Land Rover Defender 110 MOT Results

Registered in 2002
58.2% pass rate
from 435 tests in 2017
(16% better than other 2002 cars)
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 2002 cars and highlighted areas where the Land Rover Defender 110 is unusually good or bad.

  • 20% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (24% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 6.7% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 5.3% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.4% fail on Front lamps
      • 1.6% fail on Rear lamps
    • 4.8% fail on Rear fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 4.8% fail on Fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.92% fail on Tell tale (10 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.23% fail on Switch
    • 4.1% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.7% fail on Registration plate lamp (48% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Headlamps (66% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Headlamp (70% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.23% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.23% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
      • 0.23% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest
        • 0.23% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
      • 0.23% fail on Switch
    • 1.6% fail on Direction indicators
      • 1.6% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.92% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.46% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.23% fail on Side repeaters
    • 0.69% fail on Electrical wiring (7 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.46% fail on Rear reflectors (7 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.46% fail on Horn
    • 0.46% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 0.23% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.23% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.23% fail on Lamp
      • 0.23% fail on Switch
  • 15% fail on Brakes
    • 8.3% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 7.1% fail on Components
        • 6.7% fail on Pipes
        • 0.46% fail on Hoses
        • 0.23% fail on Servos
      • 0.92% fail on Leaks
      • 0.23% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
    • 5.3% fail on Hub components
      • 3.4% fail on Brake pads
      • 2.3% fail on Brake discs (140% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 3.4% fail on Brake performance (61% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Rear wheels (65% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Parking brake performance (69% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.46% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.46% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.6% fail on Parking brake
      • 1.6% fail on Condition
    • 0.92% fail on ABS
    • 0.23% fail on Electronic stability system
    • 0.23% fail on Additional braking devices
    • 0.23% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.23% fail on Pedal
        • 0.23% fail on Condition
    • 0.23% fail on Locking devices
    • 0.23% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.23% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting
  • 15% fail on Suspension (32% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 6.4% fail on Shock absorbers (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 6.4% fail on Condition (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 4.6% fail on Wheel bearings (160% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.8% fail on Front (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Rear
    • 1.8% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 1.8% fail on Component mounting
      • 0.23% fail on Spring mounting
    • 1.1% fail on Axles (16 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on King pins (131 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Swivel joints/housing (15 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.23% fail on Stub axle
    • 0.69% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.69% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.69% fail on Anti-roll bars (88% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (89% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.23% fail on Linkage condition
    • 0.69% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 0.46% fail on Suspension arms (90% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (90% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.46% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.46% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.46% fail on Drive shafts (89% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.46% fail on Universal joint (182 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.23% fail on Coil springs
      • 0.23% fail on Location
    • 0.23% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.23% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
  • 14% fail on Steering (180% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 12% fail on Steering system (180% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 4.1% fail on Track rod end
      • 3.7% fail on Drag link end (48 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.8% fail on Ball joint (8 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Steering box (111 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Steering arm (13 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.69% fail on Free play (4 times worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.69% fail on Steering box (131 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.69% fail on Other components (33 times worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.46% fail on Steering pivot point (28 times worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.23% fail on Steering component
      • 0.23% fail on Intermediate drop arm
      • 0.23% fail on Steering damper
    • 1.8% fail on Power steering (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Other components (5 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.69% fail on Pipes and hoses (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.69% fail on Steering control (7 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.69% fail on Steering coupling (37 times worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.69% fail on Universal joint (38 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.46% fail on Prescribed areas (27 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.23% fail on Locking devices
  • 9.0% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 4.8% fail on Washers
    • 3.7% fail on Wipers
    • 0.69% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.23% fail on Bonnet
  • 6.7% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 3.9% fail on Fuel system (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.8% fail on System (9 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Cap
      • 0.23% fail on Tank
      • 0.23% fail on Hose
      • 0.23% fail on Pipe
    • 2.5% fail on Emissions
    • 0.92% fail on Exhaust system (80% better than other 2002 cars)
  • 6.0% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (110% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 3.4% fail on Vehicle structure (5 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 3.4% fail on Chassis (5 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Seats (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.92% fail on Passengers (7 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.23% fail on Drivers
    • 0.92% fail on Doors
      • 0.46% fail on Passengers other
      • 0.23% fail on Drivers
      • 0.23% fail on Passengers front
    • 0.69% fail on Body condition
  • 3.9% fail on Towbars (71 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 3.7% fail on Vehicle structure (85 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.23% fail on Towbar
  • 2.5% fail on Tyres (72% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 1.4% fail on Tread depth (75% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Condition (70% better than other 2002 cars)
  • 1.8% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 1.8% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.92% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.46% fail on Requirements (5 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Condition
  • 1.1% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.1% fail on Registration plate

Search Good Garages