Alfa Romeo 156 MOT Results

Registered in 2002
50.3% pass rate
from 497 tests in 2020
Pass rate by mileage
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 2002 cars and highlighted areas where the Alfa Romeo 156 is unusually good or bad.

  • 21% fail on Suspension
    • 15% fail on Suspension arms (140% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 9.3% fail on Pins and bushes (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 4.4% fail on Ball joint
      • 2.0% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.40% fail on Suspension arm
      • 0.20% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 3.2% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 3.0% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.2% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.60% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.60% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.40% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 0.20% fail on Anti-roll bar
      • 0.20% fail on Linkage
    • 1.4% fail on Springs
      • 0.80% fail on Coil springs (76% better than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.80% fail on Coil spring (75% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.60% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas (7 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.60% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
      • 0.40% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.20% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.80% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.80% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.80% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.60% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.40% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.20% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.20% fail on Macpherson strut
    • 0.20% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.20% fail on Pins and bushes
  • 20% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 7.8% fail on Headlamp aim (63% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 7.2% fail on Headlamp aim (62% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.80% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 4.2% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.2% fail on Position lamp
    • 4.0% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.4% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.60% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 3.2% fail on Stop lamp (45% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.4% fail on Horn
      • 0.40% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.20% fail on Trailer electrical socket
      • 0.20% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 2.0% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 2.0% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 1.8% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.20% fail on Switch
    • 1.8% fail on Direction indicators
      • 1.8% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.80% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.60% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.40% fail on All direction indicators
    • 1.0% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (65% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.60% fail on Rear reflectors (10 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.40% fail on Switch
    • 0.20% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 0.20% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
  • 13% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 5.8% fail on Transmission
      • 5.4% fail on Drive shafts
        • 5.4% fail on Joints
      • 0.20% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.20% fail on Joints
      • 0.20% fail on Belts
    • 4.8% fail on Exhaust system
    • 1.2% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.0% fail on Tank (5 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 1.2% fail on Doors
      • 0.60% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.60% fail on Door condition
      • 0.40% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.40% fail on Door condition
      • 0.20% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.20% fail on Door condition
    • 1.0% fail on Chassis
      • 1.0% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.60% fail on Floor (8 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.40% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 0.20% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.20% fail on Engine mounting condition
    • 0.20% fail on Seats
      • 0.20% fail on Driver's seat
  • 12% fail on Brakes
    • 4.4% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 4.4% fail on Brake performance (47% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 2.0% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 1.8% fail on Service brake performance
        • 1.8% fail on Rbt
          • 1.0% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.80% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 1.0% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 1.0% fail on Rbt
          • 0.60% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.40% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.20% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.40% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (81% better than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.40% fail on Rbt (sp) (80% better than other 2002 cars)
          • 0.40% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.20% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 3.0% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 1.4% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 1.4% fail on Brake pads
      • 1.2% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 1.0% fail on Cable (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.20% fail on Linkage
      • 0.80% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.80% fail on Brake discs
    • 1.4% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 1.4% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.20% fail on Electronic stability control
    • 1.2% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.20% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.20% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.20% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.20% fail on Lever
    • 0.20% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.20% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
  • 12% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 6.8% fail on Seat belts (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 6.6% fail on Prescribed areas (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Condition
    • 5.2% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
  • 10% fail on Visibility
    • 6.2% fail on Washers (68% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 3.8% fail on Wipers
    • 0.60% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.40% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.40% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.20% fail on View to rear
      • 0.20% fail on Mirrors
  • 9.9% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 8.7% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 7.8% fail on Spark ignition
        • 4.6% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 3.0% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 0.60% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.20% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.20% fail on Oxygen sensor
        • 0.20% fail on Non catalyst emissions
      • 1.0% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.80% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
        • 0.20% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 1.4% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.80% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.60% fail on Other leaks (6 times worse than other 2002 cars)
  • 8.0% fail on Tyres
    • 4.0% fail on Condition
    • 4.0% fail on Tread depth
  • 1.6% fail on Steering (65% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 1.0% fail on Steering linkage components (70% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.80% fail on Track rod end (73% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.20% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.20% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.20% fail on Power steering
      • 0.20% fail on Operation
    • 0.20% fail on Steering play
      • 0.20% fail on Steering rack
  • 0.40% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.40% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.20% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.20% fail on Condition

Search Good Garages