Mazda radar cruise control with stop and go

Mine does not work most of the time. I'll get to the speed I want and press set, but nothing happens. It'll work great for about a week and then nothing. Most of the time I have to use standard CC.
 
Mine does not work most of the time. I'll get to the speed I want and press set, but nothing happens. It'll work great for about a week and then nothing. Most of the time I have to use standard CC.

That stinks. I use mine all the time and never had an issue...not once

But having moved from Vienna in 2010 (after 45+ years in that mess), I gotta wonder exactly when you even get to use your cruise control up there. You know you gotta be going faster than 16 mpg to use it, right? ;)
 
I love it. It's a godsend when it takes me 45 minutes to get through the Holland Tunnel on my way out of NYC. Just sit back and steer.

MRCC is one of those things that I would never have paid for separately, but now that I have it, I love it. I use it all the time to maintain my distance if there's someone ahead of me.
 
MRCC or similar was a requirement when I was shopping for a vehicle.

Adaptive cruise control is to regular cruise control as regular cruise control is to driving without cruise control.

It makes my daily commute in traffic tolerable.
 
Is there an actual distance in metres/yards for each setting of the MRCC. I've loved the feature ever since I had it in my Jaguar XFR but would like to know the actual physical distance each of the four settings puts the car at. I can't find it in my owner's manual anywhere.

My manual has the specs on page 4-149.

At 50 MPH:
Long= === ====164 feet (2.24 seconds of travel/10.9 CX-5 lengths)
Medium=======131 feet (1.79 seconds of travel/8.7 CX-5 lengths)
Short=== ======98 feet (1.34 seconds of travel/6.5 CX-5 lengths)
Extremely short===82 feet (1.12 seconds of travel/5.5 CX-5 lengths)

The current Safe Distance Rule is to follow no closer than 2 seconds to travel the distance between the cars, preferably 3.

The old standard was one car length (20 feet) per 10 MPH, which is 5 car lengths @ 50 MPH.

At 50 MPH, 2 seconds of travel = 147 feet
At 50 MPH, 3 seconds of travel = 220 feet
At 50 MPH, the old standard= ==100 feet (At 15 foot length for the CX-5, this would be 75 feet)

Looks like Mazda is using the old standard. Kinda surprising for how "nanny-intensive" other stuff is.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, there's a reality factor that needs to be considered when setting the follow distance on Smart CC. I find that with any setting longer than Short, other drivers are constantly pulling in front of me, causing constant braking and inconsistent speed.

In the extremely short setting, I need to jump in and manually brake more often than I'd prefer. In the Short setting, I rarely have to manually brake, but it does happen. In the medium or long settings, I feel like drivers behind me feel I'm driving too slow and they have the need to pass me on the right and cut in.

My manual has the specs on page 4-149.

At 50 MPH:
Long= === ====164 feet (2.24 seconds of travel/10.9 CX-5 lengths)
Medium=======131 feet (1.79 seconds of travel/8.7 CX-5 lengths)
Short=== ======98 feet (1.34 seconds of travel/6.5 CX-5 lengths)
Extremely short===82 feet (1.12 seconds of travel/5.5 CX-5 lengths)

The current Safe Distance Rule is to follow no closer than 2 seconds to travel the distance between the cars, preferably 3.

The old standard was one car length (20 feet) per 10 MPH, which is 5 car lengths @ 50 MPH.

At 50 MPH, 2 seconds of travel = 147 feet
At 50 MPH, 3 seconds of travel = 220 feet
At 50 MPH, the old standard= ==100 feet (At 15 foot length for the CX-5, this would be 75 feet)

Looks like Mazda is using the old standard. Kinda surprising for how "nanny-intensive" other stuff is.
 
I found out that you will get a warning in the instrument cluster that the radar is NOT working because of Heavy FOG.

And very heavy sustained rain (verified)...and snow (verified)...and ice (verified)....and slush (verified)....and every other weather phenomenon known to man other than a clear, dry day. All the times when you'd want the damn thing to work because you NEED these so-called 'driver assist' features. (dunno) Waste of money for limited use and low reliability.

Autonomous vehicles? Yeah, be afraid, be very afraid.
 
Unfortunately, there's a reality factor that needs to be considered when setting the follow distance on Smart CC. I find that with any setting longer than Short, other drivers are constantly pulling in front of me, causing constant braking and inconsistent speed.

In the extremely short setting, I need to jump in and manually brake more often than I'd prefer. In the Short setting, I rarely have to manually brake, but it does happen. In the medium or long settings, I feel like drivers behind me feel I'm driving too slow and they have the need to pass me on the right and cut in.

I agree with that. I've mentioned before that I lived outside of DC for 47 years and moved to my current rural location 9 years ago. They are as end-of-the-spectrum as one can possibly get regarding traffic conditions.

As I read (and engage in) conversations about some of these features, I'm fully conscious that the features I love while driving here would never get used in congested Northern Virginia. I'm equally certain that Smart City Braking would be much more beneficial in Northern Virginia than the country, where I drive 16 miles to my bank and only encounter 2 stop signs and maybe 6 cars on the way (and those 6 cars are only at the last leg of the trip when I hit our version of civilization). I use Smart CC all the time.

Regarding following distance in city driving: You're right. You can't have any. If you leave any sort of daylight between you and the guy in front of you, you'll be driving backwards because of all the cars that cut in. I recently gave a friend a ride from here to an airport back north. I was a freely-cursing white-knuckle bumper-hugging ball of angst until I got on the road back home.
 
Last edited:
Back