R. White

The April issue of Consumer Reports lists the '14 RLX and the '15 TLX in their "Worst of the Worst " used car category.

I can't image any Acura being on this list ten years ago !

jpadilla

what reasons did they give it for worst of the worst? only regret i have on my 2014 rlx is that i didnt get the advanced package

George Knighton

It's the long list of issues that people like Holografique experienced with his 2014 model year car that was built in early 2013. Long list of suspension complaints, and long list of electronics-NAV, Bluetooth and audio related complaints.

We can point to the dates and VIN most severely affected, so that people don't buy that particular car.

But the fact is that it's still Honda's fault.

It was their choice to release the first model year TLX and RLX the way that they did, and it is fair that it affects their reputations.

They did it then, so there's no belief among the population so close to those model years that it's not going to happen again.

It's a shame.

pcloadletter

Do you really trust a publication that states:

Tesla Model S P85D Earns Top Road Test Score

and

The Worst of the Worst Used Cars
Tesla
Model Years to Avoid
Model S 2012-2013, 2015

RLX-Sport Hybrid

Short answer...No. It is just an opinion from thinly veiled facts. That is my opinion with no facts.

TacoBello

Reliability and Road test scores are not the same thing. It's always been well know their reliability is sub par. They're a tiny company with very little automotive experience. Of course their cars are going to suffer.

However, it's always been well known that they're a blast to drive.

neuronbob

ouch.

JM2010 SH-AWD

Interesting that the TLX gets all "red" dots from CR except "minor transmission" and infotainment, yet the overall result is a big, black circle. Compare to CR's favored Audis and Hyundais, some of which have similar profiles yet somehow are awarded a full red or half red circle for their overall rating. CR's ratings used to make sense to me, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

RLX-Sport Hybrid

I think CR is bias but I have no material proof of that thesis.

TampaRLX-SH

CR has big impact to market perceptions. I do read them for various products, but tend not to agree with their auto assessments. They look at a car like a refrigerator. Enthusiasts do not consider their car an appliance, and have different needs.

I remember a review from CR on You Tube where the reviewer complained that Acura has too many buttons. He moaned for a 'simple interface' and a 'touch screen' would reduce the confusion of so many buttons.

The very same reviewer, in a more recent Acura video said the 'touch screen was cumbersome' and would prefer to have buttons.

Personally, I think CR just cannot accept Acura. They see no need for Acura when Honda does a good enough job. CR seeks mass appeal and lower expectations. This forum alone speaks to people who chose otherwise. But even when they give a favorable review of a premium or luxury product (which they feel is superfluous) their reasons are subjective. I have seen them carry on about 'contrasting stitching' being 'rich', but then they do not look beyond the superficial to the repair and maintenance costs which also require you to be 'rich'. They are the antithesis of Car rags who think anything on 4 wheels should emulate a 3 series BMW.

I have learned my needs and wants in a car are not served by CR. They get stuck on details that blinds their view. I will continue to read CR and consider their evaluations, but for something like a toaster.

Those of us who do see the RLX (in whichever flavor) as an appealing vehicle may eventually thank CR as we have an exclusive vehicle, and for some of us, obtained at an exceptional price. That is what happened with the RL and it turned out to be the best car I have yet owned.

George Knighton

I trust them as much or more than the traditional motoring publications; however, their road tests are biased toward their subjective opinions about how a car should perform.

The data, on the other hand, is whatever it is, reported by the subscribers.

So I don't find it at all out of the question that the owners of Tesla are reporting the unreliability of the car they own at the same time their own testers are saying the car performs well.

Anybody who's driven a Tesla will tell you it performs well, even if you don't like it for whatever out of the long list of reasons.

But only the owners can tell you if it works long term.

This has always been CR's link to respectability, that they just report whatever it is that their subscribers tell them.

neuronbob

I agree. I don't have an issue with the reliability reports. They come from members like me, and I do reply every year to their request for information.

George Knighton

*ALL* of them?

holografique

This is why the RLX is on the CR report and why from my perspective is more than deserved.

Unless you've owned and driven an early PAWS model for an extended period of time, then you have no qualification to say whether CR's report any validity to it. I cannot stress again, how different the PAWS (and the earlier versions) are compared to the SH.

EDV.

Its stands for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT VEHICLE.

holografique

Also to add, I just spent the half of today moving the 2013 ILX lease over to a shiny new 2016 ILX Tech A-spec for the wife. You kept my businees there Acura. But the credit goes to the great team at the dealership and for honoring my loyalty to the brand and business. Excelllent deal, excellent numbers, and another killer ILX.

During that time I had a good conversation with one of the reps on my ownership experience with the RLX. He started the converstion by asking "So how do you like your RLX?". Which was immediately responded by a long breath, a quick look back-n-forth between me and the wife...at which point I then proceeded to say..."not sure if you want to get into that conversation with me..."

Short end of the story: he highly recommeneded me talking with client relations and indicated that they have been good in the past about rectifying things. So wish me luck. There will be a long phone call coming up soon to Torrance, CA.

To be continued...

neuronbob

If you are referring to their requests for reliability reports, they send one request a year, and it's not onerous to fill out.

Malibu Flyer

I fill one out every year also so I do trust them. Unfortunately, the reviews of the Sport Hybrid probably never get published since there is such a small number of them......I'm sure there aren't enough to be statistically significant.

I may not be remembering correctly but I recall that the reviews of the first RL were stellar (as well they should have been).

I think Acura did have problems with the first of the PAWS cars and some of the negativity is justified. "Worst of the worst" is taking it too far though.

sooththetruth

The title of the feature, "Worst of the Worst" is really inflammatory, and atypical for the organization. Acura is the first brand listed because it's alphabetical, but about the only auto company without cars on the list was Toyota. Even Honda's 2015 Pilot was on the list, and the latest generation of BMW 5 series. I consider the title a poor choice by the Consumer Report's organization, and it brings them down, in my eyes.

I, too, subscribe to Consumer Reports, and refer to them often, but I read the title of of this bit of information as being a way to get their name into other publications. A "catch phrase" for marketing, rather than a true indication of the degree of severity.

It will take time of Acura to repair their reputation, but I suspect 99% of us need a wake up call now and then to keep us at our moral and productive best. However, I note Consumer Report makes no mention of Acura's or any other company's sincere (or lack of) attempts to correct the problems. I have written a note of my displeasure regarding this "title" to Consumer Reports, without singling out Acura.

After all, Consumer Reports deserves a second chance, and they may just need a wake up call.

sooththetruth

My note to Consumer Reports:

Been a member, though in interrupted fashion, for about 5 years.

I see your new review of car reviews has a section titled "Worst of the Worst", and though it's clever, and may be a good marketing tool, it's a title that is inflammatory and attention seeking, and seemingly atypical for the solid Consumer Reports brand built up over the years.

For those of us who respect your conservative testing approach, with a minimum of coloring bias, this title costs you some respect in my eyes.

I think the syntax is off in the last sentence, but there was no way to edit, afterwards. ;^)

George Knighton

I get four request/year, and it usually includes a lot more than automobiles.

i give it the college try, but I usually give up before I get to the microwave ovens.

:-)

And just a little caution: When they ask you if it's okay to contact you, they mean it.

George Knighton

I don't see how CR can be biased if they're just reporting the facts, and I think that most of their subscribers would be happy to know which cars have given the purchasers the most trouble.

Just about all of us with a 2014 RLX of any variety have had some trouble with the electronics. Being put on the CR list of worst buys for a particular period ought to be a solid incentive for manufacturers to do better in the future.

Well. That's what one dumb old man thinks, anyway.

JM2010 SH-AWD

^^ I don't disagree. They should report what buyers tell them, and as far as I know, CR is the only readily available mass data set on auto reliability. What I take issue with is their evidently subjective interpretation of what is reported to them, i.e., how they establish their overall rating. The TLX got two subpar results for "transmission minor" and infotainment. Some model Hyundais and Audis (two of CR's current darlings) have very similar results. But CR chose to saddle the TLX with a big, black circle for its overall rating, whereas these other models with similar results escape with an average or better than average overall rating. This is the part I don't get and question.

George Knighton

Today on Facebook, I noticed that CR had lists of recommended vehicles for 2016.

The recommendations took into account their test results at their road course, and mitigated them by the anticipated reliability based on what their users had been telling them.

Because of your post here suggesting a difficulty with the quantification, I looked a little closer than I would have usually, and I think that I agree with you.

If they are only giving you the charts with their consumer reports, it is clearly just the data and it is on the viewer to quantify the data. But what color the balls are and the final ratings they give a model are based on the severity of the complaints from owners, and based on their subjective opinions of the reliability of what a respondent has said when he or she goes to write out details. If they telephone and email people the way that they do me, then they would also have to enter a subjective idea of the reliability of the information they're getting from an individual respondent as to the worthiness of the comments.

And looking at how they used the reliability ratings of previous models to give readers recommendations of 2016 models, and how they judged their cars and modified the judgements with subjective driving impressions, I see why you feel the way that you do.

Consumer Reports is probably still the best thing going for pure data, but I confess that based on what I'm looking at, I would not necessarily assume that 100% of their 2016 recommendations are vehicles that I would want to own.

Brian77

All, I'm a new poster but have lurked for a while.

I suppose I have been lured to the RLX in part due to some buyers disappointment and that effect on the availability of low mileage cars coming up on the market at what seems to be good prices. I had planned to get a 2013-2014 TL Advance; however the airbag recall has made them scarce for a few months, but don't want to jump in and get a problem car.

Would anyone care to throw out a general rule of what is deemed "early" 2014 models or should they all be avoided? I've test driven a few, all mid summer 2013 - 08/13 if I recall. I didn't notice the suspension problems that were referred to.




2013 MDX Tech
2008 TL (sold)
2005 MDX (sold)

George Knighton

My first RLX was a P-AWS model built toward the end of 2013 (I think it was September), and I didn't have any of the problems that people were complaining about.

However, I have to recognize that the problems really exist, that they're not anecdotal or unverified.

Some TSB and recalls should be done regardless of the month of build.

But my car did not have the suspension problems, and my current RLX does not have the suspension problems.

First car had 45,000 miles (I think?) and this one is at 30,000 miles (definite), and no suspension issues.

I'll try to find time to cruise through the new buyer thread and get the month of my first RLX.