Mazda 5 MOT Results

Registered in 2009
51.6% pass rate
from 2,351 tests in 2020
(32% worse than other 2009 cars)
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 2009 cars and highlighted areas where the Mazda 5 is unusually good or bad.

  • 25% fail on Suspension (95% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 15% fail on Suspension arms (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 9.4% fail on Ball joint (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 7.7% fail on Pins and bushes (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.043% fail on Suspension arm
    • 7.1% fail on Anti-roll bars (100% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 3.6% fail on Linkage ball joints (200% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Ball joint (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.81% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
      • 0.77% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.34% fail on Linkage
      • 0.30% fail on Pins and bushes (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 0.085% fail on Anti-roll bar
      • 0.043% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 3.9% fail on Shock absorbers (170% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 2.7% fail on Springs (36% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 2.7% fail on Coil springs (35% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 2.7% fail on Coil spring (35% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.68% fail on Other suspension component (160% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.38% fail on Ball joint (160% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.13% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.43% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.13% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.085% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.043% fail on Sub-frame
    • 0.085% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.043% fail on Suspension rod
      • 0.043% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.043% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.043% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.043% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
  • 16% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 5.8% fail on Headlamps (82% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 5.5% fail on Headlamp (81% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Headlamp levelling device
      • 0.043% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
    • 3.5% fail on Position lamps (55% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 3.4% fail on Position lamp (55% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.085% fail on All position lamps
    • 3.4% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 2.8% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.68% fail on Headlamp aim not tested (150% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 1.8% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Rear fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 1.7% fail on Rear fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.085% fail on Switch
    • 1.6% fail on Stop lamp (55% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.68% fail on Hazard warning (13 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.68% fail on Switch (13 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.21% fail on Direction indicators (88% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Flashing type (88% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.13% fail on Individual direction indicators (88% better than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.085% fail on Side repeaters (87% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.21% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.13% fail on Trailer electrical socket (10 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.043% fail on Horn
    • 0.13% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.043% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.043% fail on Reversing lamps
  • 9.7% fail on Brakes (22% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 5.7% fail on Mechanical brake components (78% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 5.1% fail on Brake linings and pads (110% worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 5.0% fail on Brake pads (110% worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 0.085% fail on Brake linings
      • 1.1% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 1.1% fail on Brake discs
    • 3.0% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.7% fail on Service brake performance
        • 1.7% fail on Rbt
          • 1.3% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.47% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 1.1% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 1.1% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.47% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.47% fail on Rbt
          • 0.38% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.085% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.26% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.26% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.21% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 0.043% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.17% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.60% fail on Hydraulic systems (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Reservoirs (15 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Master cylinder (64 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Brake fluid
    • 0.51% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.30% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.26% fail on Electronic stability control
    • 0.34% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.21% fail on Hand lever
      • 0.13% fail on Pedal
    • 0.30% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.30% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.26% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.26% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.26% fail on Lever
    • 0.085% fail on Rigid brake pipes (89% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.043% fail on Pressure storage reservoirs
      • 0.043% fail on Full power hydraulic systems
    • 0.043% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 0.043% fail on Other components
  • 9.6% fail on Tyres (45% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 5.5% fail on Condition (84% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 4.7% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.085% fail on Size/type
  • 9.1% fail on Body, chassis, structure (130% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 4.6% fail on Exhaust system (180% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 4.1% fail on Transmission (150% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 4.0% fail on Drive shafts (160% worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 4.0% fail on Joints (160% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.13% fail on Joints
    • 0.43% fail on Bumpers (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.34% fail on Undertray (6 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.26% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.26% fail on Tank (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Body
      • 0.13% fail on Other body component
      • 0.043% fail on Panel
    • 0.085% fail on Doors
      • 0.085% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.085% fail on Door condition
    • 0.043% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.043% fail on Strengthening plate
    • 0.043% fail on Seats
      • 0.043% fail on Passenger's seat
  • 8.3% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (120% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 7.9% fail on Exhaust emissions (120% worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 6.5% fail on Spark ignition (2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 4.2% fail on Catalyst emissions (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 1.4% fail on Emissions not tested (4 times worse than other 2009 cars)
        • 1.4% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.085% fail on Non catalyst emissions
      • 1.4% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.64% fail on On or after 01/07/2008
        • 0.43% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.21% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.085% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
        • 0.085% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.043% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.043% fail on Particulate filter
    • 0.51% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.34% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.17% fail on Other leaks (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
    • 0.13% fail on Noise suppression
      • 0.085% fail on Sound deadening material (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Undertray
  • 7.3% fail on Visibility (33% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 4.0% fail on Wipers (55% worse than other 2009 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Washers
    • 0.21% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.21% fail on View to rear
      • 0.21% fail on Mirrors
  • 0.94% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.55% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.34% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.30% fail on Condition
      • 0.043% fail on Attachment
    • 0.043% fail on Airbags
      • 0.043% fail on Drivers airbag
  • 0.85% fail on Steering (55% better than other 2009 cars)
    • 0.51% fail on Steering linkage components (67% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Track rod end (82% better than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.043% fail on Drag link end
      • 0.043% fail on Locking devices
    • 0.21% fail on Power steering
      • 0.17% fail on Operation (4 times worse than other 2009 cars)
      • 0.043% fail on Pipes and hoses
    • 0.13% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.13% fail on Steering rack
  • 0.60% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.51% fail on Attachment
    • 0.085% fail on Condition
  • 0.55% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.55% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.043% fail on Seat belt installation check
    • 0.043% fail on Belt(s)/padding
Read the Honest John Review

  • Mazda 5 (2005 - 2010)
    Sliding side doors, can carry seven people in comfort, well styled, rearmost seats fold flat into the floor, five-star crash test rating.

    Search Good Garages