MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Mitsubishi » Canter » 2010

Mitsubishi Canter MOT Results

Registered in 2010
58.9% pass rate
from 112 tests in 2021
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 Mitsubishi Canter is unusually good or bad.

  • 19% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 6.3% fail on Stop lamp
    • 5.4% fail on Headlamps
      • 4.5% fail on Headlamp
      • 1.8% fail on Headlamp levelling device (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.5% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.6% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.89% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 4.5% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.5% fail on Rear fog lamp (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 4.5% fail on Rear fog lamp (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.6% fail on Direction indicators
      • 3.6% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.7% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.89% fail on Switch
    • 3.6% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 1.8% fail on Reversing lamps (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Reversing lamps (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.89% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.89% fail on Position lamp
  • 13% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 11% fail on Exhaust emissions (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 6.3% fail on Compression ignition (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 4.5% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.8% fail on Emissions not tested (14 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.4% fail on Spark ignition
        • 5.4% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Fluid leaks (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Engine oil leaks (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 12% fail on Brakes
    • 7.1% fail on Brake performance
      • 3.6% fail on Service brake performance
        • 3.6% fail on Rbt
          • 2.7% fail on Service brake imbalance (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.8% fail on Service brake performance
      • 2.7% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.7% fail on Rbt (sp) (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 2.7% fail on Service brake imbalance (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.8% fail on Service brake performance (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 1.8% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.89% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 3.6% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 3.6% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 3.6% fail on Brake discs
    • 2.7% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.7% fail on Pedal (17 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.89% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.89% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.89% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
  • 11% fail on Visibility
    • 5.4% fail on Washers
    • 3.6% fail on Wipers
    • 2.7% fail on View to rear (18 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.7% fail on Mirrors (18 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 8.9% fail on Body, chassis, structure (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.6% fail on Fuel system (15 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.89% fail on Tank
      • 0.89% fail on Pipe
      • 0.89% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
      • 0.89% fail on System
    • 2.7% fail on Transmission
      • 1.8% fail on Prop shafts (24 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.8% fail on Joints (33 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.89% fail on Drive shafts
        • 0.89% fail on Joints
    • 1.8% fail on Body (19 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Other body component (26 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.89% fail on Seats
      • 0.89% fail on Driver's seat
    • 0.89% fail on Undertray
  • 8.9% fail on Tyres
    • 6.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 3.6% fail on Condition
  • 7.1% fail on Suspension
    • 4.5% fail on Axles (28 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on King pins (4815 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Swivel pins and bushes (11 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.89% fail on Stub axle
    • 1.8% fail on Springs
      • 1.8% fail on Leaf springs (1699 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.89% fail on Leaf spring
        • 0.89% fail on Shackle pins and bushes
    • 1.8% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.8% fail on Pins and bushes (27 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.89% fail on Shock absorbers
  • 4.5% fail on Steering
    • 4.5% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 2.7% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.89% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.89% fail on Drag link end
    • 0.89% fail on Steering play
      • 0.89% fail on Steering box
  • 1.8% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 1.8% fail on Seat belts
      • 1.8% fail on Prescribed areas (32 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.89% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.89% fail on Registration plates

Search Good Garages