Citroen C-Crosser MOT Results

Registered in 2009
67.7% pass rate
from 644 tests in 2017
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 2009 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen C-Crosser is unusually good or bad.

  • 14% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 7.1% fail on Registration plate lamp (77% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 5.9% fail on Position lamps (58% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 5.9% fail on Front lamps (98% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 1.9% fail on Headlamp aim (54% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Headlamps
      • 0.93% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest (25 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.62% fail on Headlamp levelling device (26 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.31% fail on Headlamp cleaning device (26 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.62% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest (9 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.62% fail on Headlamp cleaning device (11 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.16% fail on Headlamp
    • 1.4% fail on Rear fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.31% fail on Stop lamp (90% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.16% fail on Horn
  • 11% fail on Steering (7 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 11% fail on Steering system (8 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 10% fail on Track rod end (12 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.31% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.16% fail on Steering arm
  • 7.8% fail on Brakes
    • 3.6% fail on Hub components
      • 3.0% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.62% fail on Brake discs
    • 2.3% fail on Hydraulic systems (190% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 2.3% fail on Components (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 2.3% fail on Pipes (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.4% fail on Rear wheels
      • 0.78% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.31% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.31% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.16% fail on Brake imbalance
    • 0.47% fail on Electronic stability system (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.47% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.47% fail on Condition
  • 7.3% fail on Suspension (32% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 3.4% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 2.2% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.78% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.31% fail on Linkage condition
      • 0.16% fail on Attachment
    • 2.0% fail on Suspension arms
      • 2.0% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.1% fail on Coil springs (73% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Condition (73% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.16% fail on Location
    • 0.93% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 0.93% fail on Condition
    • 0.31% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 0.16% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.16% fail on Condition
    • 0.16% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.16% fail on Condition
  • 4.8% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 3.3% fail on Wipers
    • 1.6% fail on Washers
  • 4.3% fail on Tyres (39% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 2.5% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.9% fail on Condition
    • 0.16% fail on Valve stem
  • 1.1% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.1% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.31% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 0.31% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.16% fail on Requirements
      • 0.16% fail on Condition
  • 0.31% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.16% fail on Body condition
    • 0.16% fail on Spare wheel
  • 0.16% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.16% fail on Attachment
  • 0.16% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 0.16% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.16% fail on System
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages