FIAT Panda MOT Results

Registered in 2010
66.8% pass rate
from 8,787 tests in 2017
(14% 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 FIAT Panda is unusually good or bad.

  • 15% fail on Suspension (86% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 7.5% fail on Shock absorbers (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 7.5% fail on Condition (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 6.3% fail on Suspension arms (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 6.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.091% fail on Attachment (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.5% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.22% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.034% fail on Linkage condition
      • 0.023% fail on Attachment
    • 1.2% fail on Front suspension joints (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.82% fail on Coil springs (75% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.82% fail on Condition (75% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.41% fail on Macpherson strut (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.13% fail on Drive shafts (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Front drive shafts (85% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Constant velocity joints (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.011% fail on Drive shafts
    • 0.10% fail on Wheel bearings (68% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.068% fail on Rear
      • 0.034% fail on Front (81% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.046% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.046% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.034% fail on Bonded suspension
      • 0.023% fail on Condition
      • 0.011% fail on Attachment
    • 0.023% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.023% fail on Condition
    • 0.011% fail on Fluid suspension
      • 0.011% fail on Suspension unit
    • 0.011% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.011% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.011% fail on Front suspension retaining and locking devices
    • 0.011% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.011% fail on Spring mounting
  • 11% fail on Tyres (56% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 9.1% fail on Tread depth (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Condition (46% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Size/type
    • 0.023% fail on Valve stem
  • 6.9% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (48% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Headlamp aim (37% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Position lamps (39% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Front lamps (49% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.56% fail on Rear lamps
      • 0.046% fail on All position lamps
    • 1.4% fail on Direction indicators
      • 1.4% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.99% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.26% fail on Side repeaters (52% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.18% fail on All direction indicators
    • 1.3% fail on Stop lamp (49% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.75% fail on Registration plate lamp (79% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.66% fail on Headlamps (71% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.65% fail on Headlamp (70% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Switch
    • 0.10% fail on Rear fog lamp (72% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.10% fail on Fog lamp (71% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.057% fail on Horn (68% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.023% fail on Battery (81% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.011% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.011% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.011% fail on Lamp
    • 0.011% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 6.8% fail on Brakes (22% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.2% fail on Brake performance (95% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.2% fail on Rear wheels (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.7% fail on Front wheels (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.0% fail on Parking brake performance (37% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.56% fail on Brake imbalance (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.091% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.034% fail on Brake operation
      • 0.023% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 2.2% fail on Hub components (22% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.7% fail on Brake pads (29% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.52% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.057% fail on Brake calipers
      • 0.034% fail on Wheel cylinder (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Brake drums
      • 0.011% fail on Brake back plates
    • 0.41% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.33% fail on Components
        • 0.26% fail on Hoses (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.023% fail on Cylinders (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.023% fail on Pipes (92% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.023% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.091% fail on Leaks
      • 0.023% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
      • 0.023% fail on Operation
    • 0.33% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.33% fail on Condition
    • 0.24% fail on Restricted movement (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.10% fail on ABS
    • 0.091% fail on Mechanical components (200% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.080% fail on Cable (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Lever
    • 0.046% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.046% fail on Pedal
        • 0.023% fail on Condition
        • 0.023% fail on Anti-slip
    • 0.023% fail on Locking devices (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.011% fail on Additional braking devices
  • 6.4% fail on Driver's view of the road (35% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.3% fail on Wipers (62% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.0% fail on Washers
    • 0.31% fail on Mirrors (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.20% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.011% fail on Bonnet
  • 2.4% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (70% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Exhaust system (92% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.67% fail on Emissions (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.13% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.068% fail on Cap
      • 0.057% fail on System
  • 0.61% fail on Steering (40% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.49% fail on Steering system (47% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.32% fail on Track rod end (53% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.034% fail on Steering rack (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.023% fail on Steering arm
    • 0.080% fail on Power steering
      • 0.080% fail on Electronic power steering (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Operation
    • 0.034% fail on Steering operation
    • 0.011% fail on Steering control
      • 0.011% fail on Steering coupling
        • 0.011% fail on Universal joint
  • 0.33% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.14% fail on Doors
      • 0.14% fail on Drivers (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Body condition
    • 0.057% fail on Seats
      • 0.057% fail on Drivers
    • 0.011% fail on Body security
    • 0.011% fail on Load security
      • 0.011% fail on Bootlid
  • 0.28% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.28% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.23% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (58% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.18% fail on Condition
    • 0.046% fail on Supplementary restraint systems (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.046% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp (82% better than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.057% fail on Road Wheels (81% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.034% fail on Attachment (82% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.023% fail on Condition (79% better than other 2010 cars)
Read the Honest John Review

  • Fiat Panda (2004 - 2012)
    Compact and practical. Enjoyable and easy to drive. Narrow size makes it easy to park. Good space for those in the back.

    Search Good Garages