Citroen C2 MOT Results

Registered in 2003
45.6% pass rate
from 344 tests in 2021
(20% worse than other 2003 cars)
Failure rates by item

Here you can drill down into the failure rates for each item on the test. We've also compared the rates to the average results for 2003 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen C2 is unusually good or bad.

  • 24% fail on Suspension (45% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 8.7% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 7.8% fail on Springs (99% worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 7.8% fail on Coil springs (100% worse than other 2003 cars)
        • 7.8% fail on Coil spring (100% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 6.1% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 2.9% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
      • 1.5% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.87% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.29% fail on Anti-roll bar
      • 0.29% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.29% fail on Linkage
      • 0.29% fail on Ball joint
    • 4.1% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.5% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.58% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.29% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 2.3% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.87% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.87% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.87% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.29% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.29% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.29% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.29% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
  • 20% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 8.4% fail on Direction indicators (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 8.4% fail on Flashing type (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
        • 6.4% fail on Side repeaters (6 times worse than other 2003 cars)
        • 4.7% fail on Individual direction indicators (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 5.2% fail on Stop lamp
    • 4.1% fail on Headlamps
      • 4.1% fail on Headlamp
    • 3.8% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.8% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.29% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 2.3% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 2.0% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.2% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.87% fail on Horn
    • 0.58% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.58% fail on Position lamp
  • 14% fail on Brakes
    • 9.9% fail on Brake performance
      • 6.4% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
        • 6.4% fail on Rbt (sp) (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
          • 4.4% fail on Service brake imbalance (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
          • 2.3% fail on Service brake performance (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 3.5% fail on Service brake performance
        • 3.5% fail on Rbt
          • 2.6% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.87% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 1.5% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 1.5% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.29% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.29% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.29% fail on Rbt
          • 0.29% fail on Parking brake performance
    • 2.9% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 2.0% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 2.0% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.87% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 0.87% fail on Brake pads
    • 2.6% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.87% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.58% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
      • 0.29% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.87% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.58% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.29% fail on Electronic stability control
    • 0.29% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.29% fail on Lever
    • 0.29% fail on Flexible brake hoses
  • 14% fail on Body, chassis, structure (54% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 5.5% fail on Exhaust system
    • 4.1% fail on Integral vehicle structure (3 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 4.1% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition (3 times worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 2.0% fail on Chassis (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Chassis condition (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Transmission
      • 1.7% fail on Drive shafts
        • 1.7% fail on Joints
    • 0.87% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.58% fail on Body
      • 0.58% fail on Panel
    • 0.29% fail on Towbar
      • 0.29% fail on Coupling
    • 0.29% fail on Doors
      • 0.29% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.29% fail on Door condition
    • 0.29% fail on Undertray
  • 8.4% fail on Visibility
    • 6.1% fail on Wipers
    • 2.6% fail on Washers
    • 0.29% fail on Driver's view
  • 7.8% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 6.7% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 6.4% fail on Spark ignition
        • 3.5% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 2.6% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.87% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.29% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.29% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 1.2% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.87% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.29% fail on Transmission oil leaks
  • 7.8% fail on Tyres
    • 5.2% fail on Tread depth
    • 3.2% fail on Condition
    • 0.29% fail on Size/type
  • 5.2% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 4.1% fail on Seat belts (140% worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 4.1% fail on Prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 3.5% fail on Steering
    • 2.0% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 2.0% fail on Track rod end
    • 1.2% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.58% fail on Operation (33 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.58% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.29% fail on Power steering
      • 0.29% fail on Operation
    • 0.29% fail on Steering column
  • 0.87% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.87% fail on Attachment
  • 0.29% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.29% fail on Registration plates
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages