Citroen C-Crosser MOT Results

Registered in 2010
77.8% pass rate
from 483 tests in 2017
(24% better than other 2010 cars)
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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen C-Crosser is unusually good or bad.

  • 9.1% fail on Brakes (63% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.0% fail on Hub components (79% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.7% fail on Brake pads
      • 1.4% fail on Brake discs
    • 2.5% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.4% fail on Rear wheels
      • 0.83% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.41% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.21% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.21% fail on Parking brake performance
    • 1.0% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 1.0% fail on Components
        • 0.83% fail on Pipes
        • 0.21% fail on Reservoirs
    • 0.83% fail on ABS (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.21% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.21% fail on Pedal
        • 0.21% fail on Anti-slip
    • 0.21% fail on Restricted movement
  • 7.0% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (47% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 2.7% fail on Position lamps
      • 2.7% fail on Front lamps
    • 1.7% fail on Headlamps
      • 0.62% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.41% fail on Headlamp levelling device (90 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.21% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
      • 0.62% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.62% fail on Headlamp levelling device (32 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Headlamp (81% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Headlamp aim (64% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.41% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.41% fail on Fog lamp
  • 5.2% fail on Steering (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.2% fail on Steering system (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.0% fail on Track rod end (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Ball joint
  • 4.3% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 3.1% fail on Wipers
    • 1.0% fail on Washers
    • 0.21% fail on Windscreen
  • 2.7% fail on Tyres (60% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.4% fail on Condition
  • 1.9% fail on Suspension (77% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.2% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.41% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.21% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.21% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.21% fail on Front suspension joints
  • 0.41% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.21% fail on Body condition
    • 0.21% fail on Seats
      • 0.21% fail on Passengers
  • 0.41% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.41% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.21% fail on Towbars
    • 0.21% fail on Detachable tow ball
  • 0.21% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.21% fail on Attachment
  • 0.21% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 0.21% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.21% fail on Condition
  • 0.21% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 0.21% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.21% fail on Cap
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages