anyway , I'm guessing the symmetrical awd system no the subbie + CVT transmission makes for vary wide ranges in MPG.

Considered the Subaru XV?

The Subaru XV has been out a while now, so it was the first "CUV" that most of the motoring magazines did comparisons between.

It's fairly comparable to the CX-5. Media comparisons here though have given the head to head between the two to the CX-5, mainly because its driving dynamics are far superior to the Subaru's, the fuel economy is better and it has more useable space. The transmission on the CX-5 was highly regarded compared to the Subaru CVT.
The media said the Subaru's enthusiasm is blunted by the CVT and it makes for a very boring ride.
The Subaru's strong point (the media concluded) was it's looks. In my opinion, that's where it fails. The Subaru's seem to be hit by the ugly stick.

 

[Modshack]

The media said the Subaru's enthusiasm is blunted by the CVT and it makes for a very boring ride.

Friends don't let friends drive CVT's....

 

[inodes]

Friends don't let friends drive CVT's....

I don't think I have driven one. I have however driven a lot of DSG's and standard autos.
I've been a manual driver for the majority of my driving life (about 99.9% of driving done on manual).

Hated standard automatics with a passion. The DSG has allowed for great acceleration although in the first couple of gears, it's easy to annoy the passenger with jerky take off.
I think the auto in the CX-5 was a brilliant balance. It seems to be very smooth with gear change, but not as lazy as a standard auto.
Only complaint is that it changes up gears far too quickly (probably to get better fuel economy).

 

[Kornik]

As far as I know, the system is an update of the ATS (Active Torque System) found on the CX-7 and CX-9.
The following video is from Mazda Australia explaining the basic concepts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRfimXH6oY

It seems to err on sending torque to front when cruising for fuel economy. But can send as much as 50% back to the rear when required.
Pretty typical. Can't see any information that would suggest it differs from competitor systems. Although Subaru's symmetric always gets excellent write ups.

Subaru's system is not symmetric, it's symmetrical. That makes huge difference. Subaru's PR people know that most won't know the difference and will call it symmetric while in fact symmetrical is nothing more than fancy word for AWD. Unless you buy STi with fancy electronics in differentials you get nothing more than regular AWD in Subaru. Good driving habits come from other things there (good suspension, low mass center etc) not from fancy drivetrain.

 

[inodes]

Subaru's system is not symmetric, it's symmetrical. That makes huge difference.

An object could be referred to as being symmetric or symmetrical. Just a variance in how the word is used.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symmetrical

So it's a symmetric equation for example - rather than a symmetrical equation.
And you're absolutely correct Kornik; it's Subaru's symmetrical AWD system - rather than symmetric.

Subaru uses in in their trademark, so sales people should stick to "symmetrical" to avoid confusion.
But as I'm not a sales person, and just referring to it plainly - I guess you can let me off by taking it to mean the same thing

Bottom line at the end of the day is lining everything up nicely to balance torque distribution, avoiding any nasty torque steer.

 

[Kornik]

An object could be referred to as being symmetric or symmetrical. Just a variance in how the word is used.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symmetrical

So it's a symmetric equation for example - rather than a symmetrical equation.
And you're absolutely correct Kornik; it's Subaru's symmetrical AWD system - rather than symmetric.

Subaru uses in in their trademark, so sales people should stick to "symmetrical" to avoid confusion.
But as I'm not a sales person, and just referring to it plainly - I guess you can let me off by taking it to mean the same thing

But it's not. I've heard it explained by Subaru's guy this way:
1. Symmetric = equal distribution (50:50)
2. Symmetrical = at the same time (read definition 5 in your dictionary link)

Subaru used symmetrical to describe system that transfers (some) power to both axles all the time. Which means nothing more than regular AWD. But it's great marketing hype because Subaru fan boys have something to talk about. They (PR people) know that 99% of the time drivers won't be able to tell the difference anyway, but they need to seel the cars somehow anyway.

On the other hand Mazda's system with magnetic clutch and LSD seems to be quite a clever solution.

 

[inodes]

But it's not. I've heard it explained by Subaru's guy this way:
1. Symmetric = equal distribution (50:50)
2. Symmetrical = at the same time (read definition 5 in your dictionary link)

Subaru used symmetrical to describe system that transfers (some) power to both axles all the time. Which means nothing more than regular AWD. But it's great marketing hype because Subaru fan boys have something to talk about. They (PR people) know that 99% of the time drivers won't be able to tell the difference anyway, but they need to seel the cars somehow anyway.

On the other hand Mazda's system with magnetic clutch and LSD seems to be quite a clever solution.

My dictionary reference was for the purposes of pointing out that symmetric, symmetry and symmetrical are all one and the same.
I can say "I'm going to go running", or "I'm going to go for a run". It's all semantics.


Completely understand where you're coming from. And I'm not a Subaru fanboy. But you missed Subaru's main argument.
They don't focus on symmetry being 50:50 - it's more about left:right than front:back.

Why? It's their claim to reduced torque steer. Whereas there are some AWD systems out there (Toyota... listen up), than are not symmetrical left:right.
But it's not unique to Subaru. This is where the fanboy's need to read a little more and get off their soapboxes.

But in systems where there is asymmetry in the layout left:right, it's usually because the driveshafts are of different lengths to cater for the transmission (which may not be centrally mounted). If excess torque is applied, the long half shaft bends more than the opposing side leading to torque steer.

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what the schematics of the Mazda system are. Hence, judgement is reserved.
But I do know it felt nice, and I've no need for an AWD system until I ski each year and not have to worry about packing chains

 

[BRIAN_MP5T]

Holy Crap... You Nerds need to get a room...

 

[inodes]

Holy Crap... You Nerds need to get a room...

Thanks Brian. And this is when I am at home not working.
You should see me when I get seriously nerdy on the job

...or not.

 

[BRIAN_MP5T]

Lol

 

[Vision67]

On a somewhat similar note, before deciding on wanting to buy a AWD CX-5 I had considered the '12 Imprezz wagon which claimed 36MPG (highway) on a AWD CVT-based tranny. After some reviews by folks on the subaru forum, the MPG rating dropped considerably when using the car in the city (folks were avg. 18-20 mpg) and only if you do straight 100% highway would you even come close to the advertised 36mpg highway rating.

Anyway , I'm guessing the symmetrical awd system no the subbie + CVT transmission makes for vary wide ranges in MPG.

I too was considering a '12 Subaru Impreza hatch but after reading a long thread on the Impreza forum I concluded the real world mileage would be about 21 mpg in the city. That's not good enough. Also, the AWD system from Subaru adds about 200 lbs and if you don't need AWD, why pay for it?

The Impreza does not use direct injection like the MX-5. That technology delivers about a 10% improvement in mileage. Of course, there is the additional cost of a high pressure fuel pump, but with gas prices rising with no end in sight, every bit of efficiency helps.

I think I'll buy an MX-5 this summer.

 

[hooked]

I checked out the '12 Impreza hatch as well and I really liked it but the cargo bay was just too small to fit my 50lb dog comfortably. The CX-5 rear is larger but the steep angle of the hatch will make it less comfortable for the pooch but it's good enough.

Now hearing the reports of real world mileage, there's no regrets.

 

[inodes]

I think I'll buy an MX-5 this summer.

CX-5 right?

The Impreza looks neat, conservative. Not a bad vehicle on the surface.
Reviews so far in Australia though that have compared the XV (which is just the crossover version of the Impreza) say the CX-5 is a far superior drive.

 

[Vision67]

CX-5 right?

The Impreza looks neat, conservative. Not a bad vehicle on the surface.
Reviews so far in Australia though that have compared the XV (which is just the crossover version of the Impreza) say the CX-5 is a far superior drive.

Oops. Got my Ms and Cs mixed. CX-5 it is. Although an MX-5 would also be nice...

 

[inodes]

duplicated.... DELETE

 

[inodes]

Although an MX-5 would also be nice...

Too right! The MX-5 drives extremely well (although I don't fit).

But anyone in the market for a CX-5 found purchasing an MX-5 instead, would promptly have to sleep on the street, because the Mrs would tell them they're not welcome into the house.