MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Citroen » Grand C4 Picasso » 2010

Citroen Grand C4 Picasso MOT Results

Registered in 2010
51.5% pass rate
from 1,823 tests in 2021
(30% worse than other 2010 cars)
Pass rate by mileage
More MoT Results
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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen Grand C4 Picasso is unusually good or bad.

  • 23% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (97% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 10.0% fail on Stop lamp (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 6.4% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.8% fail on Headlamps (91% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.6% fail on Headlamp (99% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.16% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 4.2% fail on Headlamp aim (43% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.6% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.66% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 3.7% fail on Direction indicators (77% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.7% fail on Flashing type (77% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 3.2% fail on Individual direction indicators (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.38% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.11% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.55% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 0.55% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.55% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.33% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.22% fail on Horn
      • 0.055% fail on Electrical wiring
      • 0.055% fail on Battery(ies)
    • 0.16% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.16% fail on Position lamp
    • 0.16% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.055% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 0.055% fail on Main beam tell-tale
      • 0.055% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
  • 13% fail on Suspension
    • 6.1% fail on Springs
      • 6.1% fail on Coil springs
        • 6.0% fail on Coil spring
        • 0.055% fail on Mounting
    • 4.7% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.5% fail on Ball joint (68% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.16% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 2.6% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.6% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.44% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (62% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.22% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.16% fail on Linkage
    • 0.82% fail on Other suspension component (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.71% fail on Ball joint (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.055% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.055% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.055% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.38% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.33% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.16% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.11% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.055% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.055% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.055% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.055% fail on Air/gas/fluid suspension
      • 0.055% fail on Suspension unit
  • 10% fail on Brakes (29% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.9% fail on Brake performance
      • 3.4% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (89% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 3.3% fail on Rbt (sp) (98% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.055% fail on Gradient tester (sp)
      • 1.3% fail on Service brake performance
        • 1.3% fail on Rbt
          • 1.2% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.16% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 1.2% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 1.1% fail on Rbt
          • 0.88% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.16% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.055% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
        • 0.055% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.055% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.16% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.16% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.11% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.055% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.11% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 4.8% fail on Mechanical brake components (61% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.5% fail on Brake linings and pads (66% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 3.4% fail on Brake pads (65% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.055% fail on Brake linings
      • 1.6% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 1.6% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.38% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.38% fail on Cable (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Parking brake control (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Electronic parking brake (25 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.66% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.49% fail on Electronic stability control
      • 0.38% fail on Anti-lock braking system
    • 0.33% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.33% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.055% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.055% fail on Pedal
  • 9.6% fail on Body, chassis, structure (140% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 8.0% fail on Transmission (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 7.6% fail on Drive shafts (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 7.6% fail on Joints (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Prop shafts (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.33% fail on Joints (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.055% fail on Belts
    • 0.71% fail on Exhaust system (58% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.33% fail on Doors
      • 0.27% fail on Other passenger's door (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.27% fail on Door condition (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.055% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.055% fail on Door condition
    • 0.27% fail on Seats (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Driver's seat (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.22% fail on Body
      • 0.22% fail on Other body component
    • 0.16% fail on Engine mounting (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Engine mounting condition
      • 0.055% fail on Bracket
    • 0.11% fail on Cabs (54 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Prescribed areas (72 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Undertray
    • 0.055% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.055% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 0.055% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.055% fail on Tank
    • 0.055% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.055% fail on Boot lid condition
  • 8.4% fail on Tyres (40% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.5% fail on Tread depth (64% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.6% fail on Condition
    • 0.27% fail on Size/type
  • 7.7% fail on Visibility (45% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.9% fail on Washers (84% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.7% fail on Wipers
    • 0.33% fail on Condition of glass (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Windscreen (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Bonnet
    • 0.11% fail on View to rear
      • 0.11% fail on Mirrors
  • 7.0% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (100% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 6.5% fail on Exhaust emissions (98% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.5% fail on Compression ignition (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 4.3% fail on On or after 01/07/2008 (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.99% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.16% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.16% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.055% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
      • 1.0% fail on Spark ignition (49% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.88% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.22% fail on Catalyst emissions (76% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.49% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.38% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.11% fail on Other leaks
  • 1.5% fail on Steering
    • 1.3% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 1.2% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.055% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.22% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.22% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.055% fail on Steering coupling
      • 0.055% fail on Universal joint
  • 1.3% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.71% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.38% fail on Prescribed areas (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Condition
    • 0.60% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 1.0% fail on Road Wheels (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.99% fail on Attachment (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.055% fail on Condition
  • 0.66% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.66% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.055% fail on Seat belt installation check
    • 0.055% fail on Anchorages

Search Good Garages