Citroen Nemo Multispace MOT Results

Registered in 2010
69.7% pass rate
from 758 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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Citroen Nemo Multispace is unusually good or bad.

  • 14% fail on Suspension (77% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 9.2% fail on Coil springs (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 9.1% fail on Condition (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Location
    • 3.0% fail on Shock absorbers (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.0% fail on Condition (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 2.0% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.13% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.53% fail on Drive shafts
      • 0.53% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 0.53% fail on Constant velocity joints
    • 0.40% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.40% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.26% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.26% fail on Condition
  • 8.3% fail on Tyres
    • 4.7% fail on Condition
    • 4.4% fail on Tread depth
  • 7.9% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (41% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 2.1% fail on Position lamps
      • 1.2% fail on Front lamps
      • 0.92% fail on Rear lamps
    • 2.1% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 1.6% fail on Direction indicators
      • 1.6% fail on Flashing type
        • 1.3% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.26% fail on Side repeaters
    • 0.79% fail on Stop lamp (68% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.66% fail on Headlamps (71% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.66% fail on Headlamp (70% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.13% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.13% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.13% fail on Fog lamp
    • 0.13% fail on Horn
    • 0.13% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 6.2% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 4.2% fail on Wipers (60% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Washers
    • 0.53% fail on Mirrors (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.26% fail on Windscreen
  • 3.6% fail on Brakes
    • 1.8% fail on Hub components
      • 1.5% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.53% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.79% fail on ABS (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.79% fail on Brake performance (64% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.26% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.26% fail on Rear wheels
    • 0.40% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.40% fail on Condition
    • 0.26% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.26% fail on Pedal
        • 0.26% fail on Anti-slip
  • 1.5% fail on Steering
    • 0.92% fail on Power steering (14 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.53% fail on Pipes and hoses (42 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.40% fail on Operation (15 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.53% fail on Steering operation (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 1.5% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Seat belts (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.79% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Requirements (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.26% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
      • 0.13% fail on Passengers airbag
  • 0.53% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 0.40% fail on Exhaust system
    • 0.13% fail on Emissions
    • 0.13% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.13% fail on System
  • 0.53% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.53% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.40% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.26% fail on Attachment
    • 0.13% fail on Condition
  • 0.26% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.13% fail on Load security
      • 0.13% fail on Access panel
    • 0.13% fail on Spare wheel

Search Good Garages