Land Rover Defender 90 MOT Results
Registered in 199555.0% pass rate
from 231 tests in 2017
More MoT Results
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
-
3.5% fail on
Flashing type
-
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
-
7.4% fail on
Position lamps
-
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
-
0.43% fail on
Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
-
8.2% fail on
Prescribed areas
-
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
-
6.5% fail on
Components
-
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
-
1.3% fail on
Pedal
-
0.43% fail on
Air and vacuum systems
-
0.43% fail on
Components
- 0.43% fail on Servos
-
0.43% fail on
Components
-
0.43% fail on
Prescribed areas
- 0.43% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting
-
6.9% fail on
Hydraulic systems
-
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)
-
0.87% fail on
Steering coupling
(10 times worse than other 1995 cars)
-
0.43% fail on
Power steering
- 0.43% fail on Pump
-
11% fail on
Steering system
(180% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
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
-
5.2% fail on
Vehicle structure
(190% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
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
-
3.5% fail on
Seat belts
-
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