MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Chevrolet » Matiz » 2010

Chevrolet Matiz MOT Results

Registered in 2010
56.6% pass rate
from 1,169 tests in 2021
(18% 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 Chevrolet Matiz is unusually good or bad.

  • 15% fail on Brakes (86% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 7.8% fail on Brake performance (94% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 6.5% fail on Service brake performance (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 6.5% fail on Rbt (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 4.9% fail on Service brake performance (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 2.3% fail on Service brake imbalance (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.8% fail on Rbt (sp) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.8% fail on Service brake imbalance (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.086% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.68% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (62% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.68% fail on Rbt (sp) (60% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.34% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.34% fail on Rbt
          • 0.26% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.086% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.17% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 4.4% fail on Rigid brake pipes (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.2% fail on Anti-lock braking system (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Mechanical brake components (51% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 1.2% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.34% fail on Brake discs and drums (70% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.34% fail on Brake discs (70% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.77% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.60% fail on Pedal (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.51% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.51% fail on Lever
    • 0.26% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.17% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.086% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
      • 0.086% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
  • 14% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 5.0% fail on Headlamps (65% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.0% fail on Headlamp (76% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.3% fail on Stop lamp (47% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 2.1% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.17% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.5% fail on Direction indicators
      • 1.5% fail on Flashing type
        • 1.3% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.26% fail on Side repeaters
    • 1.1% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.94% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 0.94% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.94% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.77% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.51% fail on Horn
      • 0.17% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.086% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.26% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.26% fail on Reversing lamps
  • 13% fail on Suspension
    • 7.7% fail on Suspension arms (88% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 6.8% fail on Ball joint (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.51% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.26% fail on Pins and bushes (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Suspension arm
      • 0.086% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 3.3% fail on Wheel bearings (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.5% fail on Macpherson strut (14 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Pins and bushes (28 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.68% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (11 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Macpherson strut
    • 1.0% fail on Other suspension component (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.68% fail on Ball joint (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.34% fail on Pins and bushes (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.43% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.43% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Anti-roll bars (95% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.086% fail on Anti-roll bar
      • 0.086% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.086% fail on Springs
      • 0.086% fail on Coil springs
        • 0.086% fail on Coil spring
  • 9.8% fail on Visibility (83% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 6.6% fail on Wipers (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.8% fail on Washers
    • 0.60% fail on Bonnet (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on View to rear
      • 0.17% fail on Mirrors
  • 7.8% fail on Tyres
    • 5.7% fail on Tread depth (70% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.7% fail on Condition
    • 0.34% fail on Size/type
  • 6.3% fail on Body, chassis, structure (60% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.8% fail on Exhaust system (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Transmission
      • 1.6% fail on Drive shafts
        • 1.6% fail on Joints
    • 0.34% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.17% fail on System (22 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.086% fail on Tank
      • 0.086% fail on Pipe
    • 0.34% fail on Doors
      • 0.17% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.086% fail on Door condition
        • 0.086% fail on Catch
      • 0.17% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.17% fail on Door condition
    • 0.17% fail on Chassis (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Chassis condition (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.086% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.086% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.086% fail on Engine mounting condition
    • 0.086% fail on Body
      • 0.086% fail on Body condition
  • 4.8% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 4.4% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 4.3% fail on Spark ignition (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.3% fail on Catalyst emissions (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.7% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.86% fail on Emissions not tested (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.086% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.086% fail on NOx sensor
      • 0.17% fail on Compression ignition (86% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.086% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.086% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
    • 0.43% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.34% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.086% fail on Other leaks
  • 3.3% fail on Steering
    • 1.5% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 1.3% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.17% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.086% fail on Other components
        • 0.086% fail on Steering linkage
    • 1.1% fail on Steering gear (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Steering rack (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.77% fail on Power steering (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.60% fail on Other components (28 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Operation (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.086% fail on Steering play
      • 0.086% fail on Steering rack
  • 1.0% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.86% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.43% fail on Condition
      • 0.34% fail on Prescribed areas (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.086% fail on Attachment
    • 0.17% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 0.43% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.43% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.26% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.17% fail on Attachment
    • 0.086% fail on Condition
  • 0.086% fail on Seat belt installation check
    • 0.086% fail on Belt(s)/padding

Search Good Garages