Daihatsu Charade MOT Results

Registered in 2003
54.3% pass rate
from 773 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 2003 cars and highlighted areas where the Daihatsu Charade is unusually good or bad.

  • 26% fail on Suspension (25% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 14% fail on Prescribed areas (5 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 9.1% fail on Spring mounting (78 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 6.0% fail on Component mounting (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.91% fail on Subframe mounting
    • 6.6% fail on Suspension arms (43% worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 6.6% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (52% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 4.0% fail on Drive shafts
      • 4.0% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 3.9% fail on Constant velocity joints
        • 0.13% fail on Couplings
    • 3.2% fail on Front suspension joints (110% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 1.4% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 1.4% fail on Condition
    • 1.2% fail on Trailing arms (3 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 1.0% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (3 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Condition
    • 1.0% fail on Sub-frames (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.52% fail on Condition
      • 0.52% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (6 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Attachment
    • 0.91% fail on Coil springs (79% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.65% fail on Condition (85% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Location
    • 0.91% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.52% fail on Front
      • 0.39% fail on Rear
    • 0.26% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.13% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.13% fail on Attachment
    • 0.26% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.26% fail on Condition
    • 0.13% fail on Fluid suspension
      • 0.13% fail on Bellows
    • 0.13% fail on Front suspension retaining and locking devices
  • 15% fail on Brakes
    • 9.2% fail on Brake performance
      • 3.6% fail on Front wheels
      • 3.6% fail on Rear wheels
      • 2.7% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 1.7% fail on Brake imbalance (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.13% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 5.8% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 5.4% fail on Components
        • 5.2% fail on Pipes
        • 0.26% fail on Hoses (80% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Operation
      • 0.13% fail on Leaks
    • 2.8% fail on Hub components
      • 2.2% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.78% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.26% fail on Brake calipers
      • 0.13% fail on Wheel cylinder
    • 1.0% fail on Parking brake
      • 1.0% fail on Condition
    • 0.52% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.52% fail on Pedal
        • 0.52% fail on Condition (5 times worse than other 2003 cars)
  • 15% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (44% better than other 2003 cars)
    • 4.8% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.8% fail on Headlamp aim (51% better than other 2003 cars)
    • 3.5% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.4% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.13% fail on Matched pair
    • 2.7% fail on Registration plate lamp (62% better than other 2003 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Position lamps (67% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Front lamps (67% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Rear lamps (79% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on All position lamps
    • 0.26% fail on Battery
    • 0.26% fail on Horn
    • 0.13% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.13% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.13% fail on Tell tale
    • 0.13% fail on Direction indicators
      • 0.13% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.13% fail on Individual lamps
    • 0.13% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 12% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (56% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 7.0% fail on Exhaust system (60% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 4.7% fail on Emissions
    • 2.3% fail on Fuel system (2 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.78% fail on Tank (6 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.52% fail on Pipe (6 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.52% fail on System
      • 0.39% fail on Hose (22 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Cap
    • 1.6% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 8.9% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 6.6% fail on Wipers
    • 1.4% fail on Washers (60% better than other 2003 cars)
    • 0.78% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.26% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.13% fail on Indirect vision devices
  • 7.4% fail on Tyres
    • 4.7% fail on Tread depth
    • 3.0% fail on Condition
    • 0.52% fail on Size/type
  • 4.8% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (120% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Body condition (180% worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Vehicle structure (4 times worse than other 2003 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Chassis (4 times worse than other 2003 cars)
    • 0.26% fail on Doors
      • 0.26% fail on Passengers other
    • 0.13% fail on Engine mountings
    • 0.13% fail on Seats
      • 0.13% fail on Passengers
  • 1.8% fail on Steering (64% better than other 2003 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Steering system (66% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.78% fail on Track rod end (76% better than other 2003 cars)
      • 0.65% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.13% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.13% fail on Steering control
      • 0.13% fail on Steering wheel
    • 0.13% fail on Locking devices
  • 0.78% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (76% better than other 2003 cars)
    • 0.78% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.52% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.26% fail on Condition
  • 0.13% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.13% fail on Attachment
  • 0.13% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.13% fail on Registration plate
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages