Mazda 2 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
65.6% pass rate
from 14,159 tests in 2020
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 Mazda 2 is unusually good or bad.

  • 16% fail on Suspension (44% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 8.3% fail on Suspension arms (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 7.6% fail on Ball joint (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.61% fail on Pins and bushes (52% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.24% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.014% fail on Suspension arm
    • 5.3% fail on Springs (40% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.3% fail on Coil springs (40% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 5.3% fail on Coil spring (40% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0071% fail on Leaf springs
        • 0.0071% fail on Spring saddle
    • 2.0% fail on Shock absorbers (53% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Anti-roll bars (63% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.77% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.17% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.049% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (95% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.035% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 0.028% fail on Linkage (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.021% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.014% fail on Ball joint dust cover (97% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0071% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.53% fail on Other suspension component (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.48% fail on Ball joint (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.014% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.014% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.0071% fail on Other suspension component
    • 0.20% fail on Wheel bearings (54% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.035% fail on Macpherson strut (72% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.0071% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.0071% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.0071% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.021% fail on Axles (74% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.021% fail on Swivel pins and bushes
    • 0.021% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.0071% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.0071% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.0071% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.021% fail on Sub-frames (77% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0071% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.0071% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.0071% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.014% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.0071% fail on Air/gas/fluid suspension
      • 0.0071% fail on Suspension unit
  • 9.2% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (29% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.9% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.8% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.057% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 2.5% fail on Position lamps (21% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.4% fail on Position lamp (19% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on All position lamps (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Headlamp aim (25% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Headlamp aim (26% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.4% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (33% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Stop lamp (61% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.20% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (57% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Rear fog lamp (58% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.19% fail on Rear fog lamp (57% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0071% fail on Front fog lamps
        • 0.0071% fail on Front fog lamps
    • 0.17% fail on Electrical equipment (51% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.099% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.049% fail on Horn (77% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.13% fail on Direction indicators (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Flashing type (93% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.064% fail on Individual direction indicators (94% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.064% fail on Side repeaters (90% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.028% fail on Reversing lamps (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Reversing lamps (88% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.021% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.0071% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 0.0071% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
  • 7.3% fail on Visibility (48% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.3% fail on Wipers (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Washers
    • 0.11% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.092% fail on View to rear
      • 0.085% fail on Mirrors
      • 0.0071% fail on Indirect vision devices
    • 0.035% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.035% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.0071% fail on Bonnet
  • 5.6% fail on Tyres (13% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.0% fail on Condition
    • 2.7% fail on Tread depth (28% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.13% fail on Size/type
  • 4.3% fail on Brakes (40% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Mechanical brake components (50% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Brake linings and pads (47% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.3% fail on Brake pads (47% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0071% fail on Brake linings
      • 0.41% fail on Brake discs and drums (59% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.41% fail on Brake discs (59% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages (83% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.014% fail on Cable
    • 1.6% fail on Rigid brake pipes (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Brake performance (66% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.83% fail on Service brake performance (51% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.81% fail on Rbt (51% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.57% fail on Service brake performance (58% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.27% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.021% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.014% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
          • 0.0071% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.16% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (64% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.15% fail on Rbt (sp) (65% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.13% fail on Service brake imbalance (63% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.042% fail on Service brake performance (66% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0071% fail on Plate brake tester (sp)
          • 0.0071% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.085% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (94% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.085% fail on Rbt (sp) (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.042% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.035% fail on Parking brake performance (94% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.028% fail on Rbt (95% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.028% fail on Parking brake performance (95% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0071% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.0071% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
    • 0.18% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (41% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Pedal
    • 0.092% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.078% fail on Brake fluid
      • 0.0071% fail on Master cylinder
      • 0.0071% fail on Valves
    • 0.078% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.071% fail on Anti-lock braking system (77% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Electronic stability control (91% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.064% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.035% fail on Parking brake control (89% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.035% fail on Lever (87% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.028% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders) (72% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
  • 3.6% fail on Steering (100% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Steering linkage components (100% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.9% fail on Track rod end (100% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Ball joint (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.035% fail on Drag link end
      • 0.014% fail on Other components
        • 0.014% fail on Steering component (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Locking devices
      • 0.0071% fail on Steering arm
    • 0.32% fail on Steering gear (84% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.11% fail on Operation (12 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Steering play (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Steering rack (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.057% fail on Steering column (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.049% fail on Steering coupling (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.042% fail on Universal joint (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0071% fail on Flexible coupling
    • 0.014% fail on Steering shaft (39 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.0071% fail on Power steering
      • 0.0071% fail on Rams
    • 0.0071% fail on Electronic power steering
  • 1.1% fail on Body, chassis, structure (65% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.42% fail on Exhaust system (69% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.16% fail on Transmission (87% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Drive shafts (88% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.14% fail on Joints (87% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Belts (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.13% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.13% fail on Tank (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.13% fail on Seats
      • 0.13% fail on Driver's seat (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.11% fail on Body
      • 0.092% fail on Other body component
      • 0.014% fail on Panel
    • 0.042% fail on Undertray
    • 0.028% fail on Doors (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.014% fail on Door condition
      • 0.0071% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.0071% fail on Door condition
      • 0.0071% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.0071% fail on Door condition
    • 0.014% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.014% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 0.0071% fail on Chassis
      • 0.0071% fail on Chassis condition
  • 1.00% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (65% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.70% fail on Exhaust emissions (74% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.61% fail on Spark ignition (59% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.40% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (49% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.16% fail on Catalyst emissions (75% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.064% fail on Emissions not tested (63% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0071% fail on Non catalyst emissions
      • 0.092% fail on Compression ignition (92% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.049% fail on On or after 01/07/2008 (93% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.035% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (91% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.0071% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
    • 0.28% fail on Fluid leaks (55% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.28% fail on Engine oil leaks (91% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.0071% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
    • 0.021% fail on Noise suppression
      • 0.014% fail on Sound deadening material
      • 0.0071% fail on Undertray
  • 0.28% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.21% fail on Attachment
    • 0.085% fail on Condition
  • 0.25% fail on Identification of the vehicle (39% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.25% fail on Registration plates (39% better than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.23% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (69% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.16% fail on Seat belts (54% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Condition (57% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.014% fail on Requirements
    • 0.064% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (83% better than other 2010 cars)
Read the Honest John Review

  • Mazda 2 (2007 - 2015)
    Enjoyable and fun to drive. Economical engines. Sensibly priced. Feels well built. Ride harshness over bumps improved for 2011.

    Search Good Garages