MOT Failure Statistics - released by VOSA as a result of FOI request

This should be a lot more useful: HERE

It summaries each car, can be filtered by make/model and the second sheet has a pivot table that lets you see a graph for individual makes.
 
Hxc said:
Most minis seem to fail on suspension, interesting that seeing as that was about the only thing my cooper didn't fail on :p
Click to expand...

The individual stats don't just show failures though as advisories are in there too. I'd expect that's why the tyre rates look so high as a lot of garages will issue an advisory at 3mm or so.
 
Ranger07 said:
And these figures are from 2007 when the first one series were turning 3 years old. Not many cars will fail their first MOT.
Click to expand...

Except the 2004 car figures are such that every car included is having its first MOT - therefore they show the comparative performance on first MOT versus a range of other cars.

Obviously cars from people like Vauxhall will top the tables as they get hit by a double whammy - poor quality cars *and* an ownership demographic that isn't amongst the brightest or the top of the class when it comes to not treating a car likec rap.
 
TVRs stats are wayyy off too.... 9 T400Rs? They made 3 or 4 at max, and only 2 sags, when there are over 100 on the road?
 
Peter Diffey said:
LOL at all the people saying "it doesnt mean anything"

take away failures for bald tyres etc and you have some really nice data
Click to expand...

LOL at you. If you discount the tyres then you might as well take away the lighting failures and brake related failures since these are service items.

As I said, what this data really shows is how well different cars get maintained and that older cars tend to fail more.
 
Manta failure results at 40.7%, we did remarkably well in the body and structure section compared to what I'd have expected :D
 
Hxc said:
TVRs stats are wayyy off too.... 9 T400Rs? They made 3 or 4 at max, and only 2 sags, when there are over 100 on the road?
Click to expand...

I suspect in this case you are simply seeing the results of re-tests, i.e. several cars failed and were re-tested so showed up twice on the database.
 
But, the sample is so enormous that you could factor away your perceived maintenance levels of each model/make.

The Rover is unreliable, we agree that, yeah?

The Toyota's are reliable, we also agree that, yeah?

But you dispute the middle ground?

You are making the assumptions on the data yourself.
 
Dogbreath said:
I suspect in this case you are simply seeing the results of re-tests, i.e. several cars failed and were re-tested so showed up twice on the database.
Click to expand...

I can certainly explain there beign 2 sags now, that'll be as they were only introduced in 04 (6 years now, still looking fantastic!).

The T400R, I suppose it could well have failed some MOTs before getting through.
 
alexthecheese said:
But, the sample is so enormous that you could factor away your perceived maintenance levels of each model/make.

The Rover is unreliable, we agree that, yeah?

The Toyota's are reliable, we also agree that, yeah?

But you dispute the middle ground?

You are making the assumptions on the data yourself.
Click to expand...

Alfa 147 at 29% total.
Alfa 156 at 38% total.
Nissan Primera 38% total.

What does this show then? Alfas are just as reliable as Japanese cars? Nissan Primeras are complete pap even though they have an excellent reputation for reliability?

No I don't agree with either of your assertions, there are reliable Rovers and unreliable Toyotas.

Reliability has nothing to do with this chart, it simply means all the cars on the chart were reliable enough to make it to the MOT station.
 
Last edited:
Dogbreath said:
Alfa 147 at 29% total.
Alfa 156 at 38% total.
Nissan Primera 38% total.

What does this show then? Alfas are just as reliable as Japanese cars? Nissan Primeras are complete pap even though they have an excellent reputation for reliability?

No I don't agree with either of your assertions, there are reliable Rovers and unreliable Toyotas.

Reliability has nothing to do with this chart, it simply means all the cars on the chart were reliable enough to make it to the MOT station.
Click to expand...

not necessarily because things can 'break' without being an MOT failure..

also, note the demographic that most owns Primeras, maybe they were not kept well? (btw i owned a 99 Primera GT) and it passed MOT first time every time for the 3 years i had it.
 
Peter Diffey said:
Rubbish. Cars fail on a lot more than light bulbs, bald tyres and brakes.
Click to expand...

Of course there are issues that might not be picked up by regular maintenance e.g. small splits in gaiters, or emissions problems, but basic stuff like knackered tyres, brake disks/pads, worn out suspension, failed lamps etc. account for the majority of MOT failures. Stuff that preventative maintenance would cover.

If this chart showed the result of the first MOT of all the cars, then it would be more representative of a cars build quality, since new cars are generally looked after. But with a huge mix of ages that distinction can't be accurately made IMO.

Look at the Lotus Elise, 24%, bearing in mind some of these cars are now approaching 14 years old. This very clearly is not representative of the reliability or build quality, but simply of low annual mileage and fastidious owners.

Now look at the MGF, a rather woeful 45%. Are they inherently less reliable than the Lotus? No, they are simply very cheap, older cars and people can't justify spending the money to keep them in good shape, plus they would tend to do more miles.
 
Last edited:
wow that is really quite usefull.

Just wished they released garage information, I swear some try to rip you of on borderline stuff. Good garage gives you an advisory, where other garages just fail you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom