SpicyMikey

It's a little more risky and I'd need a longer lonely straight road. We don't really have anything like that around here. Also, I'm not sure what that would prove different from what I already did. Do you think the fact that the box was stationary invalidates the test? I considered that so that's the reason I did the van "pretests" first. I wanted to prove how stage 1 reacted. Since Stage 1 reacted the same with the boxes, I'm ready to conclude what followed in the box test would have been consistent as well.

We can all split hairs here. That's what Acura is trying to do with me to wiggle out of this. But, for me, the bottom line is this; the system doesn't work as advertised. Period. Worse still, I paid $4000 for a feature that really won't do much of anything to help me.

sotiri

the box test doesnt do it for me because I think the system didnt really see enough reflection with the foil covered boxes.
I have seen the system react differently with different materials in front of me.
for example, a garbage truck gets me a very different response than a motorcycle.
Steel construction plates on the ground covering the road get me a response many times even when there is no car in front of me.
So, I think if you want to see if the system will react, for me the foil boxes are too 'soft' of a target.
The target that I am describing will also rule out radar issues that the computer isnt detecting, such as alignment or even such as a unique fault in the system where the computer has an issue and its undetectable-because it doesnt know, its not one of the parameters it can understand.

SpicyMikey

I think this is as far as I'm going to take it. I feel I've answered the important questions.

As far as the box being to "soft"; It was faced with alluminum foil and stage 1 reacted the same as the cars in the prior tests. That's also consistent with EVERY other situation I've ever experienced. My system responds the same consistently with cars, trucks, etc. The only thing I've learned is that its more responsive when ACC is turned on and in control. Hey, maybe there's something wrong with your car too! It shouldn't be reacting differently like you describe. It doesn't do that with me.

No, I feel good about my tests. I'm done. Your Honor, the Defense rests.

SpicyMikey

Well, I called my Honda mitigation representative today and told him I made a detailed video of how the car is acting. I told him this would be my evidence in arbitration and he should look at it to see if this now gives my claim credibility. He really didn't seem to know what to say. He didn't sound very interested in watching it until I told him it was on YouTube. Then he got interested and said he'd watch it. I suggested he share it with some engineers who understand the feature. We'll see what happens I expect to be receiving a call from the third party arbitrator this week or next to get this show going.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vrmqB9DnndU

SpicyMikey

Well, I got a call from Honda this morning. They said they reviewed the video and feel the system is performing as designed. I can't say I'm too surprised. It simply supports the theory that they did in fact make intentional changes to the car in 07.

They are in an uncomfortable spot right now and this is probably the smart move for them. Admitting this significant performance change will be bad since it was not communicated to the customer or reflected in the literature. However, acknowledging my car isn't working right will open them up to repairs on all these cars. They really screwed up and I suppose they are just going to roll the dice with me.

As far as my case. I think it's pretty good but I'm open to advice from anyone. I feel the video and their own writen description of the system is fairly good evidence in itself.

Video of Performance problem

HondaNews description of CMBS

However, I wanted to ask some of you a favor. Would those of you who have watched the video, AND own an RL with CMBS, AND agree it does not work like yours, be willing to sign an unsworn affidavit stating such?

I think my case will be complete with those three items; Honda's literature, my video, and affidavits from other owners whose cars work differently.

If you can honestly agree with me then I'd appreciate your written statement. You can PM me and I'll fax you a form.

How can such a stupid company make such a good vehicle

Thanks for any help you can provide

sotiri

check the part numbers between 06 and 07.
If the system needs repair, the part numbers should be the same (radar, acc, vss) regardless of year- but if there is a software change, then there should be a part number change indicating some revision

lland

Spicy,

I just sent you a reltively long winded PM.

LL

Jeff_Drive

Let me know how the 08 works in regards to the CBMS.

Jeff_Drive

You can look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaw8p__T62w and see, at about 42 seconds into the video, a 2006 RL breaking hard in a test to show its CBMS.

SpicyMikey

I don't know anyone who owns an 08 yet. Regarding the video, I saw that myself before. Of course, that video is showing you stage 3 with hard braking. Seemed to work well. They don't demonstrate Stage 1 or 2 in the video.

In comparison to my experiment, as you all saw, my car went to stage 1 with almost no time to really react. Did't matter what speed you were going. It's almost useless except in the best case scenerios. The stage 2 never reacted. The Stage 3 reacted with light braking. If you watch my video you'll see no visible movement of my head or body to suggest "hard" braking. The car was ultimately stopped by me pressing on the brakes to bring the car to a gentle stop in about 40 feet

sotiri

did you notice in that video the target the Acura was aiming for?
do you think you can simulate something like that with a friend?
then you can show a side by side comparison, and have a stronger case.

deepdezal

I just saw this video and they mentioned this feature was ACC, not CMBS.

I took my car to the dealer last week and they said CMBS is working as it is designed. Also the tech mentioned that they were able to activate stage-2 on my car. Tomorrow they are going to demonstrated stage-2 working on my car(sure)....

I have tried so many times to activate stage 2 and I haven't been able to.. My car's CMBS is behaving just like SpicyMikey' car.. stage-1 is late to react and stage-2 never reacts..

I will update you folks as to what the outcome is tomorrow.

SpicyMikey

Yes, I saw how small that target was. I'm surprised it is that sensitive to such a small target. Makes me even more concerned there's something wrong with the 07's. Also, my car DID NOT brake that hard prior to the impact. I'd call it "light braking". You can watch my head and body and see that I'm not thrown forward at all from the braking. I eventually brought the car to a gentle stop on my own in about 40 feet.

In case anyone wants to duplicate my test, it's very easy. I used three large 27" Uhaul TV boxes. I closed the bottom flaps but left the top flaps up and did not bend them. I put them side by side and then we faced them with Reynolds Aluminum Foil. This basically created (what appeared as) a large 7'wide x 5' tall metal object. As the video showed, it reacted just like it did with the Toyota Sienna Van as the target. You must use metal foil or the radar won't pickup the object. Also, I taped the leading edge of my bumper and the lower end of the hood to prevent any minor scratches. There was zero damage to the car. It was actually somewhat fun crashing into the boxes. I recommend you guys try it even if you don't have CMBS

I'm pretty confident the test is valid. We can see that the system is very reliable and reacts to a stage 1 with 2-3 seconds before impact, regardless of speed or target size. Actually, I'm very impressed how hard it is for the system to fail.

I'm getting more and more convinced there's nothing wrong with my car. I think it was probably designed to work this way. I'm starting to believe I was simply misled by the literature into thinking this was something it's not. In other words, the engineers didn't screw up, the marketing guys screwed up. As a result, we are being misled to think this system is something it's not. I would not have paid $4000 for this if I knew how it really worked.

SpicyMikey

Definitely let us know what happens. After watching my video, a few 06 guys have PM'd me and said they are not so sure anymore that their car is acting any different then mine. Those poll numbers at the top may not be accurate. If that's true then this "problem" may be broader then just 07.

I'm sure Acura lawyers in Torence have gotten wind of this thread and are monitoring it. If anyone has anything they want to share with me in private feel free to just PM me.

Jackzilla

Hi all. First time poster and very interested follower of this thread. As the second owner of an '06 RL, I was not fully aware that our car included the Technology package (ACC/CMBS/PAX) when we first found it on a dealers internet site. In any case, the car has been a total delight and constant source of discovery since we bought it, four months ago. It truly is an undiscovered and remarkable piece of cutting edge automotive technology. Now, with regard to this thread on the CMBS system: I think you are trying to observe the operation of an integrated system that evaluates a multiplicity of variable inputs, calculates a potential result and then instructs the various systems (engine power output, brakes, seatbelt tensioners, air bags, etc.) what to do based on those parameters. First, I have observed that the ACC and the CMBS work as an integrated system, when the ACC is activated. How fast and what action is taken depends on the RL vehicle speed and the speed at which a potential collision target is traveling. In this regard, I have in fact experienced the system go immediately to HEAVY braking and tensioners activate (with ACC on) when another vehicle cut closely in front of me at about 61MPH. This is not how the action of the ACC is described in the owners manual (light braking is all that's indicated), but it indicates that there is much more going on with this system than the manual fully explains. What is explained, and what I have observed is that the distances and speed that the system reacts at is highly variable, and depends on not only the speed of the RL, but the speed (closing or opening) with the potential collision vehicle.
Turning the ACC off simply takes vehicle speed control and following distance out of the system equation, but the speed and closing and opening distance calculations go on, if the CMBS system is activated.
With all due respect SpicyMikey, I don't believe a stationary cardboard box offered the system the kind of target the system is programmed to react to. Nor do I think your speed was high enough. I'm not a radar expert, but the MASS as well as the shape of a target comes into play in determining an objects proximity. Acura's own manual cautions that the system may not be properly reactive to motorcycles and similar small motor vehicles -- although I have observed that the system seems to "see" Harley's and similar large bikes just fine. What I think you are missing is how fast the system will go to full braking in a real crisis situation at a more elevated speed -- 50-60-70-75MPH where mitigation of potential injury is really vital. This is not something that I think, other than with computer simulation during system development, that can easily be tested in the real world by an owner, unless he's willing to risk serious vehicle damage. And serious vehicle damage is very likely in a real system activation -- the mitigation aspect is that potentially fatal injuries will be minimized.
Keep this in mind: we all know that air bags are designed to inflate almost instantly in a frontal collision at more than about 25MPH, but what car owner goes out and tries to actually test whether the bags function as described? You would have to be willing to incur a 25-30 MPH collision with some large object to determine if the bags would actually deploy as intended.
I think that the really key benefit to this system -- and what its name implies-- is it MINIMIZES potentially fatal injuries in high(er) speed rear ender type of crashes. It is not intended or designed to totally prevent crash damage and collisions caused by lack of attention to potentially serious accident situations.
Based on how I've seen the system react in a few situations and the reliability I've experienced with the RL so far, I'm willing to trust that the system WILL function as described should I ever actually find myself in the kind of situation it's designed to minimize.
Sorry to be so long on this, but I'd like to pose just one question along the same line as the CMBS thread -- how many or have any of you attempted to actually see if the RL stability system operates as described? It's intended, as you all know, to actually prevent a loss of vehicle control from a skid, oversteer or understeer situation. Just wondering??
Jack

SpicyMikey

Hi Jack, glad to see you come out of the "shadows" and join us on the forums. Welcome.

You make all good arguments. In fact you sound like Acura corporate talking in my discussions with them this week. You don't work for Acura do you

It's not easy to test, I'll give you that. However, the only really hard thing to test is stage 3. That's the part I agree is valid with your air bag analogy. That's the mitigation phase. Stage 2, and certainly Stage 1 should be easy. Those are supposed to be the "warning" stages. In the 3 months I've owned this car I've never been able to get stage 1 to trigger in a timely fashion. It's always at the last moment of opportunity to react. I felt there was certainly no way a stage 2 would be able to trigger before impact. That's what caused me to want to test it.

In my test with the cardboard box it never went to stage 2 (as I suspected would happen) and it went to stage 3 and broke lightly at 1 second to impact. I was closing at 25 mph. That's a good clip and a serious accident. The system reduced my speed (in that 1 second) very little, if any. The braking didn't even cause my body to move (watch for yourself). it was not "lockem up" braking as I expected it to do.

Granted it was a cardboard box, but the system didn't know that. It was faced with aluminum foil and created a similar reflection as that from a solid steel wall. Also, the initial Stage 1 was almost identical to that with the car tests - 2 to 3 seconds. That pretty much tells me it saw the boxes like the car and reacted the same. We can safely conclude that what followed is probably what would happen in a real life situation.

Regarding computer simulation; I agree, that's the best way. I wish they would do that. I asked them if they had that sort of test but they said no. All they could do is run circuit tests. That's good, but what if something is wrong with the internal control module OR the firmware on the chip. This is a logic based system. The important stuff is software based. They've developed an important safety feature that cannot be adequately tested. That's something they need to work on before the next generation.

Regarding your other question; Yes, I've tried it. I'm crazy I know What I did was drive it on a wet grassy field (it was a state park area with no one around - early morning dew on the grass, etc. Never could get it to loose control. Worked fantastic. I'm in Florida so ice is not an option.

SpicyMikey

By the way Jack, regarding your concern about the system having multiple inputs. I tried to be as steady as I could. I think the video shows that. Steady gas, no braking, no steering wheel movements. Those are the only inputs to CMBS.

If anyone was as crazy as me and wanted to conduct a similar test, be sure to keep those parameters steady. The VSA control module watches for tragectory changes (with the yaw gyro sensor), it watches for braking, and it watches for reduction of throttle. You need to be steady with those things otherwise the system will assume you are aware and intervening.

By the way, the system was originally supposed to have a setting to adjust sensitivity like the ACC system. They took that out at the last second. It's still described in the service manual but the feature doesn't exist. More evidence that the feature may not have been ready for "prime time" and they shoved it in anyway.

Chas2

Jack, I have a 2006 CMBS and we have experienced this exact behavior under ACC when a car cut very closely in front of us. In fact, after the braking, the tensioners gave two additional tugs, which I believe was loosening the tension on the belts, another action not really described.

I tested the stability system unintentionally a few months ago. There was a brief violent downpour minutes earlier, but the skies were now blue and the sun was shining brightly. I was travelling on an accelration on ramp at high speed, maybe 60 mph. The ramp area had a little dip in it, going down and back up. There was new building being put up nearby. Unbeknownst to me, the storm water drain had been clogged with construction debris and a large puddle, maybe 100' or more long had formed in the dip. Emerging from an underpass, I saw the puddle too late. I started braking and steering toward the left side of the road where there was some dry pavement. I knew my right wheels would go through some water but I was not really concerned.

As soon as the wheels hit the water, I was immediately and deeply concerned. The car wanted to slew to the right as the much deeper than I expected water grabbed at the car. Sheets of water covered the windshield instantly making forward visibily nil, yet I was vaguely aware of a clear view right and left, including the traffic to my left, sunshine, blue skies, and a huge sheet of water flying over the concrete jersey barrier. I had visions of the car turning sideways, hitting the concrete jersey barrier and worse. It was grip the wheel, try to steer straight and hope for the best time. The car stayed straight, I emerged out of the puddle, the water blew off the windshield and continued to merge onto the highway.

I later drove by the scene when the road was dry and believe now the water may have been up to 6 inches deep. Talk about a stupid move. Lucky I am around to tell the story.

Had I been in my 2G Legend, I felt sure I would have lost control of the car, that it would have slewed to the right and done all sorts of bad things. I instantly had new found respect and praise for the RL, the stability system worked, but I would never want to test it like that again.

Sorry for the long winded non CMBS story, which kind of a more detailed rewrite of an earlier thread.

So in summary, no one wants to test the stability system, but I can attest that it works.

SpicyMikey

Glad you didn't loose it Chas. That was a better test then mine. Good to see it held the line.

I can also support the ACC story. Even my car works very differently when under ACC control. It's much more responsive and quick to react. Also, when it does respond, the braking is stronger. It has two different personalities depending on whether ACC is on or off. I wish it worked the "ACC way" all the time. Much more useful in that mode.

Jeff_Drive

Could it be that the CBMS stage 2 requires higher speed like 40+ mph? But if you are in stop and go traffic you want that level 3 to break hard in traffic that is 15 mpg or less.

Chas2

Spicy,

Have you seen this link and followed it? I am sure you have...

http://www.ivsource.net/archivep/200..._HondaCMS.html

SpicyMikey

No way of knowing Jeff. But, I doubt that's how it's designed. Can't prove it. Just trying to think like the engineers who designed it.

That's actually one of the annoying things about this issue. They say I can't prove it's not working, but they can't prove it IS working. They say it's like an air bag. You just have to have faith but yet it's much more then that. They won't even tell me the parameters the system uses or what this magical "preset limit" is.

So, I/we are sitting with a $4000 CMBS system that shows evidence of malfunctioning under typical conditions, yet, they refuse to consider the possibility their system is flawed. Am I the only one having a problem with this?

Here's a good question to consider (you too Acura if you're reading this); At what point does the burden of responsibility shift from the customer (to prove it's broken), over to Acura (to prove it's working)? I think the time has come.

SpicyMikey

Thanks. I hadn't seen that particular link, but it's discussion is similar to every other thing I've read.

The RL website has a nice video too that describes this feature. Sounds great! That's actually what motivated me to get the system. Problem is, it doesn't work that way.

Here's the RL video

Jeff_Drive

I have a huge problem with this also. I am in the market to purchase a new car and I really like the RL and I think the CMBS is amazing. But after I saw your tests, the CMBS doesn't work as Acura documented it.

Jackzilla

SpicyMikey,
Thanks for the welcome, and NO I don't work for Acura. I'm just a fellow car nut from way back.
Now, with regard to a couple of your points: "I was closing (on the cardboard box) at 25 MPH". That speed differential is well within the envelope of protection provided by your air bag(s). Certainly, your car would sustain considerable damage, if it was a large solid object, but physically you would (should) emerge without serious (fatal) injury. Moreover, CMBS operation is barely over its operational threshold at that speed -- if memory serves, correct me if I'm wrong, the system only begins operation at either 10 or 20 MPH. That being the case, I think you might find that with a closing speed more like 45 - 70 MPH (if you dared - I sure wouldn't except in a real accident situation) that the event sequence would be more like you expect it to be. BUT, again keep in mind, the system IS NOT intended to actually PREVENT a rear end collision -- it is only intended to MINIMIZE the severity of a crash and the likelyhood of potentially FATAL injury from such an event. Keep in mind too that EVERY auto maker that offers a similar feature (Lexus and Mercedes as well as Acura) plainly includes the disclaimer that "the system is not a substitute for safe and attentive driving practices". I think, perhaps, the makers have somehow suggested and/or owners (like ourselves) assume that these are "accident avoidance" systems, when in fact all they are is one extra level of safety protection against FATAL injury caused by our own potential inattentiveness.
As regards the "omitted" CMBS sensitivity setting -- this I think was clearly for liability reasons. Allowing the CMBS sensitivity threshold to be set to such a level that the car might in fact be able (in some circumstances) to brake so severly that a collision was completely avoided, would most likely result in being rear ended by the vehicle following -- since I am not aware that the system actuates the brake lights in emergencies! In the resulting law suit Acura would no doubt be found culpable when the driver of the following vehicle observed that the Acura's brake lights NEVER indicated the brakes were being applied. This no doubt could be addressed by engineering a brake light response (and perhaps it already has), but nevertheless, in today's legal climate, who can say that some lawyer wouldn't claim that his client "couldn't possibly be expected" to be able to react with the speed of a radar controlled brake system. So, Acura figures, I guess, better to give the driver no control and allow a certain amount of vehicle damage -- just minimize the severity and potential for fatal injury.
A further reason to try for prior legal problem avoidance is that CMBS IS NOT a government mandated system, although it might be one day -- vehicles stability systems become mandatory in 2010. So, not being mandatory removes that level of liability coverage that a government edict provides. Remember the air bag death problems and who was left holding the bag?
Finally, reading the competing brands (Lexus and Mercedes) descriptions of how and what their systems do is very instructive, especially Lexus. Lexus clearly states that their system DOES NOT apply full braking power, merely that the system readies itself to apply "full auto braking through the ABS system" in an emergency situation. But again, the disclaimer is somewhat obscure and one has to dig for it. Acura would probably better serve itself and its customers by MUCH more clearly spelling out what the system is and what its intended to do, thereby avoiding much of the confusion about what the system actually does as opposed to what customers may think it does or should do.
As an aside, I might add that had we purchased our RL new we probably would NOT have opted for the Technology Package -- it was more like a free gift of the original buyer. It definately didn't increase the purchase price over RL models that lacked the feature, so it was an added bonus. Nothing negative about the electronic technology, I just would not have gone for the PAX system, which is part of the package. Ended up buying a mini-spare and tool kit from a 2005 RL on Ebay, after reading about others experiences with punctures to the PAX tires and getting them fixed. The spare fit "like it was made for the car" he he! In any case both items only cost $65 -- the shipping was a lot more. The spare is beautiful, by the way, and easily worth the $355 Acura wants for it, as a replacement.
Jack

123456SPEED

Here are my thoughts - I don't have an RL and have not experienced the CMBS.

Acura is wrong to fully test your car, be it real world or simulation tests. It's either incompetence, poor customer service/support for the CMBS feature, or they are hiding something.

If I went in there and said my brakes didn't work and all they did was see that codes and fluids were okay and not test drive it...well it's inconceivable.

It's a low volume car and a big corporation with lots of lawyers, I would keep some comments closer to the chest. They may try to use everything you say against you, that's lawyers' jobs. The comments about your personality and response to not being listened to or whatever can be detrimental to your case, however non-related to the actual problem.

Acura should have taken more effort to work with you, test drive, have a qualified tech address your questions, whether your car is working properly or not. THe fact that they are not doing this, is, at least, poor service, legally risky due to safety concerns, or at most they are covering up something IMO. Don't they have a test of the radar, did they test that?


Safety is a major issue that quickly gets the govt involved. Maybe they have no real world test of the system, that is incompetent. something seems fishy on their end.

The CMBS is a new, complicated, and expensive feature and I can't believe Acura is not researching questions/concerns about it more responsibly.
good luck.

123456SPEED

I meant to say Acura is wrong to NOT fully test your car and show you why they think it is working properly.

I was interested inCMBS but if all it does is remind you you're gonna crash, I;d rather total the car than have to drive a rebuilt one, poor logic I know but true.
of course I;d want to survive

SpicyMikey

Yep comments can be used against you. But I've been just saying what I believe to be true.

Also, this whole issue has evolved as well. In the beginning it seemed to only be 07's. Now with my video out there, I'm getting feedback that it's probably more then that. Actually Acura confirms that for us. They said NO CHANGES have been made between 06 and 07. That means the same potential flaw must exist in them also. These discussions, and my video, have helped bring out the scope of the issue. My experience with 06 must be a fluke.

As far as Jacks thoughts. I just can't draw conclusions of why it works how it works. We've gotten off on some tangents along the way. I guess my main motivation from the beginning was to show how this system simply DOES NOT work as advertised. The marketing material leaves you thinking one thing but the system is something else. I'm trying to get the word out to others. That's the key to all this

nyjohnchan

Maybe we should all complaint to the NTSB that Acura has falsly advertised the CMBS functionality. And hope that Acura will fix or recall the problem.

Chas2

Another tangent

Actually, the manual says the brake lights do activate in this situation, so there is part of an answer.

2007 RL Manual Page 355, 2006 RL Manual Page 325 and just for kicks, page 361 in the 2008 manual

When CMBS activates its automatic
brake, it also turns the brake lights
on.

SpicyMikey

Now I'm getting curious. Who has an 06 CMBS (or an 08) who thinks there car works similar to the demonstration in my video for stage 1? Could it be Acura is being honest about not making any changes since 06? Maybe it works this way for everyone, not just me or other 07 owners.

Of course, I'm not asking you to crash boxes to test stage 3, however, do you get Stage 1 if with ample warning (6+ seconds) if you are closing on a car too fast (20+mph)? If you don't react, do you get a secondary stage 2 warning with time to still avoid the impact (2,3 seconds to impact)? This is what the sales literature implies.

Forget Stage 3 for a second. By Acura's own documentation (and my testing), Stage 3 reacts very late (1 second before impact). By design, the system brakes very late and is truly inconsequential to the severity of the impact. The way I see it, Stage 1 and 2 are the valuable stages in this whole feature. They are the stages that will help you when you are driving down a highway and don't notice a very slow moving vehicle ahead, or you start to doze off late at night, etc.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vrmqB9DnndU

kmcheney

Spicy,
I don't feel comfortable with checking either of your boxes. I have had stage 1 activate a few times but it wasn't 6 seconds ahead or impact, nor was it just before almost unavoidable impact. It was roughtly 2 seconds before. I belive stage 2 also activated once if I remember correctly, but again with quick, somewhat hard, brake activation all was well.

I know this isn't probably helpful to you, but not answering wasn't going to help either.

SpicyMikey

No problem KM. I'm just wondering if the problem (as I see it) involves everyone.

If your stage 1 is activating about 2 seconds before impact then that's just like mine. That "stage 2" you experiencecd was probably the stage 3. Stage 2 should be a rapid tug-release-tug of the seat belt (to get your attention). The literature describes that as a secondary early warning. Stage 3 retracts the seat belt fully and applies the brakes. If you had the seatbelt retract and then release, that was probably stage 3 triggering and then disengaging when you quickly took action. Eventhough you felt some lighth braking, I'd still call that Stage 3.

I've also discovered that you can't use "close proximity" events as a good guage. In other words, someone darting out from a side street or a quick lane change. That seems to trip up the system and it acts strange and does unpredictable things. I'm not complaining about that. I just have a problem with why the system lets me steadily drive up on a slow moving vehicle from a 1/3 mile away with no warning along the way until I'm virtually about to crash. Why isn't the system warning us of the danger ahead like the sales literature describes?. This is exactly the scenero I want the system to protect me from e.g. late night drives on dark roads at high speeds, stalled or slow moving cars ahead, etc. That's the scenerio that always worries me.

Chas2

It may be nothing, but there are a bunch of error codes in the August Service News.

SpicyMikey

What do you mean? Are they in reference to a TSB or something?

Chas2

No, I don't remember your particular code, but it has a bunch of codes in there for VSA errors and such. See the Service News Sticky

Check Out These VSA Troubleshooting Tips
Currently Applies To: ’04–08 MDXs, ’07–08 RDXs, ’05–08 RLs, ’02–06 RSXs, ’04–08 TLs, and ’04–08 TSXs
Vexed by a VSA troubleshooting problem? Here’s a handy chart that can help you out. Keep in mind, this is a
generic chart, so the DTC ID numbers and descriptions may vary slightly with model applicability. If you’ve still
got the problem after following these troubleshooting tips, then refer to the applicable S/M or go into ISIS for more
detailed info.

SpicyMikey

OK, now I understand. I just checked the codes. None of those are the ones I have in my log. All mine are 4 digit codes (very high numbers). Thanks anyway

Justin32

Mikey, I attempted to watch your video after reading your thread and becoming intrigued, but it is now listed as private. Is this an error?

anacuraloyalist

I don't think it will sense cardboard boxes, all of the false alerts it talks about in the owners manual are pieces of metal or parked cars or concrete, all solid stuff.

Also, 300 feet is not so far when you are driving at 60 MPH, which is 1 miles per minute, or 5,280 feet, divided by 60 seconds in a minute is 88 feet per second, so 300 feet is only about 3.4 seconds at 60 miles an hour. Not so long when you think of it that way. If CMBS senses something at 300 feet, then it has to react, which must take up some time, then you have to notice it, taking up more time, then you have to react, taking up even more time, you get the idea.

SpicyMikey

Well, I tried everything to resolve this complaint with Acura. But in the end, they confirmed it was working properly, but did not agree it performed significantly different then advertised from their initial tv commercials and ads back in 2006.

A legal firm in L.A. reviewed my complaint and agreed with me. A suit has been filed in California courts and we will be trying to get it certified for a Class Action in the coming months.

The law firm doesn't need anymore class representatives, however, they are looking for experiences from other owners as they gather facts and build the case. If you feel you have something significant to share, or want to learn more about the suit. Contact Payam Shahian as shown below.

Initiative Legal Group LLP
Payam Shahian
310-556-5637
PShahian@initiativelegal.com
www.initiativelegal.com

Thanks to everyone who worked with me to try and solve this issue. I still love my RL. I just hate the fact that I paid $4000 for a CMBS system that doesn't work anything close to how it was advertised.