MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Mazda » 5 » 2010

Mazda 5 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
53.9% pass rate
from 1,790 tests in 2021
(27% 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 Mazda 5 is unusually good or bad.

  • 21% fail on Suspension (59% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 12% fail on Suspension arms (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 7.1% fail on Ball joint (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.3% fail on Pins and bushes (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.11% fail on Suspension arm
      • 0.056% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 8.0% fail on Anti-roll bars (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.9% fail on Linkage ball joints (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
      • 0.95% fail on Ball joint (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.34% fail on Pins and bushes (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Linkage
      • 0.17% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 0.11% fail on Anti-roll bar
      • 0.056% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 2.7% fail on Springs (50% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.7% fail on Coil springs (50% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.7% fail on Coil spring (49% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Shock absorbers (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.45% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.056% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.17% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.11% fail on Axles
      • 0.11% fail on Swivel pins and bushes
    • 0.056% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.056% fail on Macpherson strut
    • 0.056% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.056% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.056% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.056% fail on Sub-frame
    • 0.056% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
  • 13% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 5.9% fail on Headlamps (97% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.9% fail on Headlamp (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 2.0% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 1.5% fail on Headlamp aim (45% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.56% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.8% fail on Hazard warning (34 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Switch (34 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Rear fog lamp (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.5% fail on Rear fog lamp (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.78% fail on Stop lamp (73% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.22% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.17% fail on Direction indicators (92% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Flashing type (92% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.17% fail on Side repeaters (77% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.17% fail on Electrical wiring (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.056% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.056% fail on Switch
    • 0.056% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.056% fail on Reversing lamps
  • 10% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (200% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 10% fail on Exhaust emissions (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 9.7% fail on Spark ignition (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 6.8% fail on Catalyst emissions (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.2% fail on Emissions not tested (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.5% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.22% fail on Non catalyst emissions (12 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.73% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.39% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.17% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.11% fail on On or after 01/07/2008 (82% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.056% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.056% fail on Particulate filter
    • 0.22% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.11% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.056% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
      • 0.056% fail on Other leaks
    • 0.17% fail on Noise suppression (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Undertray (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 9.8% fail on Body, chassis, structure (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.5% fail on Exhaust system (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.4% fail on Transmission (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.3% fail on Drive shafts (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 4.3% fail on Joints (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.056% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.056% fail on Joints
    • 0.28% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.28% fail on Tank (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.17% fail on Engine mounting (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Engine mounting condition (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Body
      • 0.056% fail on Panel
      • 0.056% fail on Other body component
    • 0.056% fail on Chassis
      • 0.056% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.056% fail on Undertray
  • 9.0% fail on Brakes
    • 4.7% fail on Mechanical brake components (60% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.0% fail on Brake linings and pads (94% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 3.9% fail on Brake pads (89% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Brake linings (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 1.3% fail on Brake discs
    • 3.0% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.5% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 1.5% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 1.3% fail on Service brake performance
        • 1.3% fail on Rbt
          • 1.1% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.34% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.056% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.056% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.78% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.67% fail on Rbt
          • 0.61% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.056% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
        • 0.056% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.056% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
        • 0.056% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.056% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.34% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.34% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.22% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.17% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.17% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.78% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.61% fail on Hand lever (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Pedal
    • 0.67% fail on Hydraulic systems (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.34% fail on Reservoirs (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Brake fluid
      • 0.17% fail on Master cylinder (40 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.056% fail on Servos
    • 0.56% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.45% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.22% fail on Electronic stability control
    • 0.34% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.34% fail on Lever
    • 0.28% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.28% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
    • 0.11% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.056% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.056% fail on Leaks
    • 0.056% fail on Rigid brake pipes
  • 8.3% fail on Tyres (38% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.0% fail on Condition (73% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.5% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.34% fail on Size/type
  • 5.5% fail on Visibility
    • 3.6% fail on Wipers (41% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Washers
    • 0.17% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.17% fail on Windscreen
  • 1.6% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (78% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.0% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.67% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.61% fail on Condition
      • 0.056% fail on Prescribed areas
  • 0.84% fail on Steering (65% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.50% fail on Steering linkage components (74% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Track rod end (78% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.34% fail on Power steering (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.34% fail on Operation (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.056% fail on Pipes and hoses
  • 0.67% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.67% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.50% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.45% fail on Attachment
    • 0.056% fail on Condition
Read the Honest John Review

  • Mazda 5 (2010 - 2015)
    Family friendly seven seater. Sport has remote electric sliding side doors. Economical and light new 1.6 diesel. Compliant suspension astonishingly good on poor road surfaces.
  • Mazda 5 (2005 - 2010)
    Sliding side doors, can carry seven people in comfort, well styled, rearmost seats fold flat into the floor, five-star crash test rating.

    Search Good Garages