MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Mazda » 6 » 2010

Mazda 6 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
63.9% pass rate
from 7,236 tests in 2021
(6.6% better than other 2010 cars)
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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Mazda 6 is unusually good or bad.

  • 16% fail on Brakes (96% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 11% fail on Brake performance (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 7.1% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 7.1% fail on Rbt (sp) (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.014% fail on Decelerometer (sp)
      • 5.2% fail on Service brake performance (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 5.1% fail on Rbt (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 4.2% fail on Service brake performance (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.3% fail on Service brake imbalance (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.069% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.069% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
        • 0.014% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.014% fail on Service brake performance
      • 2.1% fail on Parking brake performance (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.0% fail on Rbt (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.7% fail on Parking brake performance (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.25% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.069% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.055% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.028% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.028% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
        • 0.014% fail on Decelerometer
          • 0.014% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 1.8% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.8% fail on Rbt (sp) (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.1% fail on Service brake imbalance (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.82% fail on Service brake performance (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.32% fail on Brake performance not tested (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.3% fail on Mechanical brake components (46% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.4% fail on Brake linings and pads (62% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 3.4% fail on Brake pads (63% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Brake discs and drums (32% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.5% fail on Brake discs (33% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.055% fail on Lever
        • 0.028% fail on Cable
        • 0.028% fail on Linkage (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.0% fail on Rigid brake pipes (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.72% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.53% fail on Hand lever (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Pedal
    • 0.58% fail on Parking brake control (63% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.58% fail on Lever (88% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.37% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.29% fail on Electronic stability control
      • 0.14% fail on Anti-lock braking system (71% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Electronic braking system
    • 0.23% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.22% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers (140% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.18% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.15% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.097% fail on Brake fluid
      • 0.041% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.014% fail on Servos
  • 8.6% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (28% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (59% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.4% fail on Headlamp aim (17% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.3% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.14% fail on Headlamp aim not tested (56% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Headlamps (31% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Headlamp (44% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Headlamp levelling device (95% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Headlamp cleaning device (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Dipswitch
    • 1.1% fail on Stop lamp (64% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.30% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.21% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.055% fail on Horn (69% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.041% fail on Trailer electrical socket
      • 0.014% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.22% fail on Direction indicators (89% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Flashing type (89% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Side repeaters (85% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.097% fail on Individual direction indicators (92% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.014% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.12% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (78% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Rear fog lamp (78% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.12% fail on Rear fog lamp (78% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.014% fail on Switch
    • 0.069% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.069% fail on Position lamp
    • 0.069% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.014% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.014% fail on Reversing lamps
  • 7.9% fail on Suspension (40% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.2% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.1% fail on Ball joint dust cover (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Ball joint (48% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Pins and bushes (89% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Suspension arm
    • 2.6% fail on Anti-roll bars (25% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Linkage (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.83% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.28% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.14% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.097% fail on Anti-roll bar (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.097% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.069% fail on Ball joint dust cover (86% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.041% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.041% fail on Linkage attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.014% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
    • 0.69% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.43% fail on Other suspension component (85% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Ball joint dust cover (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.028% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.028% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.40% fail on Springs (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Coil springs (93% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.39% fail on Coil spring (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.17% fail on Shock absorbers (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.083% fail on Sub-frames (62% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.055% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.014% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.014% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.041% fail on Macpherson strut (75% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.014% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.014% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.028% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.028% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.014% fail on Air/gas/fluid suspension
      • 0.014% fail on Levelling valve
  • 5.3% fail on Tyres (13% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.8% fail on Tread depth (18% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.7% fail on Condition
    • 0.18% fail on Size/type
  • 4.6% fail on Visibility (15% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.0% fail on Wipers
    • 1.6% fail on Washers (42% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.055% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.055% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.041% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.028% fail on View to rear (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Mirrors (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.014% fail on Bonnet
  • 2.9% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 2.9% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 1.6% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.94% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (97% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.53% fail on On or after 01/07/2008
        • 0.15% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.083% fail on Emission control equipment (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.055% fail on Particulate filter (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.041% fail on Other emission control equipment (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.014% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
      • 1.3% fail on Spark ignition (37% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.73% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.53% fail on Catalyst emissions (44% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.14% fail on Emissions not tested (57% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.055% fail on Fluid leaks (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Engine oil leaks (84% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
      • 0.014% fail on Other leaks
    • 0.028% fail on Noise suppression
      • 0.028% fail on Undertray
  • 1.6% fail on Body, chassis, structure (60% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.48% fail on Exhaust system (71% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.43% fail on Seats (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Driver's seat (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.26% fail on Transmission (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Drive shafts (83% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.26% fail on Joints (82% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Body (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Other body component
      • 0.041% fail on Panel
    • 0.11% fail on Undertray (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.041% fail on Fuel system (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.041% fail on Tank
    • 0.041% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.014% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.014% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 0.014% fail on Chassis
      • 0.014% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.014% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.014% fail on Engine mounting condition
    • 0.014% fail on Floor
    • 0.014% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.014% fail on Boot lid condition
  • 0.84% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.55% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.44% fail on Condition
      • 0.083% fail on Requirements (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Attachment
    • 0.30% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 0.83% fail on Steering (65% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.32% fail on Steering linkage components (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Track rod end (89% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.097% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.028% fail on Locking devices
    • 0.28% fail on Power steering (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Operation (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.014% fail on Other components
    • 0.19% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.19% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.041% fail on Steering play
      • 0.041% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.028% fail on Electronic power steering
  • 0.51% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.51% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.47% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.36% fail on Attachment
    • 0.097% fail on Condition
    • 0.014% fail on Hubs
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