Mazda 6 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
67.2% pass rate
from 8,481 tests in 2020
(6.6% better than other 2010 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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Mazda 6 is unusually good or bad.

  • 13% fail on Brakes (88% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 8.6% fail on Brake performance (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.0% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 5.0% fail on Rbt (sp) (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.035% fail on Plate brake tester (sp) (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.1% fail on Service brake performance (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 4.0% fail on Rbt (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 3.1% fail on Service brake performance (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.2% fail on Service brake imbalance (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.083% fail on Plate brake tester (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.071% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.012% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.7% fail on Parking brake performance (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.6% fail on Rbt (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.5% fail on Parking brake performance (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.12% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.071% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles) (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.047% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.035% fail on Parking brake performance (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.012% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
        • 0.035% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.024% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
          • 0.012% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.85% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (95% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.85% fail on Rbt (sp) (100% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.60% fail on Service brake imbalance (77% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.37% fail on Service brake performance (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.094% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 5.4% fail on Mechanical brake components (67% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.5% fail on Brake linings and pads (82% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 4.5% fail on Brake pads (82% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.012% fail on Brake linings
      • 1.4% fail on Brake discs and drums (41% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.4% fail on Brake discs (41% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.012% fail on Brake drums
      • 0.11% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.071% fail on Lever (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.047% fail on Cable
    • 0.85% fail on Rigid brake pipes (63% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.58% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (94% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Hand lever (140% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Pedal
    • 0.40% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.39% fail on Lever
      • 0.012% fail on Electronic parking brake
    • 0.26% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders) (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.047% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.20% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (48% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Electronic stability control
      • 0.083% fail on Anti-lock braking system (73% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.094% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.083% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.047% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.035% fail on Brake fluid
  • 11% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (18% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.5% fail on Position lamps (73% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.5% fail on Position lamp (73% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.083% fail on All position lamps
    • 3.0% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (41% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Headlamp aim (29% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Headlamp aim (29% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.9% fail on Headlamps (34% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Headlamp (45% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Headlamp cleaning device (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Headlamp levelling device (94% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Stop lamp (57% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.31% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.25% fail on Battery(ies) (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.024% fail on Trailer electrical socket
      • 0.024% fail on Electrical wiring
      • 0.012% fail on Horn
    • 0.12% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (74% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Rear fog lamp (74% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.12% fail on Rear fog lamp (74% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.012% fail on Switch
    • 0.083% fail on Direction indicators (96% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.083% fail on Flashing type (96% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.047% fail on Individual direction indicators (96% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.035% fail on Side repeaters (94% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Reversing lamps (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.047% fail on Reversing lamps (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.035% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.012% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.012% fail on Switch
  • 5.6% fail on Tyres (13% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.4% fail on Condition (18% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.21% fail on Size/type
    • 0.012% fail on Tyre pressure monitoring system
  • 5.2% fail on Suspension (52% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Anti-roll bars (24% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.0% fail on Linkage (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.61% fail on Linkage ball joints (32% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.14% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (86% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.083% fail on Ball joint dust cover (82% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.071% fail on Anti-roll bar (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.059% fail on Linkage attachment bracket and mounting (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.035% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.012% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
    • 2.0% fail on Suspension arms (38% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Ball joint dust cover (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Ball joint (76% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Pins and bushes (92% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.012% fail on Suspension arm
      • 0.012% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.72% fail on Wheel bearings (61% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Shock absorbers (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.19% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.12% fail on Ball joint dust cover (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.047% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.012% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.012% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.094% fail on Springs (98% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.094% fail on Coil springs (98% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.094% fail on Coil spring (98% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.012% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.012% fail on Sub-frame
  • 3.9% fail on Visibility (21% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.5% fail on Wipers
    • 1.4% fail on Washers (40% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.12% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.059% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.059% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.059% fail on View to rear
      • 0.059% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.012% fail on Bonnet
  • 2.7% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 2.7% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 1.8% fail on Compression ignition (47% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.93% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.40% fail on On or after 01/07/2008 (42% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.28% fail on Emissions not tested (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.15% fail on Emission control equipment (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.11% fail on Particulate filter (15 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.047% fail on Other emission control equipment (11 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.047% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
        • 0.035% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.012% fail on Pre 01/01/1980 visual
        • 0.012% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
      • 0.88% fail on Spark ignition (41% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.51% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (35% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.33% fail on Catalyst emissions (49% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.059% fail on Emissions not tested (66% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.012% fail on Emission control equipment
          • 0.012% fail on Exhaust gas recirculation valve
        • 0.012% fail on Non catalyst emissions
    • 0.059% fail on Fluid leaks (68% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.059% fail on Engine oil leaks
    • 0.035% fail on Noise suppression
      • 0.035% fail on Undertray
  • 1.6% fail on Body, chassis, structure (50% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.66% fail on Seats (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.66% fail on Driver's seat (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.35% fail on Exhaust system (74% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.22% fail on Transmission (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Drive shafts (81% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.21% fail on Joints (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.012% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.012% fail on Joints
    • 0.15% fail on Body
      • 0.13% fail on Other body component
      • 0.024% fail on Panel
    • 0.059% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.035% fail on Fuel system (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.024% fail on Tank
      • 0.012% fail on System
    • 0.035% fail on Undertray
    • 0.024% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.024% fail on Boot lid condition
    • 0.012% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.012% fail on Sub-frame
        • 0.012% fail on Sub-frame condition
    • 0.012% fail on Towbar
      • 0.012% fail on Vehicle structure
    • 0.012% fail on Load security
      • 0.012% fail on Tailgate
        • 0.012% fail on Other tailgate component
    • 0.012% fail on Floor
  • 0.75% fail on Steering (59% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.29% fail on Power steering (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.29% fail on Operation (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.25% fail on Steering linkage components (84% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Track rod end (84% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.012% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.012% fail on Drag link end
    • 0.13% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.11% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.024% fail on Operation
    • 0.083% fail on Electronic power steering (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.012% fail on Steering play
      • 0.012% fail on Steering rack
  • 0.61% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.39% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.34% fail on Condition
      • 0.035% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.012% fail on Requirements
    • 0.24% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 0.50% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.45% fail on Attachment (60% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Condition
  • 0.37% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.37% fail on Registration plates
Read the Honest John Review

  • Mazda 6 (2008 - 2012)
    Neatly styled, entry-level models a good balance of ride and handling, excellent 2.2-litre diesel engine.

    Search Good Garages