Citroen C5 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
67.6% pass rate
from 2,034 tests in 2017
(11% worse 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 C5 is unusually good or bad.

  • 17% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (27% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.9% fail on Registration plate lamp (64% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.6% fail on Position lamps (90% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.4% fail on Front lamps (84% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Rear lamps (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.4% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.7% fail on Stop lamp (51% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.6% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.6% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.049% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.049% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
    • 0.39% fail on Horn
    • 0.29% fail on Direction indicators (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.29% fail on Flashing type (81% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.20% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.098% fail on Individual lamps (88% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.20% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.20% fail on Fog lamp
    • 0.098% fail on Battery
    • 0.098% fail on Trailer electrical socket (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.049% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.049% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 12% fail on Suspension (46% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.4% fail on Drive shafts (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.3% fail on Front drive shafts (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 5.3% fail on Constant velocity joints (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.049% fail on Couplings
      • 0.098% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.098% fail on Drive shafts (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Suspension arms (77% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (73% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.098% fail on Attachment
    • 2.0% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.6% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.39% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.4% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 1.4% fail on Condition
    • 0.88% fail on Fluid suspension (97 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.79% fail on Suspension unit (109 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.049% fail on Operation
      • 0.049% fail on Pipes
    • 0.84% fail on Front suspension joints (140% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.49% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.29% fail on Front
      • 0.20% fail on Rear
    • 0.25% fail on Coil springs (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.25% fail on Condition (92% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.098% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.098% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
  • 6.6% fail on Tyres
    • 4.4% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.4% fail on Condition
    • 0.098% fail on Valve stem
    • 0.049% fail on Size/type
  • 5.8% fail on Brakes
    • 4.2% fail on Hub components (52% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.9% fail on Brake pads (64% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.49% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.15% fail on Brake calipers
    • 1.4% fail on Brake performance
      • 0.98% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.44% fail on Rear wheels (57% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Front wheels (69% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.049% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.049% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.20% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.15% fail on Electronic parking brake (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.049% fail on Condition
    • 0.15% fail on Hydraulic systems (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.098% fail on Components
        • 0.098% fail on Hoses
      • 0.049% fail on Operation
    • 0.098% fail on Electronic stability system
    • 0.098% fail on Mechanical components
      • 0.098% fail on Cable
    • 0.098% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.049% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.049% fail on Pedal
        • 0.049% fail on Anti-slip
    • 0.049% fail on ABS
  • 3.4% fail on Driver's view of the road (29% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Wipers (35% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Washers
    • 0.59% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.049% fail on Bonnet
  • 2.3% fail on Steering (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Power steering (23 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.88% fail on Other components (70 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.54% fail on Operation (21 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.29% fail on Pipes and hoses (23 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.74% fail on Steering system
      • 0.44% fail on Steering rack (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Track rod end (71% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.049% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.049% fail on Other components
        • 0.049% fail on Steering pivot point
    • 0.15% fail on Steering operation (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.74% fail on Road Wheels (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.74% fail on Attachment (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.34% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.34% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.25% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 0.20% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.20% fail on Condition
    • 0.049% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.049% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
  • 0.20% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.098% fail on Engine mountings (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.049% fail on Body condition
    • 0.049% fail on Seats
      • 0.049% fail on Passengers
  • 0.20% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (86% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.098% fail on Exhaust system (90% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.049% fail on Emissions
    • 0.049% fail on Emissions not tested
Read the Honest John Review

  • Citroen C5 (2008 - 2016)
    Very comfortable, fantastic all-speed refinement, lots of interior space, well equipped from mid-range upwards.

    Search Good Garages