Mercedes-Benz 190 MOT Results

Registered in 1992
64.0% pass rate
from 916 tests in 2017
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 1992 cars and highlighted areas where the Mercedes-Benz 190 is unusually good or bad.

  • 18% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 4.7% fail on Position lamps
      • 2.6% fail on Rear lamps
      • 2.3% fail on Front lamps
    • 4.0% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.1% fail on Stop lamp
    • 2.8% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.8% fail on Flashing type
        • 1.6% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.98% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.22% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.11% fail on Tell tales
    • 2.2% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 2.1% fail on Battery
    • 2.0% fail on Rear fog lamp (53% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Fog lamp (58% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.44% fail on Switch
      • 0.22% fail on Tell tale
    • 1.5% fail on Headlamps (49% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Headlamp (53% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.22% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
      • 0.11% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest
        • 0.11% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 0.33% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.33% fail on Lamp
      • 0.11% fail on Switch
    • 0.22% fail on Horn (88% better than other 1992 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Electrical wiring
  • 13% fail on Suspension
    • 5.5% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 4.3% fail on Component mounting
      • 1.2% fail on Subframe mounting
      • 0.44% fail on Spring mounting
    • 3.7% fail on Coil springs (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 3.5% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.44% fail on Location
    • 1.5% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.98% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.33% fail on Attachment
      • 0.22% fail on Condition
    • 1.3% fail on Suspension arms
      • 1.3% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.98% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 0.87% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 0.87% fail on Condition
    • 0.44% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.33% fail on Condition
      • 0.11% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.44% fail on Wheel bearings (73% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Front
      • 0.22% fail on Rear
    • 0.11% fail on General condition
    • 0.11% fail on Fluid suspension
      • 0.11% fail on Pipes
    • 0.11% fail on Bonded suspension
      • 0.11% fail on Condition
    • 0.11% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.11% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.11% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.11% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.11% fail on Torque/reaction arms
      • 0.11% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.11% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.11% fail on Condition
    • 0.11% fail on Drive shafts
      • 0.11% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 0.11% fail on Couplings
  • 10% fail on Brakes (29% better than other 1992 cars)
    • 5.2% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 4.8% fail on Components
        • 3.5% fail on Pipes
        • 1.5% fail on Hoses
      • 0.44% fail on Leaks
      • 0.22% fail on Operation
      • 0.11% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
    • 4.9% fail on Brake performance (47% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 2.6% fail on Rear wheels
      • 1.9% fail on Parking brake performance (50% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Front wheels (69% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.66% fail on Service brake performance (63% better than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.11% fail on Brake imbalance
    • 1.5% fail on Hub components
      • 1.3% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.22% fail on Brake back plates (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on ABS (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 0.76% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.76% fail on Condition
  • 8.2% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 4.9% fail on Exhaust system
    • 2.9% fail on Emissions
    • 1.6% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.2% fail on System (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Pipe
      • 0.11% fail on Cap
    • 0.87% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 5.9% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 2.9% fail on Wipers
    • 2.9% fail on Washers
    • 0.44% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.11% fail on Bonnet
  • 4.5% fail on Tyres
    • 2.2% fail on Condition
    • 2.1% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.33% fail on Size/type
  • 4.1% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 1.9% fail on Doors (140% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.7% fail on Passengers other (5 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Drivers
    • 1.5% fail on Body condition
    • 0.98% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 0.98% fail on Chassis
  • 3.2% fail on Steering (38% better than other 1992 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Steering system
      • 2.2% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.33% fail on Steering box
      • 0.33% fail on Steering arm
      • 0.22% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.22% fail on Other components
        • 0.11% fail on Steering pivot point
        • 0.11% fail on Steering component
      • 0.11% fail on Free play
        • 0.11% fail on Steering box
    • 0.11% fail on Steering control
      • 0.11% fail on Steering column
    • 0.11% fail on Steering operation
  • 3.1% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 2.9% fail on Seat belts
      • 2.3% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.44% fail on Condition
      • 0.22% fail on Requirements
    • 0.11% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.11% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
  • 0.98% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.98% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.33% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.33% fail on Attachment
  • 0.11% fail on Towbars
    • 0.11% fail on Vehicle structure

Search Good Garages