Land Rover Defender 90 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
75.8% pass rate
from 434 tests in 2017
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 Land Rover Defender 90 is unusually good or bad.

  • 13% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 5.1% fail on Stop lamp (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.7% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 3.2% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.0% fail on Position lamps
      • 2.5% fail on Front lamps
      • 0.46% fail on Rear lamps
    • 0.92% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.92% fail on Fog lamp
    • 0.92% fail on Headlamps
      • 0.92% fail on Headlamp
    • 0.46% fail on Rear reflectors (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.46% fail on Direction indicators
      • 0.46% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.46% fail on Individual lamps
    • 0.23% fail on Horn
  • 6.2% fail on Brakes
    • 2.8% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.6% fail on Service brake performance (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.69% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.69% fail on Rear wheels
      • 0.23% fail on Brake imbalance
    • 2.3% fail on Hydraulic systems (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Components (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.1% fail on Pipes (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.23% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.23% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
      • 0.23% fail on Leaks
    • 2.1% fail on Hub components
      • 1.6% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.69% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.23% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.23% fail on Pedal
        • 0.23% fail on Condition
    • 0.23% fail on ABS
  • 5.5% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 3.7% fail on Wipers
    • 1.8% fail on Washers
    • 0.23% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.23% fail on Mirrors
  • 4.4% fail on Suspension (46% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 2.3% fail on Condition
    • 0.69% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.69% fail on Front
    • 0.46% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.46% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.23% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.23% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.23% fail on Panhard rods
      • 0.23% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.23% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.23% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.23% fail on Axles
      • 0.23% fail on Swivel joints/housing
    • 0.23% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 0.23% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.23% fail on Component mounting
  • 3.2% fail on Steering (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.0% fail on Steering system (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Ball joint (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.92% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.23% fail on Free play
        • 0.23% fail on Steering box
      • 0.23% fail on Drag link end
      • 0.23% fail on Lock stop
      • 0.23% fail on Steering arm
    • 0.23% fail on Steering control
      • 0.23% fail on Steering coupling
        • 0.23% fail on Universal joint
  • 1.6% fail on Registration plates and VIN (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Registration plate (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 1.4% fail on Tyres (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Tread depth (67% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.23% fail on Condition
  • 0.69% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 0.69% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.69% fail on Condition
  • 0.69% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.46% fail on Body condition
    • 0.23% fail on Seats
      • 0.23% fail on Passengers

Search Good Garages