Citroen Grand C4 Picasso MOT Results

Registered in 2016
78.8% pass rate
from 3,386 tests in 2020
(71% worse than other 2016 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 2016 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen Grand C4 Picasso is unusually good or bad.

  • 7.8% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (120% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 3.9% fail on Headlamp aim (110% worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 3.8% fail on Headlamp aim (110% worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 2.5% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (8 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Headlamps (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Headlamp (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.53% fail on Direction indicators
      • 0.53% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.44% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.059% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.030% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.27% fail on Stop lamp
    • 0.15% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 0.15% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.15% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.089% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.059% fail on Horn
      • 0.030% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.030% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.030% fail on Position lamp
  • 5.4% fail on Brakes (170% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 4.7% fail on Mechanical brake components (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 4.6% fail on Brake linings and pads (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
        • 4.6% fail on Brake pads (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.47% fail on Brake discs and drums (100% worse than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.47% fail on Brake discs (100% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.62% fail on Brake performance
      • 0.41% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.41% fail on Rbt
          • 0.32% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.089% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.15% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.15% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.089% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.089% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.12% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 0.12% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.030% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.18% fail on Hydraulic systems (7 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.089% fail on Reservoirs (10 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.089% fail on Brake fluid (5 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.12% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.12% fail on Pedal
    • 0.059% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.059% fail on Electronic stability control
  • 5.3% fail on Tyres (50% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 3.8% fail on Condition (100% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.030% fail on Size/type
  • 3.0% fail on Visibility
    • 2.2% fail on Washers (160% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.59% fail on Wipers (68% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.089% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.089% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.089% fail on View to rear
      • 0.089% fail on Mirrors
  • 3.0% fail on Suspension (3 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 2.6% fail on Anti-roll bars (34 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Linkage ball joints (62 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.44% fail on Ball joint (57 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.059% fail on Linkage pins and bushes (30 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.030% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.030% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
    • 0.21% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.12% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.089% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.089% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.059% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.059% fail on Suspension rods (30 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.059% fail on Ball joint (80 times worse than other 2016 cars)
  • 0.95% fail on Body, chassis, structure (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.38% fail on Seats (16 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Driver's seat (24 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.089% fail on Passenger's seat (8 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.30% fail on Transmission (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Drive shafts (3 times worse than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.30% fail on Joints (3 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.089% fail on Body
      • 0.089% fail on Other body component
    • 0.059% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.059% fail on Spare wheel (57 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.030% fail on Spare wheel condition
      • 0.030% fail on Carrier
    • 0.030% fail on Exhaust system
    • 0.030% fail on Undertray
  • 0.41% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.24% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (170% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.12% fail on Condition
      • 0.059% fail on Attachment (19 times worse than other 2016 cars)
  • 0.30% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.24% fail on Attachment (170% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.059% fail on Condition
  • 0.21% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.21% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.12% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (70% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.089% fail on Exhaust emissions (76% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.059% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.030% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
        • 0.030% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
      • 0.030% fail on Spark ignition
        • 0.030% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 0.030% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.030% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.030% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 0.059% fail on Steering
    • 0.059% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 0.059% fail on Track rod end

Search Good Garages