Citroen C1 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
67.7% pass rate
from 13,874 tests in 2021
(15% 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 C1 is unusually good or bad.

  • 11% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (6.9% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.9% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 2.7% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.16% fail on Headlamp aim not tested (50% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 1.9% fail on Headlamps (37% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Headlamp (38% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Headlamp levelling device
      • 0.014% fail on Dipswitch
      • 0.0072% fail on Matched pair
    • 1.8% fail on Stop lamp (38% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Rear fog lamp (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.2% fail on Rear fog lamp (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Direction indicators (49% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Flashing type (49% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.43% fail on Switch (25 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.37% fail on All direction indicators (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.22% fail on Individual direction indicators (82% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Side repeaters (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0072% fail on Semaphore
        • 0.0072% fail on Switch
    • 1.0% fail on Hazard warning (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.0% fail on Switch (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.35% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.18% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.14% fail on Horn
      • 0.022% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.22% fail on Position lamps (93% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Position lamp (86% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on All position lamps (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.20% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.20% fail on Reversing lamps
    • 0.10% fail on Mandatory tell-tales (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.065% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.036% fail on Main beam tell-tale (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.029% fail on Rear reflectors
  • 10.0% fail on Brakes (26% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.8% fail on Brake performance (20% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.5% fail on Service brake performance (73% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 3.4% fail on Rbt (73% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 3.1% fail on Service brake performance (82% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.45% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 0.0072% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
        • 0.065% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.050% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
          • 0.014% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.022% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.022% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.1% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (38% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.1% fail on Rbt (sp) (35% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0072% fail on Decelerometer (sp)
      • 0.61% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.61% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.51% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 0.18% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.0072% fail on Plate brake tester (sp)
          • 0.0072% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.59% fail on Parking brake performance (26% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.53% fail on Rbt (30% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.48% fail on Parking brake performance (28% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.036% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.014% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
        • 0.050% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.022% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.014% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.014% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles) (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0072% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.0072% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.17% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 3.8% fail on Rigid brake pipes (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.5% fail on Mechanical brake components (17% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Brake linings and pads (30% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.4% fail on Brake pads (30% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0072% fail on Brake linings
      • 1.2% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 1.2% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.043% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.029% fail on Cable
        • 0.014% fail on Lever
    • 0.24% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.24% fail on Lever
    • 0.20% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (40% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.17% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (70% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Anti-lock braking system (65% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0072% fail on Electronic braking system
    • 0.043% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.022% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.014% fail on Brake fluid
      • 0.0072% fail on Valves
    • 0.043% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders) (67% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.036% fail on Flexible brake hoses (66% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.0072% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.0072% fail on Leaks
  • 5.4% fail on Visibility
    • 3.4% fail on Wipers (34% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.0% fail on Washers (24% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.079% fail on View to rear
      • 0.079% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.072% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.072% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.022% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.022% fail on Bonnet (84% better than other 2010 cars)
  • 5.1% fail on Tyres (16% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.0% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.3% fail on Condition (19% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.065% fail on Size/type (64% better than other 2010 cars)
  • 4.2% fail on Suspension (68% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Suspension arms (63% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.0% fail on Pins and bushes (38% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.29% fail on Ball joint dust cover (35% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.25% fail on Ball joint (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Suspension arm (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.86% fail on Wheel bearings (57% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.60% fail on Macpherson strut (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.57% fail on Macpherson strut (11 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.50% fail on Anti-roll bars (86% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.34% fail on Linkage pins and bushes (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.072% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.043% fail on Linkage (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.036% fail on Linkage ball joints (97% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Ball joint dust cover (97% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0072% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
    • 0.36% fail on Sub-frames (65% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.25% fail on Sub-frame (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0072% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.30% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.22% fail on Springs (96% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Coil springs (97% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.094% fail on Mounting (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.058% fail on Coil spring (99% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.072% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.19% fail on Shock absorbers (76% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.043% fail on Other suspension component (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.022% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.014% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.0072% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.0072% fail on Ball joint dust cover
  • 3.9% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (13% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.8% fail on Exhaust emissions (17% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.7% fail on Spark ignition (82% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.3% fail on Catalyst emissions (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.97% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.67% fail on Emissions not tested (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.043% fail on Non catalyst emissions
      • 0.19% fail on Compression ignition (85% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.022% fail on On or after 01/07/2008 (97% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.022% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (95% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.014% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
        • 0.014% fail on Emissions not tested (87% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0072% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
    • 0.072% fail on Fluid leaks (65% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.050% fail on Engine oil leaks (70% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Transmission oil leaks
      • 0.0072% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
    • 0.0072% fail on Noise suppression
      • 0.0072% fail on Undertray
  • 3.4% fail on Body, chassis, structure (13% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.6% fail on Exhaust system (54% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.33% fail on Transmission (79% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Drive shafts (80% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.30% fail on Joints (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.029% fail on Joints
    • 0.19% fail on Bumpers (83% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.12% fail on Integral vehicle structure (140% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.072% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
      • 0.058% fail on Sub-frame (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.058% fail on Sub-frame condition (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.058% fail on Body
      • 0.036% fail on Panel
      • 0.022% fail on Other body component
      • 0.0072% fail on Body condition
    • 0.050% fail on Chassis
      • 0.050% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.050% fail on Fuel system (77% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Tank
      • 0.014% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device (90% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0072% fail on Pipe
    • 0.050% fail on Doors (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.043% fail on Door condition
      • 0.0072% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.0072% fail on Door condition
    • 0.036% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.022% fail on Engine mounting condition
      • 0.014% fail on Bracket
    • 0.022% fail on Seats (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Driver's seat
      • 0.014% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.022% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.022% fail on Boot lid condition
    • 0.0072% fail on Load security
      • 0.0072% fail on Tailgate
        • 0.0072% fail on Tailgate condition
    • 0.0072% fail on Undertray
  • 0.53% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (42% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.37% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.17% fail on Seat belts (62% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.086% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.079% fail on Condition (78% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.014% fail on Airbags
      • 0.014% fail on Drivers airbag
  • 0.52% fail on Steering (78% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.24% fail on Steering linkage components (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.094% fail on Locking devices (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.086% fail on Track rod end (95% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.029% fail on Drag link end
    • 0.14% fail on Electronic power steering (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.050% fail on Steering play
      • 0.050% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.036% fail on Power steering
      • 0.036% fail on Operation
    • 0.029% fail on Steering gear (90% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Steering rack (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0072% fail on Operation
    • 0.014% fail on Steering column
    • 0.0072% fail on Steering wheel
  • 0.41% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.40% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.014% fail on Attachment (96% better than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.21% fail on Identification of the vehicle (50% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.21% fail on Registration plates (50% better than other 2010 cars)
Read the Honest John Review

  • Citroen C1 (2005 - 2014)
    Cheap to run. Group 1 insurance. 60mpg. handles well. Low list prices. Good Euro NCAP score. 2012 model emits just 99g/km CO2.

    Search Good Garages