Land Rover Defender 90 MOT Results

Registered in 1995
55.0% pass rate
from 231 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 1995 cars and highlighted areas where the Land Rover Defender 90 is unusually good or bad.

  • 25% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 7.4% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.8% fail on Front lamps
      • 3.5% fail on Rear lamps
    • 6.1% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 6.1% fail on Stop lamp
    • 5.6% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 4.3% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 4.3% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.43% fail on Tell tale
    • 4.3% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.5% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.43% fail on Matched pair
      • 0.43% fail on Dipswitch
    • 3.5% fail on Direction indicators
      • 3.5% fail on Flashing type
        • 3.5% fail on Individual lamps
    • 2.2% fail on Hazard warning (4 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Switch (7 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.87% fail on Tell tale (8 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.43% fail on Lamp
    • 1.3% fail on Horn
    • 0.43% fail on Battery
    • 0.43% fail on Rear reflectors
  • 21% fail on Suspension
    • 8.2% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 6.9% fail on Component mounting
      • 1.7% fail on Spring mounting
    • 6.1% fail on Shock absorbers (2 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 6.1% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 5.6% fail on Wheel bearings (2 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 5.6% fail on Front (5 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.43% fail on Rear
    • 2.6% fail on Suspension arms
      • 2.6% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 2.2% fail on Radius arms (11 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 2.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (12 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Coil springs
      • 1.3% fail on Location (8 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Panhard rods (14 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (16 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Torque/reaction arms (17 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.87% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (12 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.43% fail on Attachment
    • 0.87% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.87% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.43% fail on Linkage condition
    • 0.87% fail on Axles
      • 0.87% fail on Swivel joints/housing (7 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 0.43% fail on Drive shafts
      • 0.43% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.43% fail on Universal joint
  • 15% fail on Brakes
    • 6.9% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 6.5% fail on Components
        • 6.1% fail on Pipes
        • 0.43% fail on Servos
      • 0.87% fail on Leaks
    • 4.8% fail on Brake performance
      • 2.6% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.87% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.43% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.43% fail on Rear wheels
      • 0.43% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.43% fail on Brake operation
    • 2.6% fail on Hub components
      • 2.2% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.87% fail on Brake discs
    • 1.3% fail on Service brake control components
      • 1.3% fail on Pedal
        • 0.87% fail on Condition (5 times worse than other 1995 cars)
        • 0.43% fail on Anti-slip
    • 0.43% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.43% fail on Components
        • 0.43% fail on Servos
    • 0.43% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.43% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting
  • 13% fail on Steering (160% worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 11% fail on Steering system (180% worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 5.2% fail on Drag link end (12 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 3.0% fail on Ball joint (6 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 2.6% fail on Track rod end
      • 2.2% fail on Steering box (13 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.87% fail on Steering arm (6 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Locking devices (10 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 0.87% fail on Steering control
      • 0.87% fail on Steering coupling (10 times worse than other 1995 cars)
        • 0.87% fail on Universal joint (10 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 0.43% fail on Power steering
      • 0.43% fail on Pump
  • 11% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 8.2% fail on Wipers
    • 3.0% fail on Washers
    • 0.43% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.43% fail on Mirrors
  • 10% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (86% worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 5.2% fail on Vehicle structure (190% worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 5.2% fail on Chassis (190% worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 4.3% fail on Body condition
    • 1.7% fail on Doors
      • 1.3% fail on Passengers front (4 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.43% fail on Drivers
    • 0.43% fail on Body security
  • 8.7% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 5.2% fail on Exhaust system
    • 3.0% fail on Emissions
    • 1.3% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.43% fail on Tank
      • 0.43% fail on Pipe
      • 0.43% fail on System
    • 0.43% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 7.4% fail on Towbars (18 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 6.9% fail on Vehicle structure (20 times worse than other 1995 cars)
    • 0.43% fail on Towbar
  • 3.5% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 3.5% fail on Seat belts
      • 3.0% fail on Condition (4 times worse than other 1995 cars)
      • 0.43% fail on Requirements
  • 2.2% fail on Tyres
    • 1.7% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.87% fail on Condition
  • 2.2% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 2.2% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.87% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.87% fail on Attachment

Search Good Garages