Mazda 323 MOT Results

Registered in 2002
53.1% pass rate
from 865 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 2002 cars and highlighted areas where the Mazda 323 is unusually good or bad.

  • 25% fail on Suspension (35% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 14% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 12% fail on Anti-roll bars (130% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 5.5% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 3.1% fail on Ball joint dust cover (3 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.8% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.92% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.46% fail on Anti-roll bar (4 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.35% fail on Linkage
      • 0.23% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 2.3% fail on Suspension arms (62% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.92% fail on Ball joint (66% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.81% fail on Pins and bushes (69% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.58% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.12% fail on Suspension arm
    • 1.3% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.69% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.69% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.46% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
      • 0.12% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.12% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.23% fail on Springs (93% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Coil springs
        • 0.12% fail on Coil spring
      • 0.12% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.23% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.12% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.12% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.23% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.12% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.12% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.12% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.12% fail on Ball joint dust cover
  • 15% fail on Brakes
    • 9.1% fail on Brake performance
      • 5.7% fail on Service brake performance (76% worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 5.7% fail on Rbt (79% worse than other 2002 cars)
          • 5.2% fail on Service brake performance (100% worse than other 2002 cars)
          • 0.92% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 3.6% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 3.6% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 2.2% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 2.2% fail on Rbt
          • 1.8% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.23% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.12% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.69% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (67% better than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.69% fail on Rbt (sp) (66% better than other 2002 cars)
          • 0.69% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.12% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 4.5% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 3.9% fail on Brake linings and pads (75% worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 3.8% fail on Brake pads (71% worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.12% fail on Brake linings
      • 0.92% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.92% fail on Brake discs
    • 4.2% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 4.2% fail on Anti-lock braking system (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.92% fail on Electronic stability control (170% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.92% fail on Rigid brake pipes (76% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.46% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.46% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.46% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
    • 0.23% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.23% fail on Lever
    • 0.23% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.23% fail on Brake fluid
    • 0.12% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.12% fail on Hand lever
  • 13% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (36% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 3.8% fail on Stop lamp (35% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 3.5% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.5% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 2.7% fail on Position lamps
      • 2.5% fail on Position lamp
      • 0.12% fail on All position lamps
    • 2.4% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 1.6% fail on Headlamps (69% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Headlamp (69% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 1.0% fail on Direction indicators (56% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 1.0% fail on Flashing type (56% better than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.69% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.23% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.12% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.69% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 0.69% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.69% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.12% fail on Switch
    • 0.35% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.12% fail on Electrical wiring
      • 0.12% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.12% fail on Horn
  • 8.3% fail on Tyres
    • 5.8% fail on Tread depth
    • 3.1% fail on Condition
    • 0.23% fail on Size/type
  • 7.9% fail on Visibility
    • 4.7% fail on Wipers
    • 2.7% fail on Washers
    • 0.58% fail on View to rear
      • 0.58% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.35% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.23% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.23% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.12% fail on Bonnet
  • 7.1% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (82% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 6.5% fail on Seat belts (190% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 5.9% fail on Prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.58% fail on Condition
    • 1.0% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 6.9% fail on Body, chassis, structure (34% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Integral vehicle structure (160% worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.2% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition (170% worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Chassis (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Chassis condition (2 times worse than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.92% fail on Exhaust system (76% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.81% fail on Body
      • 0.46% fail on Panel
      • 0.35% fail on Other body component
    • 0.46% fail on Transmission (88% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.35% fail on Drive shafts (91% better than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.35% fail on Joints (91% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.12% fail on Joints
    • 0.35% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.35% fail on Tank
    • 0.23% fail on Doors
      • 0.12% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.12% fail on Door condition
      • 0.12% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.12% fail on Door condition
    • 0.23% fail on Floor
    • 0.23% fail on Seats
      • 0.23% fail on Driver's seat
    • 0.12% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.12% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.12% fail on Boot lid condition
    • 0.12% fail on Undertray
  • 6.5% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 6.2% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 5.9% fail on Spark ignition
        • 4.7% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (59% worse than other 2002 cars)
        • 1.0% fail on Catalyst emissions (68% better than other 2002 cars)
        • 0.46% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.46% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.23% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
        • 0.23% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.35% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.23% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.12% fail on Transmission oil leaks
  • 0.92% fail on Steering (80% better than other 2002 cars)
    • 0.81% fail on Steering linkage components (76% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.58% fail on Track rod end (81% better than other 2002 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.12% fail on Locking devices
    • 0.12% fail on Power steering
      • 0.12% fail on Pipes and hoses
  • 0.23% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.23% fail on Registration plates

Search Good Garages