Mitsubishi Challenger MOT Results

Registered in 1996
55.4% pass rate
from 74 tests in 2020
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 1996 cars and highlighted areas where the Mitsubishi Challenger is unusually good or bad.

  • 24% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 11% fail on Stop lamp (180% worse than other 1996 cars)
    • 8.1% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (2 times worse than other 1996 cars)
      • 8.1% fail on Rear fog lamp (2 times worse than other 1996 cars)
        • 8.1% fail on Rear fog lamp (2 times worse than other 1996 cars)
    • 4.1% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 2.7% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 2.7% fail on Horn
    • 1.4% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 1.4% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 1.4% fail on Direction indicators
      • 1.4% fail on Flashing type
        • 1.4% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 1.4% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 1.4% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 1.4% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
  • 20% fail on Brakes
    • 8.1% fail on Rigid brake pipes (190% worse than other 1996 cars)
    • 8.1% fail on Brake performance
      • 5.4% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 5.4% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 5.4% fail on Service brake performance
      • 2.7% fail on Service brake performance
        • 2.7% fail on Rbt
          • 2.7% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 1.4% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.4% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 2.7% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 2.7% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 2.7% fail on Brake pads
    • 2.7% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 2.7% fail on Anti-lock braking system
    • 1.4% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 1.4% fail on Brake fluid
  • 16% fail on Suspension
    • 9.5% fail on Anti-roll bars (2 times worse than other 1996 cars)
      • 6.8% fail on Pins and bushes (16 times worse than other 1996 cars)
      • 2.7% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 1.4% fail on Linkage
    • 4.1% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 4.1% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 2.7% fail on Suspension arms
      • 2.7% fail on Ball joint
      • 1.4% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 1.4% fail on Springs
      • 1.4% fail on Coil springs
        • 1.4% fail on Coil spring
  • 14% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 9.5% fail on Exhaust system
    • 5.4% fail on Transmission
      • 5.4% fail on Drive shafts
        • 5.4% fail on Joints
    • 1.4% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 1.4% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
  • 11% fail on Visibility
    • 9.5% fail on Washers (180% worse than other 1996 cars)
    • 2.7% fail on Wipers
  • 8.1% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 8.1% fail on Seat belts
      • 5.4% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 2.7% fail on Condition
  • 8.1% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 6.8% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 5.4% fail on Compression ignition (4 times worse than other 1996 cars)
        • 4.1% fail on Emissions not tested (13 times worse than other 1996 cars)
        • 1.4% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
        • 1.4% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
      • 1.4% fail on Spark ignition
        • 1.4% fail on Catalyst emissions
    • 2.7% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 2.7% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 6.8% fail on Steering
    • 6.8% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 2.7% fail on Track rod end
      • 1.4% fail on Ball joint
      • 1.4% fail on Drag link end
      • 1.4% fail on Other components
        • 1.4% fail on Steering component
  • 4.1% fail on Tyres
    • 2.7% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.4% fail on Condition
  • 1.4% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 1.4% fail on Registration plates
  • 1.4% fail on Road Wheels
    • 1.4% fail on Attachment

Search Good Garages