356 of the 4,699 complaints filed about the Acura MDX are about the driver-assist systems — 100% of everything owners reported. The worst model year for it is 2020.
356
Complaints
100%
Share of all complaints
5
Crashes
1
Fires
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL
The vehicle was being driven and the dashboard was lit up with all the systems in error related to ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control)
NHTSA complaint #11764124 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING
The vehicle was being driven and the dashboard was lit up with all the systems in error related to ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control)
NHTSA complaint #11764124 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: ASSIST
The vehicle was being driven and the dashboard was lit up with all the systems in error related to ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control)
NHTSA complaint #11764124 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: WARNINGS
LKAS, forward collision, high beam all alerts are going off and have been told it's a camera system that gets over heated. This is not a easy fix and needs to be recalled to clear up the codes and alerts.
NHTSA complaint #11763916 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: WARNING
LKAS, forward collision, high beam all alerts are going off and have been told it's a camera system that gets over heated. This is not a easy fix and needs to be recalled to clear up the codes and alerts.
NHTSA complaint #11763916 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: ASSIST
LKAS, forward collision, high beam all alerts are going off and have been told it's a camera system that gets over heated. This is not a easy fix and needs to be recalled to clear up the codes and alerts.
NHTSA complaint #11763916 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: BLIND SPOT DETECTION
Blind spot warning system stops working when the it is hot outside or inside of the vehicle
NHTSA complaint #11762463 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: WARNINGS
Was exiting I275 onto Westbound Route 32 when the brakes were unexpectedly applied by the vehicle’s safety system. No vehicles were in front or beside me. Very alarming when it happened. This also happed two other times at slower speeds.
NHTSA complaint #11762170 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING
Was exiting I275 onto Westbound Route 32 when the brakes were unexpectedly applied by the vehicle’s safety system. No vehicles were in front or beside me. Very alarming when it happened. This also happed two other times at slower speeds.
NHTSA complaint #11762170 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING
The contact owns a 2024 Acura MDX. The contact stated that while driving approximately 20 MPH and driving over construction steel plates on the roadway, the brakes independently engaged while the accelerator pedal was depressed. The contact stated that the failure could have caused a rear-end crash while driving at faster speeds with other vehicles nearby and posed a risk to her 1-year-old child seated the car seat in the second-row rear seats. The BRAKE warning light was illuminated. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure by telephone. The failure mileage was approximately 21,642.
NHTSA complaint #11761883 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: ASSIST
Multiple errors Lane departure and advanced driver support, ACC LKAS, auto high beam, and braking system. Looking into this more i see lots of people with the same issue failing front facing camera and not a cheap fix. Is there any current investigations into this problem or a software upgrade? I clear the errors and they come back once car is turned off and back on. If no fix to the current system there should be a way to disable LKAS and ACC without spending $2000 to replace the system.
NHTSA complaint #11759085 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL
The forward facing camera or monocular attached to the windshield has malfunctioned and is a wide spread issue across multiple models and years. When this item fails due to high heat which causes the camera (CMOS Image sensor) to degrade, the owner is given a slew of warnings and loses a lot of functionality. The dealership quotes an enormous amount of money to replace/calibrate the camera typically between $1500-2500 depending on location. Functionality that is lost includes cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, lane keeping assistance and most importantly adaptive braking. There are also numerous dash lights and repetitive warnings that pop up for each bit of functionality that is broken. So while driving the user will see changing text and hear beeps to inform the driver of these deactivated features which is a major distraction and takes away from the drivers concentration on safe driving. Looking online this issue has been reported by drivers of multiple models and years of both Honda and Acura which means it is wide spread and should be classified as a recall. Just some of the models mentioned are Acura MDX, RDX, TLX, Honda Civic, Accord, CR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey and potentially others. There is no reason that a camera should fail across all these models spanning over a decade at such high numbers outside of an engineering failure that Honda does not want fork out money for to keep their drivers safe. A couple example part numbers would be 36160-TYS-A02-M1 and 36160-TJB-A040-M1.
NHTSA complaint #11757951 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: WARNING
The forward facing camera or monocular attached to the windshield has malfunctioned and is a wide spread issue across multiple models and years. When this item fails due to high heat which causes the camera (CMOS Image sensor) to degrade, the owner is given a slew of warnings and loses a lot of functionality. The dealership quotes an enormous amount of money to replace/calibrate the camera typically between $1500-2500 depending on location. Functionality that is lost includes cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, lane keeping assistance and most importantly adaptive braking. There are also numerous dash lights and repetitive warnings that pop up for each bit of functionality that is broken. So while driving the user will see changing text and hear beeps to inform the driver of these deactivated features which is a major distraction and takes away from the drivers concentration on safe driving. Looking online this issue has been reported by drivers of multiple models and years of both Honda and Acura which means it is wide spread and should be classified as a recall. Just some of the models mentioned are Acura MDX, RDX, TLX, Honda Civic, Accord, CR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey and potentially others. There is no reason that a camera should fail across all these models spanning over a decade at such high numbers outside of an engineering failure that Honda does not want fork out money for to keep their drivers safe. A couple example part numbers would be 36160-TYS-A02-M1 and 36160-TJB-A040-M1.
NHTSA complaint #11757951 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: ASSIST
The forward facing camera or monocular attached to the windshield has malfunctioned and is a wide spread issue across multiple models and years. When this item fails due to high heat which causes the camera (CMOS Image sensor) to degrade, the owner is given a slew of warnings and loses a lot of functionality. The dealership quotes an enormous amount of money to replace/calibrate the camera typically between $1500-2500 depending on location. Functionality that is lost includes cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, lane keeping assistance and most importantly adaptive braking. There are also numerous dash lights and repetitive warnings that pop up for each bit of functionality that is broken. So while driving the user will see changing text and hear beeps to inform the driver of these deactivated features which is a major distraction and takes away from the drivers concentration on safe driving. Looking online this issue has been reported by drivers of multiple models and years of both Honda and Acura which means it is wide spread and should be classified as a recall. Just some of the models mentioned are Acura MDX, RDX, TLX, Honda Civic, Accord, CR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey and potentially others. There is no reason that a camera should fail across all these models spanning over a decade at such high numbers outside of an engineering failure that Honda does not want fork out money for to keep their drivers safe. A couple example part numbers would be 36160-TYS-A02-M1 and 36160-TJB-A040-M1.
NHTSA complaint #11757951 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: WARNINGS
Hello! I am writing to report an urgent and serious safety failure involving my 2025 Acura MDX A-Spec and to request immediate investigation and action. The vehicle’s driver-assist systems - specifically the lane departure warning and forward collision warning - failed to operate. In addition, both the steering wheel and the accelerator became stuck, causing my vehicle to collide head‑on with oncoming traffic. These failures placed my life and the lives of others in immediate danger. I previously opened a case with Acura Contact and Client Relations (Case #16550271). To investigate my vehicle failures that caused this major accident, the response I received was inadequate and deeply concerning. During my conversation with Acura representatives, I was told verbally without any willingness to provide this statement in writing that Acura “has nothing to do with inspecting their own car.” Instead, I was instructed to have my vehicle inspected by my insurance company, despite the fact that they are not certified to evaluate Acura safety systems and do not possess the diagnostic equipment required to assess failures of this nature. Given the severity of the malfunction and the resulting collision, I am requesting that Acura immediately arrange a proper inspection by qualified Acura technicians and provide a written explanation of how such critical safety and control systems could fail simultaneously.
NHTSA complaint #11757146 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: WARNINGS
While driving on a residential street under normal daylight conditions, the forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking system failed without warning. A dashboard message appeared instructing me to clean the windshield and stating that collision avoidance services were unavailable. The windshield was clean and unobstructed. There was no precipitation, glare, or debris. The failure occurred while the vehicle was in motion. I had no indication of whether the vehicle was safe to continue driving or whether I should stop immediately, and no way to know whether the fault was limited to the camera or whether other systems were affected. There was no prior warning, no gradual degradation, and no fault indication before this event. I purchased this vehicle in part for its advanced driver assistance systems and rely on forward collision prevention in daily driving. That protection is now unavailable, and I am driving without a crash avoidance system I was sold and expected to have. I took the vehicle to an authorized dealer for diagnosis. The dealer determined that the forward facing camera module must be replaced and recalibrated, and quoted $2,700. No recall or technical service bulletin was identified. I believe this constitutes a safety defect. A primary crash avoidance system failed spontaneously under normal operating conditions on a vehicle marketed on its safety technology. The repair cost is also high enough that many owners will defer or decline it, leaving vehicles on public roads with disabled collision avoidance. I request that NHTSA investigate the failure rate of this camera module and consider a safety recall.
NHTSA complaint #11756689 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: WARNING
While driving on a residential street under normal daylight conditions, the forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking system failed without warning. A dashboard message appeared instructing me to clean the windshield and stating that collision avoidance services were unavailable. The windshield was clean and unobstructed. There was no precipitation, glare, or debris. The failure occurred while the vehicle was in motion. I had no indication of whether the vehicle was safe to continue driving or whether I should stop immediately, and no way to know whether the fault was limited to the camera or whether other systems were affected. There was no prior warning, no gradual degradation, and no fault indication before this event. I purchased this vehicle in part for its advanced driver assistance systems and rely on forward collision prevention in daily driving. That protection is now unavailable, and I am driving without a crash avoidance system I was sold and expected to have. I took the vehicle to an authorized dealer for diagnosis. The dealer determined that the forward facing camera module must be replaced and recalibrated, and quoted $2,700. No recall or technical service bulletin was identified. I believe this constitutes a safety defect. A primary crash avoidance system failed spontaneously under normal operating conditions on a vehicle marketed on its safety technology. The repair cost is also high enough that many owners will defer or decline it, leaving vehicles on public roads with disabled collision avoidance. I request that NHTSA investigate the failure rate of this camera module and consider a safety recall.
NHTSA complaint #11756689 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
BACK OVER PREVENTION: WARNINGS
While driving on a residential street under normal daylight conditions, the forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking system failed without warning. A dashboard message appeared instructing me to clean the windshield and stating that collision avoidance services were unavailable. The windshield was clean and unobstructed. There was no precipitation, glare, or debris. The failure occurred while the vehicle was in motion. I had no indication of whether the vehicle was safe to continue driving or whether I should stop immediately, and no way to know whether the fault was limited to the camera or whether other systems were affected. There was no prior warning, no gradual degradation, and no fault indication before this event. I purchased this vehicle in part for its advanced driver assistance systems and rely on forward collision prevention in daily driving. That protection is now unavailable, and I am driving without a crash avoidance system I was sold and expected to have. I took the vehicle to an authorized dealer for diagnosis. The dealer determined that the forward facing camera module must be replaced and recalibrated, and quoted $2,700. No recall or technical service bulletin was identified. I believe this constitutes a safety defect. A primary crash avoidance system failed spontaneously under normal operating conditions on a vehicle marketed on its safety technology. The repair cost is also high enough that many owners will defer or decline it, leaving vehicles on public roads with disabled collision avoidance. I request that NHTSA investigate the failure rate of this camera module and consider a safety recall.
NHTSA complaint #11756689 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
LANE DEPARTURE: WARNING
The car has started with an auto high beam, lane assist, lane departure, crash mitigation, adaptive cruise lights coming on one after the other noting there are issues with the systems and they are disabled. Code is U3000 using a scanner noting Multipurpose Camera Unit Internal Electronic Failure. Sometimes the code will clear, and sometimes not. If it clears an entire drive cycle may be completed just fine, sometimes it pops back up before even moving the car and sometimes during the drive. This is a safety concern as these systems not working or stopping working mid drive and affect safety. The repair for this is not clear and a failure of a safety system should not be occurring on cars without an inmediate and covered fix. The average car on the road is over 12 years old so this failure is occurring on cars well newer than the average car and compromising safety of the driver and surrounding cars especially features intended to prevent crashes that drivers rely heavily on. The fact it can stop working mid drive is a huge hazard since one may be relying on a system and it suddenly fails (like adaptive cruise control) and cause a crash. Please investigate his widespread issue and please fix it.
NHTSA complaint #11755732 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL
The car has started with an auto high beam, lane assist, lane departure, crash mitigation, adaptive cruise lights coming on one after the other noting there are issues with the systems and they are disabled. Code is U3000 using a scanner noting Multipurpose Camera Unit Internal Electronic Failure. Sometimes the code will clear, and sometimes not. If it clears an entire drive cycle may be completed just fine, sometimes it pops back up before even moving the car and sometimes during the drive. This is a safety concern as these systems not working or stopping working mid drive and affect safety. The repair for this is not clear and a failure of a safety system should not be occurring on cars without an inmediate and covered fix. The average car on the road is over 12 years old so this failure is occurring on cars well newer than the average car and compromising safety of the driver and surrounding cars especially features intended to prevent crashes that drivers rely heavily on. The fact it can stop working mid drive is a huge hazard since one may be relying on a system and it suddenly fails (like adaptive cruise control) and cause a crash. Please investigate his widespread issue and please fix it.
NHTSA complaint #11755732 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.