The Future of the CX-5 - Strategic?

[Jack Rabbit]

Search my post history and you should find them.

Here are some quotes I previously pulled from the articles...
- Our all-wheel-drive CX-5 Grand Touring test car carried an extra 141 pounds of mass compared with the front-wheel-drive CX-5 Grand Touring we recently tested.
- Despite increased launch traction, the heftier AWD model’s straight-line performance fell behind its lighter FWD kin.
- This CX-5 taking 8.1 seconds to go from zero to 60 mph, 0.3 second longer than the front-drive model.
- A bigger disappointment was the all-wheel-drive CX-5’s 70-mph-to-zero stopping distance of 182 feet—five feet longer than its front-wheel-drive counterpart.

Their instrumented testing showed the FWD version was...
- Faster in a straight line (0-60, 0-100, 5-60, 30-50, 50-70, 1/4 mile)
- Shorter braking distances (70-0 MPH)
- Identical roadholding (skidpad)
- Better gas mileage
- Lighter

Thanks but will take your word for it. Too lazy to search posts for a mere 0.3 second launch speed. This isn't a Vette(substitute other race car here). And once finished, I bet my slimmed down cx5 could outpace a fwd any day even if by a mere 0.3 seconds.

 

[bluegrass]

Thanks but will take your word for it. Too lazy to search posts for a mere 0.3 second launch speed. This isn't a Vette(substitute other race car here). And once finished, I bet my slimmed down cx5 could outpace a fwd any day even if by a mere 0.3 seconds.

The point was that the AWD version is not "a better vehicle in every way" as someone claimed.
It appears you now agree with me.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

The point was that the AWD version is not "a better vehicle in every way" as someone claimed.
It appears you now agree with me.

Hmmm...looking at car and driver spec sheets, the AWD beats the FWD by 0.1 second... likewise the specs from "Zero to 60" show the same difference of 0.1 second in favor of the AWD. Braking however is a win for the FWD by 2 feet, 175 feet versus 177 feet(I'm assuming however that the braking distance was tested dry, which I never disputed)

 

[HardRightEdg]

Warm climate drivers who buy FWDs to save a grand and little MPG would be concentrated in low trims. There's not much money to made on those anyway. Selling an extra $20 per month for AWD can't be hard with many of those buyers. Loyal Mazda owners might find CX-30 attractive if a little money is that important.

Warm weather drivers who buy FWDs for perceived superior performance and handling--real or imagined, no matter--would be concentrated in more expensive turbo versions. Mazda plans to scratch that itch with the V6 RWD. More expensive than a top of the line CX-5? Gotta be. But the itch is there for those who want the next level driver's SUV. Many people who are spending $40,000 already can afford to move up and Mazda will be happy to upsell.

If the reviews are good and the price not too high, they'll add some sport oriented buyers with the RWD V6 who are new to Mazda just like CX-5 does now at a lower price point. I'll betcha the total pre-pandemic sales of turbo versions, AWD and FWD, will be equaled or exceeded by CX-5 turbos plus the RWD V6 once production is up to meet demand. That's assuming there isn't another pandemic or a recession when the time comes.

Something like that. As always, keep in mind people posting here are not representative of the average buyer.

 

[HardRightEdg]

Hmmm...looking at car and driver spec sheets, the AWD beats the FWD by 0.1 second... likewise the specs from "Zero to 60" show the same difference of 0.1 second in favor of the AWD. Braking however is a win for the FWD by 2 feet, 175 feet versus 177 feet(I'm assuming however that the braking distance was tested dry, which I never disputed)

Lets get real. Who drag races a 187 hp. 2.5L anyway. Otherwise, a couple 10th. of second to 60 is imperceptible even in spirted driving. Blink your eyes as fast as you can and that's about 1/10. 2 ft. in braking? Imperceptible. If it's about anything, it should be the savings with FWD, purchase price and gas.

If you're racing your 3.0-to-60 supercar against against a Saudi prince's 2.8 car on a pink slip bet, then you should care. In the end, though, whoever operates launch control the best will win regardless.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

Lets get real. Who drag races a 187 hp. 2.5L anyway. Otherwise, a couple 10th. of second to 60 is imperceptible even in spirted driving. Blink your eyes as fast as you can and that's about 1/10. 2 ft. in braking? Imperceptible. If it's about anything, it should be the savings with FWD, purchase price and gas.

Exactly.

If you're racing your 3.0-to-60 supercar against against a Saudi prince's 2.8 car on a pink slip bet, then you should care. In the end, though, whoever operates launch control the best will win regardless

 

[crayonbreak]

This is wrong.
There are objective, measured testing that shows the FWD version superior to the AWD version...
- Better acceleration
- Shorter braking distance
- Better fuel economy
- Lighter weight
- Lower upfront cost
- Lower complexity/maintenance/repair

1. Prove it.
2. You are quoting C&D. You would know why that's totally useless if you read the magazine often. Unless both cars are tested the exact same time, results are not comparable. A temperature differential of 1 degree can change results, never mind altitude, humidity, barometric pressure, etc. More importantly, these people are professional drivers. They do not drive vehicles like normal people do.
3. Therefor, I can firmly repeat that the all wheel drive version is a better car in every way. I can firmly state that Mazda agrees, as does almost every other car manufacturer and buyer, because that is what is most commonly made and that is what is most commonly purchased. If your driving ability is as good as the professionals at Car and Driver, than you may match their numbers. But the vast majority of people never will and will never even want to think about trying.

 

[murky]

1. Prove it.
2. You are quoting C&D. You would know why that's totally useless if you read the magazine often. Unless both cars are tested the exact same time, results are not comparable. A temperature differential of 1 degree can change results, never mind altitude, humidity, barometric pressure, etc. More importantly, these people are professional drivers. They do not drive vehicles like normal people do.
3. Therefor, I can firmly repeat that the all wheel drive version is a better car in every way. I can firmly state that Mazda agrees, as does almost every other car manufacturer and buyer, because that is what is most commonly made and that is what is most commonly purchased. If your driving ability is as good as the professionals at Car and Driver, than you may match their numbers. But the vast majority of people never will and will never even want to think about trying.

Strange. Bluegrass's assertions about the few advantages that the FWD version has seem uncontroversial. Most of the claims are self evident. It's lighter because it doesn't need additional/heavier components of the AWD. It has the same brakes, and is lighter, why wouldn't it stop shorter and get better mileage?

The weight, cost, and complexity claims are obvious, and in Mazda's specs

The acceleration may have some nuance.

There's a clear case to make that the AWD is better, but obviously not "in every way".

Another obvious advantage of the FWD is that the rear axle is easier to maintain.

P.S. I have AWD and glad of it.

 

[bluegrass]

Strange. Bluegrass's assertions about the few advantages that the FWD version has seem uncontroversial. Most of the claims are self evident.

People are so desperate to validate their personal opinions, that they become incapable of rationally processing basic information.

As you point out, 4 of the 6 disadvantages I cited are indisputable facts...the AWD is heavier, more expensive, worse MPG, and adds complexity.

Even without considering the acceleration/braking tests...any rational, balanced person would conclude that the AWD version is NOT a better vehicle "in every way".

You are quoting C&D. You would know why that's totally useless if you read the magazine often. Unless both cars are tested the exact same time, results are not comparable. A temperature differential of 1 degree can change results, never mind altitude, humidity, barometric pressure, etc. More importantly, these people are professional drivers. They do not drive vehicles like normal people do.

C&D uses a standardized instrumented test procedure and is the cleanest comparison between the two you will find. It showed the AWD version was slower 0-60, 5-60, 30-50, 50-70 MPH and 1/4 mile, while also having longer braking distances, and performing no better on the skid pad.

To debunk some of your concerns...
If you read the linked article, you will see they test in street conditions and account for wind, temperature, altitude and barometric pressure.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a32018270/how-we-test-cars/

 

[Sig cx-5]

...
As you point out, 4 of the 6 disadvantages I cited are indisputable facts...the AWD is heavier, more expensive, worse MPG, and adds complexity.

Even without considering the acceleration/braking tests...any rational, balanced person would conclude that the AWD version is NOT a better vehicle "in every way".
...

Calling those things "disadvantages" is personal. Having an AWD vehicle is not a disadvantage to me, where I live and drive. It's more of a necessity. The difference in fuel economy is only 1mpg. Some will gladly give that up for the ability to get around easier during the winter months. If you live in Florida, that may be a different story. Also, I usually only own vehicles 5 or so years. Of the 7 AWD's I've owned over the years, I have never spent more on maintenance than I would have with a FWD/RWD vehicle.

The reason I started this thread/poll, was to see how many would be jumping ship when they go to buy their replacement vehicle. I did not intend for it to be a debate on the virtues of FWD vs. AWD, but I guess that was inevitable. I feel pretty confident that Bluegrass is driving his las CX-5.

 

[bluegrass]

Calling those things "disadvantages" is personal. Having an AWD vehicle is not a disadvantage to me, where I live and drive. It's more of a necessity. The difference in fuel economy is only 1mpg. Some will gladly give that up for the ability to get around easier during the winter months. If you live in Florida, that may be a different story.

I was responding to someone who claimed..."The all wheel drive CX-5 is a better vehicle in every way."

While your personal use case means the AWD advantages outweigh the disadvantages, it is factually inaccurate to say the AWD is "better in every way".
It would need to be lighter, faster, more fuel efficient and cheaper than the FWD version to fit this description, which is is obviously not.

I feel pretty confident that Bluegrass is driving his las CX-5.

That's actually not the case. I am not anti-AWD. The vehicle my CX-5 replaced was AWD. The other vehicle sitting in my garage now is AWD.

I'm just pushing back on all of the Kool-Aid drinkers who incorrectly push the narrative that AWD is "a better vehicle in every way."

I've owned both and can attest to the fact that AWD has limited benefits in my use case (and for most compact CUV owners).

 

[clownshoes2]

I was responding to someone who claimed..."The all wheel drive CX-5 is a better vehicle in every way."

While your personal use case means the AWD advantages outweigh the disadvantages, it is factually inaccurate to say the AWD is "better in every way".
It would need to be lighter, faster, more fuel efficient and cheaper than the FWD version to fit this description, which is is obviously not.


That's actually not the case. I am not anti-AWD. The vehicle my CX-5 replaced was AWD. The other vehicle sitting in my garage now is AWD.

I'm just pushing back on all of the Kool-Aid drinkers who incorrectly push the narrative that AWD is "a better vehicle in every way."

I've owned both and can attest to the fact that AWD has limited benefits in my use case (and for most compact CUV owners).

You sound like someone desperate to validate their opinion.

 

[Sig cx-5]

I was responding to someone who claimed..."The all wheel drive CX-5 is a better vehicle in every way."

While your personal use case means the AWD advantages outweigh the disadvantages, it is factually inaccurate to say the AWD is "better in every way".
It would need to be lighter, faster, more fuel efficient and cheaper than the FWD version to fit this description, which is is obviously not.
...

Well, the only thing I consider the FWD being better at is that 1 mpg improvement. While I'm sure the ~140lb difference may improve your stopping distance by a few inches, all else being equal, it's not really worth bringing up.

I'm guessing the "better in every way" comment, was more a personal opinion than a fact. It's like saying I have the best wife on the planet! We should get past that now.

 

[HardRightEdg]

I've owned both and can attest to the fact that AWD has limited benefits in my use case (and for most compact CUV owners).

That's a bold assumption. The difference in fuel economy is slight and performance differences are all but imperceptible. On the other hand it is fair to say most North American CUV owners live where it snows. Then throw in some incremental number of warm climate owners who do light off-roading.

 

[sm1ke]

You sound like someone desperate to validate their opinion.

Enough with the bickering. You've both expressed your opinions, and it's clear that you're not going to agree with each other, so for the sake of everyone spectating, the two of you should present some new info/facts to support your case, or agree to disagree and just move on already.

 

[bluegrass]

You sound like someone desperate to validate their opinion.

I'm not expressing an opinion. I'm stating facts...
- Mazda's website validates the fact that the FWD version is lighter, cheaper, and more fuel efficient.
- C&D's testing shows the FWD version is faster and has a shorter stopping distance

Those things may or may not be meaningful to you when picking a vehicle. But it certainly proves that the AWD version is not better "in every way", which was my only point.

 

[bluegrass]

Well, the only thing I consider the FWD being better at is that 1 mpg improvement. While I'm sure the ~140lb difference may improve your stopping distance by a few inches, all else being equal, it's not really worth bringing up.

You can quibble over whether these specific issues are meaningful to YOU, but you can't dismiss them as not actually being advantages...
- The difference in stopping distance was FIVE FEET, not a few inches.
- The FWD version was quicker in all meaningful acceleration tests.
- It costs $1400 less
- It is less complex

 

[Sig cx-5]

You can quibble over whether these specific issues are meaningful to YOU, but you can't dismiss them as not actually being advantages...
- The difference in stopping distance was FIVE FEET, not a few inches.
- The FWD version was quicker in all meaningful acceleration tests.
- It costs $1400 less
- It is less complex

Nothing to quibble about. I did not say it was the gospel. I said "I consider", which is purely based on MY needs and wants.

That 5 feet thing leaves out some variables. 140lbs will not cause you to brake 5 feet further in controlled testing. LOL

 

[Jack Rabbit]

You can quibble over whether these specific issues are meaningful to YOU, but you can't dismiss them as not actually being advantages...
- The difference in stopping distance was FIVE FEET, not a few inches.
- The FWD version was quicker in all meaningful acceleration tests.
- It costs $1400 less
- It is less complex

I've agreed with alot of your points but everything I've seen says the AWD is faster than the FWD by a mere .10 seconds.

O to 60 website shows AWD is faster and c&d only tested one version per year and comparing different years the AWD is faster.

Can not find any head to head C&D tests of the same year. And even if there is then it conflicts with their (C&D's) own individualized yearly testing.

At the very least, we can say the that acceleration is a draw or inconclusive, as well as meaningless whether it be .3 seconds one way or another.

Not speaking for crayonbreak, but you have made your point that the AWD is not better in every way. At the end of the day it's a wash as most of population appears to prefer the advantages of AWD over the advantages of the FWD CX5.

 

[jefferson88]

As someone who does not need AWD, and someone who has no brand loyalty (change is good for you, helps you learn, experience new things, and grow so you can actually contribute useful information on forums like these), I plan to lease another CX-5 when my lease is up in the new year.
The CX-5 is the CUV that works best for my needs. In my opinion, no other product in this class matches its premium feel, good looks, athleticism, and value which is why I got one in the first place. Having AWD on my next one is another convenient feature to have whether I gain anything from it or not.