Citroen 2CV MOT Results

Registered in 1989
65.5% pass rate
from 365 tests in 2020
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 1989 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen 2CV is unusually good or bad.

  • 21% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (34% worse than other 1989 cars)
    • 7.7% fail on Direction indicators (130% worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 7.7% fail on Flashing type (130% worse than other 1989 cars)
        • 4.1% fail on Side repeaters (200% worse than other 1989 cars)
        • 3.3% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 1.1% fail on All direction indicators
    • 6.0% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 6.0% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 6.0% fail on Rear fog lamp (78% worse than other 1989 cars)
        • 0.27% fail on Switch
    • 5.2% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 4.7% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.55% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 4.1% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.8% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.27% fail on Dipswitch
      • 0.27% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 3.3% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.0% fail on Position lamps
      • 3.0% fail on Position lamp
    • 2.2% fail on Mandatory tell-tales (3 times worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Main beam tell-tale (7 times worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale (2 times worse than other 1989 cars)
    • 1.4% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.82% fail on Horn
      • 0.55% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.27% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.55% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.27% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.27% fail on Switch
  • 10% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 3.6% fail on Transmission
      • 3.3% fail on Drive shafts
        • 3.3% fail on Joints
      • 0.27% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.27% fail on Joints
    • 2.2% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 2.2% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
      • 0.27% fail on Sub-frame
        • 0.27% fail on Sub-frame condition
    • 1.6% fail on Exhaust system
    • 1.1% fail on Chassis
      • 1.1% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.82% fail on Doors
      • 0.82% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.82% fail on Door condition
    • 0.82% fail on Floor
    • 0.55% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.27% fail on Pipe
      • 0.27% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.55% fail on Seats
      • 0.55% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.55% fail on Cabs
      • 0.55% fail on Prescribed areas (5 times worse than other 1989 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Body
      • 0.27% fail on Panel
    • 0.27% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.27% fail on Boot lid condition
  • 9.6% fail on Suspension
    • 4.1% fail on Axles (9 times worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 3.6% fail on King pins (48 times worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 0.27% fail on Stub axle
      • 0.27% fail on Swivel pins and bushes
    • 2.5% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 1.6% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 1.1% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.82% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.27% fail on Ball joint
    • 1.1% fail on Other suspension component
      • 1.1% fail on Pins and bushes (9 times worse than other 1989 cars)
    • 0.82% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.27% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.27% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
  • 9.0% fail on Brakes
    • 7.1% fail on Brake performance
      • 3.6% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 3.6% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 2.7% fail on Service brake performance
        • 2.7% fail on Rbt
          • 2.5% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.55% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 2.2% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 2.2% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 1.4% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 1.1% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.9% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 1.6% fail on Rbt
          • 1.6% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.27% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.27% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.27% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.6% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 1.1% fail on Parking brake control
      • 1.1% fail on Lever
    • 0.55% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.55% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.55% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 0.27% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 0.27% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.27% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.27% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.27% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.27% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
  • 7.7% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (2 times worse than other 1989 cars)
    • 7.7% fail on Seat belts (2 times worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 6.3% fail on Prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Condition
      • 0.27% fail on Requirements
  • 7.7% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 7.7% fail on Exhaust emissions (66% worse than other 1989 cars)
      • 7.4% fail on Spark ignition (77% worse than other 1989 cars)
        • 6.3% fail on Non catalyst emissions (93% worse than other 1989 cars)
        • 1.1% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.27% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.27% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.27% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.27% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 6.0% fail on Visibility
    • 4.1% fail on Washers
    • 2.2% fail on Wipers
    • 0.27% fail on Bonnet
  • 3.0% fail on Tyres
    • 2.2% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.55% fail on Size/type
    • 0.27% fail on Condition
  • 1.6% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 1.6% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.82% fail on Steering (80% better than other 1989 cars)
    • 0.55% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 0.55% fail on Track rod end
    • 0.27% fail on Prescribed areas
  • 0.27% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.27% fail on Condition

Search Good Garages