Research Another Vehicle

Total NHTSA Complaints
3
Owner filings recorded
#1 Reported Problem
Suspension
2 reports (66.7%)
Crash Incident Reports
0
Zero collision citations
Fire & Injury Reports
1
1 fire • 0 injury filings
Defect Investigation Analysis

Executive Problem Findings

AutoUtility currently tracks 3 official NHTSA owner defect complaints for the 2017 Acura RLX. Suspension issues are the most frequently reported category, appearing in 2 complaints (66.7% of submitted records). Among these NHTSA complaint records, 1 cites a fire.

Methodology Notice: Consumer complaints are unverified voluntary submissions to the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). Filings are not normalized for sales volume or vehicle mileage and do not constitute an audited component failure rate.
Incident & Severity Profile
  • • Total Owner Reports: 3 complaints submitted under federal penalty.
  • • Primary Subsystem: Suspension accounts for 66.7% of submissions (2 reports).
  • • Secondary Systems: Steering System (1), Engine & Cooling (1).
  • • Crash Incidents: 0 filings cite an impact or collision.
  • • Thermal Incidents: 1 filings cite smoke or fire.
  • • Reported Casualties: 0 injury filings • 0 fatality filings.
Category Distribution

Reported Defect Categories for 2017 Acura RLX

Factual proportion of owner complaints categorized by automotive subsystem in NHTSA records

Suspension
2
66.7%
Steering System
1
33.3%
Engine & Cooling
1
33.3%
Brakes & Traction Control
1
33.3%
Wheels & Tires
1
33.3%
#1 66.7% SHARE

Suspension

2 owner complaints submitted to NHTSA ODI for this subsystem.

✓ 0 Incidents
#2 33.3% SHARE

Steering System

1 owner complaint submitted to NHTSA ODI for this subsystem.

✓ 0 Incidents
#3 33.3% SHARE

Engine & Cooling

1 owner complaint submitted to NHTSA ODI for this subsystem.

🔥 1 Fire
#4 33.3% SHARE

Brakes & Traction Control

1 owner complaint submitted to NHTSA ODI for this subsystem.

✓ 0 Incidents
Federal Oversight

Official NHTSA Defect Investigations (3)

Formal engineering analyses and preliminary evaluations opened by the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation

ODI Action #EA21002 OPEN Engineering Analysis (EA)
Opened: 2021-09-17 • Active
Subject / Subsystem
Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Affected Component
AIR BAGS:FRONTAL:DRIVER SIDE:INFLATOR MODULE
Recall Linkage
No direct recall linkage
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
ODI Action #DP22005 CLOSED Defect Petition (DP)
Opened: 2023-01-27 • Closed: 2023-08-07
Subject / Subsystem
Pedestrian alert sounds
Affected Component
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:PROPULSION SYSTEM
Recall Linkage
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.
ODI Action #EA19001 CLOSED Engineering Analysis (EA)
Opened: 2019-04-19 • Closed: 2024-09-19
Subject / Subsystem
Electrical overstress
Affected Component
AIR BAGS: AIR BAG/RESTRAINT CONTROL MODULE
Recall Linkage
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Consumer Filings

Recent NHTSA Owner Reports for 2017 Acura RLX

Representative defect filings submitted by owners to the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation

Steering System ODI #11742249
Filed: 06/05/2026
Defect Report

"The contact owns a 2017 Acura RLX. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, the vehicle pulled to the right, with a creaking sound while turning the steering wheel to the left or the right. The contact replaced the brake pads and rotors every year, but the failure persisted. The..."

Engine & Cooling ODI #11728965
Filed: 04/03/2026
🔥 Fire Cited

"Catastrophic engine failure at speed, connecting rod failure, which is a known failure for this engine. Engine blew, lost all power, and hot oil hit the hot exhaust and the car caught on fire. A fire truck came to put out the engine fire."

Brakes & Traction Control ODI #11066940
Filed: 02/05/2018
Defect Report

"TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 ACURA RLX. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A SEVERE VIBRATION ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO FEEL THE FAILURE MORE WHILE DRIVING HIGHER SPEEDS. THE FAILURE OCCURRED WITHOUT WARNING. ACURA OF ORANGE PARK (7200 BLANDING BLVD,..."

Multi-Year Trend

Complaint History for Acura RLX

Reported defect complaint volume across sibling model years (2015–2020)

Model Year NHTSA Complaints Crash Reports Safety Recalls Detailed Report
2015 Acura RLX 11 0 3 View 2015 Problems →
2016 Acura RLX 5 1 0 View 2016 Problems →
2017 Acura RLX Current Page 3 0 0 Current
2018 Acura RLX 6 0 1 View 2018 Problems →
2019 Acura RLX 0 0 3 View 2019 Problems →
2020 Acura RLX 2 0 1 View 2020 Problems →
Exhaustive System Audit

Detailed NHTSA Component Breakdown for 2017 Acura RLX

Complete distribution of consumer defect reports across all 3 granular NHTSA system and subsystem classifications

Vehicle Component / System Total Complaints Crash Reports Fire Reports Injury Entries Fatality Entries
Engine NHTSA category: ENGINE 1 0 1 0 0
STEERING,SUSPENSION 1 0 0 0 0
SUSPENSION,WHEELS,SERVICE BRAKES 1 0 0 0 0
Search Intelligence

Quick Answers: Common Problems & Reliability Questions for the 2017 Acura RLX

Direct, deterministic answers synthesized from verified United States government databases for the 2017 Acura RLX

What are the most common reported problems with the 2017 Acura RLX?

In official NHTSA consumer records, the most frequently cited issue area for the 2017 Acura RLX is Suspension, appearing in 2 records (66.7% of submitted filings).

Secondary reported categories include Steering System (1) and Engine & Cooling (1).

Source: NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)

Is the 2017 Acura RLX a reliable vehicle?

AutoUtility does not issue subjective reliability scores or commercial ratings. In official United States government records, NHTSA tracks 3 consumer defect complaints and 0 safety recall campaigns for the 2017 Acura RLX.

Reviewing documented component complaint distributions, recall remedy notices, and active federal investigations provides an objective, evidence-based view of the vehicle's historical safety and defect record.

Source: NHTSA ODI & Safety Recalls Databases

Are there crash, fire, or injury reports associated with the 2017 Acura RLX?

Among consumer complaint records on file with NHTSA for the 2017 Acura RLX, 0 filings cite a crash, 1 cite smoke or fire, and 0 report one or more injuries.

Incident entries represent consumer descriptions at the time of submission to federal authorities and do not establish mechanical causation or legal liability.

Source: NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation Consumer Logs

Has NHTSA formally investigated defects on the 2017 Acura RLX?

NHTSA ODI records list 3 formal defect investigations involving the 2017 Acura RLX (1 currently open).

Federal defect investigations are formal engineering evaluations opened when safety defect trends emerge, and do not by themselves establish a confirmed defect or mandatory recall.

Source: NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation Registry
Official US Government Data Provenance

The complaint records on this page are retrieved directly from the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) public database under 49 CFR Part 576.

Local Production Store Compiled: August 2026 • Deterministic Audited Dataset • Zero Dynamic External API Runtime Latency.