MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Mazda » 3 » 2009

Mazda 3 MOT Results

Registered in 2009
60.2% pass rate
from 9,203 tests in 2021
Pass rate by mileage
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 2009 cars and highlighted areas where the Mazda 3 is unusually good or bad.

  • 18% fail on Suspension (23% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 11% fail on Suspension arms (140% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 9.0% fail on Ball joint (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.43% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.076% fail on Suspension arm
    • 5.3% fail on Anti-roll bars (37% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 2.7% fail on Linkage ball joints (110% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.95% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (25% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.84% fail on Ball joint (110% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.51% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.27% fail on Linkage
      • 0.13% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 0.043% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.033% fail on Anti-roll bar
      • 0.033% fail on Linkage attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.011% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 3.0% fail on Springs (48% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 3.0% fail on Coil springs (48% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 3.0% fail on Coil spring (48% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Shock absorbers (65% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.42% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.40% fail on Ball joint (180% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.24% fail on Wheel bearings (65% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Sub-frames (59% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.098% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.033% fail on Ball joint (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.12% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (54% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.043% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.033% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.022% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.022% fail on Axles (89% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Swivel pins and bushes (88% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.022% fail on Macpherson strut (89% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.011% fail on Ball joint
  • 11% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (15% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 3.5% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.4% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.0% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.40% fail on Headlamp levelling device (140% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Dipswitch
    • 2.5% fail on Headlamp aim (21% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 2.2% fail on Headlamp aim (23% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 2.3% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.27% fail on Rear reflectors (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Direction indicators (91% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Flashing type (91% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.076% fail on Individual direction indicators (94% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.076% fail on Side repeaters (89% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.022% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.17% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.17% fail on Reversing lamps
    • 0.14% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.14% fail on Position lamp
    • 0.13% fail on Electrical equipment (67% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.022% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.098% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (85% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.098% fail on Rear fog lamp (85% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.098% fail on Rear fog lamp (85% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.011% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.011% fail on Switch
  • 9.2% fail on Brakes
    • 4.1% fail on Mechanical brake components (37% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 3.5% fail on Brake linings and pads (72% worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 3.5% fail on Brake pads (73% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.89% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.88% fail on Brake discs
        • 0.011% fail on Brake drums
      • 0.022% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages (82% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.011% fail on Cable
        • 0.011% fail on Linkage
    • 3.2% fail on Brake performance (31% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Service brake performance (24% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 1.8% fail on Rbt (23% better than other 2009 cars)
          • 1.7% fail on Service brake performance (20% better than other 2009 cars)
          • 0.33% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.033% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.033% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 1.2% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (43% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 1.1% fail on Rbt (sp) (42% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.011% fail on Decelerometer (sp)
        • 0.011% fail on Plate brake tester (sp)
        • 0.011% fail on Gradient tester (sp)
      • 0.45% fail on Parking brake performance (51% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.38% fail on Rbt (56% better than other 2009 cars)
          • 0.34% fail on Parking brake performance (56% better than other 2009 cars)
          • 0.022% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.022% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
        • 0.054% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.033% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.022% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.011% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.011% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.23% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (62% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.21% fail on Rbt (sp) (65% better than other 2009 cars)
          • 0.16% fail on Service brake imbalance (68% better than other 2009 cars)
          • 0.065% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.022% fail on Decelerometer (sp)
      • 0.21% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.7% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (160% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Anti-lock braking system (180% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.72% fail on Electronic stability control (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Electronic braking system
    • 0.61% fail on Flexible brake hoses (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.29% fail on Hand lever
      • 0.11% fail on Pedal
    • 0.33% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.33% fail on Lever
    • 0.15% fail on Rigid brake pipes (84% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.14% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.13% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
      • 0.011% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.098% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.054% fail on Brake fluid
      • 0.022% fail on Master cylinder
      • 0.011% fail on Servos
      • 0.011% fail on Reservoirs
  • 6.2% fail on Tyres
    • 3.6% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.9% fail on Condition
    • 0.065% fail on Size/type (67% better than other 2009 cars)
  • 5.9% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (34% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 5.6% fail on Exhaust emissions (35% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 4.5% fail on Spark ignition (64% worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 3.7% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.61% fail on Catalyst emissions (55% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.37% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.011% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.011% fail on Catalytic converter
      • 1.2% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.68% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.28% fail on On or after 01/07/2008 (62% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.14% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.065% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.043% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.022% fail on Other emission control equipment
          • 0.011% fail on Particulate filter
          • 0.011% fail on NOx sensor
        • 0.011% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
        • 0.011% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
    • 0.23% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.17% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.022% fail on Transmission oil leaks
      • 0.022% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
      • 0.011% fail on Other leaks
    • 0.076% fail on Noise suppression (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.065% fail on Undertray (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.011% fail on Sound deadening material
  • 4.7% fail on Visibility (20% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 2.4% fail on Washers (21% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Wipers
    • 0.11% fail on View to rear
      • 0.098% fail on Mirrors
      • 0.011% fail on Indirect vision devices
    • 0.054% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.054% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.011% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.011% fail on Bonnet
  • 2.9% fail on Body, chassis, structure (38% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Exhaust system (25% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.85% fail on Transmission (56% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.81% fail on Drive shafts (55% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.81% fail on Joints (55% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.033% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.033% fail on Joints
    • 0.15% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.11% fail on Body
      • 0.098% fail on Other body component
      • 0.011% fail on Panel
    • 0.098% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.098% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 0.098% fail on Seats
      • 0.087% fail on Driver's seat
      • 0.011% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.065% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.054% fail on Engine mounting condition
      • 0.011% fail on Bracket
    • 0.054% fail on Undertray
    • 0.043% fail on Fuel system (80% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Tank
      • 0.011% fail on Pipe
      • 0.011% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.033% fail on Chassis
      • 0.033% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.011% fail on Towbar
      • 0.011% fail on Towbar condition
    • 0.011% fail on Doors
      • 0.011% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.011% fail on Door condition
    • 0.011% fail on Floor
  • 0.90% fail on Steering (62% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.59% fail on Steering linkage components (69% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.36% fail on Track rod end (80% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Ball joint (100% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.033% fail on Locking devices
      • 0.022% fail on Drag link end
    • 0.15% fail on Power steering
      • 0.098% fail on Operation
      • 0.043% fail on Pipes and hoses
      • 0.022% fail on Other components
    • 0.12% fail on Steering gear (62% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Steering rack (61% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.043% fail on Steering play
      • 0.043% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.022% fail on Electronic power steering
  • 0.57% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (47% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.32% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.14% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.14% fail on Condition (60% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.022% fail on Requirements
      • 0.011% fail on Pre-tensioners
    • 0.23% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (60% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.022% fail on Airbags
      • 0.022% fail on Drivers airbag
  • 0.51% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.51% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.45% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.45% fail on Attachment
  • 0.011% fail on Seat belt installation check
    • 0.011% fail on Belt(s)/padding
Read the Honest John Review

  • Mazda 3 (2009 - 2013)
    Stylish looks. Excellent steering and handling. Good quality interior. Impressive 2.2-litre chain cam diesel engine. Facelifted for 2012 and even better.
  • Mazda 3 (2004 - 2009)
    Focus based. Bags of room and a comfortable ride, well equipped, saloon is the best looker and sharpest handling, depreciates slower than the 2004 Focus.

    Search Good Garages