Land Rover Defender 110 MOT Results

Registered in 1992
58.4% pass rate
from 161 tests in 2017
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 1992 cars and highlighted areas where the Land Rover Defender 110 is unusually good or bad.

  • 25% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 8.7% fail on Position lamps (99% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 5.0% fail on Front lamps
      • 5.0% fail on Rear lamps (180% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 8.1% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 8.1% fail on Fog lamp (100% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Tell tale
      • 1.2% fail on Switch
    • 7.5% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 5.0% fail on Headlamps
      • 4.3% fail on Headlamp
      • 1.2% fail on Switch (14 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.62% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.62% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 4.3% fail on Stop lamp
    • 4.3% fail on Hazard warning (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 2.5% fail on Switch (7 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Tell tale (11 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.62% fail on Lamp
    • 3.7% fail on Direction indicators
      • 3.7% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.5% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.62% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.62% fail on Side repeaters
    • 2.5% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 1.9% fail on Horn
    • 1.2% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.62% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.62% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 20% fail on Suspension
    • 11% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 9.9% fail on Component mounting (120% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 3.1% fail on Spring mounting (3 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 3.7% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 3.1% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.62% fail on Attachment
    • 3.7% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 3.7% fail on Condition
    • 2.5% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 1.2% fail on Front
      • 1.2% fail on Rear
    • 1.2% fail on Suspension arms
      • 1.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.62% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.62% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.62% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.62% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.62% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.62% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.62% fail on Axles
      • 0.62% fail on Swivel joints/housing
    • 0.62% fail on Front suspension joints
  • 18% fail on Brakes
    • 8.7% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 7.5% fail on Components
        • 5.6% fail on Pipes
        • 1.2% fail on Hoses
        • 0.62% fail on Cylinders
      • 1.9% fail on Operation (8 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.62% fail on Leaks
    • 8.7% fail on Brake performance
      • 3.7% fail on Service brake performance
      • 3.1% fail on Rear wheels
      • 2.5% fail on Front wheels
      • 1.9% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 1.2% fail on Brake imbalance
    • 1.9% fail on Hub components
      • 1.9% fail on Brake pads
    • 1.2% fail on Service brake control components
      • 1.2% fail on Pedal
        • 1.2% fail on Condition (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 1.2% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting (4 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 0.62% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.62% fail on Condition
  • 13% fail on Steering (150% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 9.3% fail on Steering system (120% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 3.7% fail on Track rod end
      • 2.5% fail on Drag link end (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Ball joint
      • 1.2% fail on Steering box (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Other components (10 times worse than other 1992 cars)
        • 0.62% fail on Steering pivot point
        • 0.62% fail on Steering component
      • 0.62% fail on Steering damper
    • 1.9% fail on Steering control (4 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Steering coupling (16 times worse than other 1992 cars)
        • 1.9% fail on Universal joint (17 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 1.9% fail on Prescribed areas (9 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Steering operation (6 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 0.62% fail on Power steering
      • 0.62% fail on Other components
    • 0.62% fail on Locking devices
  • 11% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (110% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 3.7% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 3.7% fail on Chassis
    • 3.7% fail on Doors (3 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Drivers (7 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Passengers other
      • 0.62% fail on Passengers front
    • 3.1% fail on Body condition
    • 1.9% fail on Seats
      • 1.2% fail on Passengers
      • 0.62% fail on Drivers
    • 0.62% fail on Body security
  • 9.3% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 4.3% fail on Exhaust system
    • 3.1% fail on Emissions
    • 1.9% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.2% fail on System
      • 0.62% fail on Pipe
  • 8.1% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (110% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 8.1% fail on Seat belts (110% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 5.6% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 2.5% fail on Condition (4 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.62% fail on Attachment
  • 6.2% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 3.1% fail on Washers
    • 1.9% fail on Wipers
    • 1.2% fail on Bonnet (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Mirrors
  • 3.7% fail on Towbars (8 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 3.7% fail on Vehicle structure (10 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  • 3.1% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 3.1% fail on Registration plate
  • 1.9% fail on Tyres
    • 1.9% fail on Condition

Search Good Garages