Mitsubishi Pajero MOT Results

Registered in 1992

57.3% pass rate

from 562 tests in 2017

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 1992 cars and highlighted areas where the Mitsubishi Pajero is unusually good or bad.

22% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
- 9.1% fail on Rear fog lamp (110% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 9.1% fail on Fog lamp (130% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 1.6% fail on Tell tale (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.71% fail on Switch
- 7.5% fail on Registration plate lamp (110% worse than other 1992 cars)
- 4.1% fail on Position lamps
  - 2.1% fail on Front lamps
  - 1.6% fail on Rear lamps
  - 0.36% fail on All position lamps
- 3.9% fail on Stop lamp
- 3.0% fail on Battery
- 3.0% fail on Headlamp aim
- 1.6% fail on Horn
- 0.89% fail on Headlamps (70% better than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.71% fail on Headlamp (75% better than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.36% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
    - 0.36% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
- 0.71% fail on Direction indicators (77% better than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.71% fail on Flashing type (77% better than other 1992 cars)
    - 0.71% fail on Individual lamps
    - 0.18% fail on Side repeaters
- 0.53% fail on Hazard warning
  - 0.36% fail on Switch
  - 0.18% fail on Lamp
  - 0.18% fail on Tell tale
- 0.18% fail on Electrical wiring
- 0.18% fail on Trailer electrical socket
21% fail on Suspension (38% worse than other 1992 cars)
- 6.6% fail on Anti-roll bars (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 3.4% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 2.0% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.89% fail on Linkage condition (3 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.53% fail on Attachment
- 6.2% fail on Drive shafts (140% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 6.2% fail on Front drive shafts (150% worse than other 1992 cars)
    - 6.2% fail on Constant velocity joints (160% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.18% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
    - 0.18% fail on Universal joint
- 5.5% fail on Prescribed areas
  - 3.7% fail on Component mounting
  - 1.6% fail on Spring mounting (150% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.36% fail on Subframe mounting
- 4.8% fail on Shock absorbers (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 4.8% fail on Condition (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
- 4.6% fail on Suspension arms (130% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 4.4% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (140% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.18% fail on Condition
  - 0.18% fail on Attachment
- 1.1% fail on Front suspension joints
- 0.89% fail on Wheel bearings
  - 0.89% fail on Front
- 0.71% fail on Coil springs
  - 0.71% fail on Condition
- 0.18% fail on Trailing arms
  - 0.18% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
16% fail on Brakes
- 8.2% fail on Hydraulic systems (61% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 7.7% fail on Components (72% worse than other 1992 cars)
    - 6.4% fail on Pipes (120% worse than other 1992 cars)
    - 1.8% fail on Hoses
    - 0.18% fail on Reservoirs
    - 0.18% fail on Valves
  - 0.53% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
  - 0.53% fail on Leaks
  - 0.18% fail on Operation
- 7.3% fail on Brake performance
  - 3.0% fail on Front wheels
  - 2.8% fail on Rear wheels
  - 1.4% fail on Parking brake performance (62% better than other 1992 cars)
  - 1.2% fail on Brake imbalance
  - 0.71% fail on Service brake performance
  - 0.18% fail on Brake performance not tested
- 3.6% fail on Hub components (120% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 3.4% fail on Brake pads (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.71% fail on Brake discs
- 0.53% fail on Parking brake
  - 0.53% fail on Condition
- 0.53% fail on Restricted movement
- 0.36% fail on Service brake control components
  - 0.36% fail on Pedal
    - 0.36% fail on Condition
- 0.36% fail on Prescribed areas
  - 0.36% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting
- 0.18% fail on Air and vacuum systems
  - 0.18% fail on Pressure/vacuum build up
- 0.18% fail on ABS
12% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
- 6.8% fail on Exhaust system (53% worse than other 1992 cars)
- 4.3% fail on Emissions
- 2.1% fail on Fuel system
  - 0.89% fail on Pipe
  - 0.89% fail on System
  - 0.36% fail on Hose
- 0.89% fail on Emissions not tested
10.0% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (91% worse than other 1992 cars)
- 6.8% fail on Body condition (180% worse than other 1992 cars)
- 2.3% fail on Vehicle structure
  - 2.3% fail on Chassis
- 0.53% fail on Doors
  - 0.53% fail on Passengers other
- 0.53% fail on Seats
  - 0.53% fail on Drivers
- 0.18% fail on Speedometer
- 0.18% fail on Body security
8.2% fail on Driver's view of the road
- 5.7% fail on Wipers
- 3.7% fail on Washers
- 0.18% fail on Indirect vision devices
6.8% fail on Steering
- 6.4% fail on Steering system
  - 4.4% fail on Track rod end (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 1.6% fail on Drag link end (3 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  - 0.71% fail on Steering box
  - 0.71% fail on Ball joint
  - 0.36% fail on Free play
    - 0.36% fail on Steering box
  - 0.18% fail on Steering arm
  - 0.18% fail on Other components
    - 0.18% fail on Steering pivot point
- 0.18% fail on Steering control
  - 0.18% fail on Steering wheel
- 0.18% fail on Power steering
  - 0.18% fail on Other components
- 0.18% fail on Prescribed areas
5.2% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
- 5.2% fail on Seat belts
  - 4.4% fail on Prescribed areas
  - 0.36% fail on Condition
  - 0.18% fail on Requirements
  - 0.18% fail on Attachment
2.0% fail on Tyres (54% better than other 1992 cars)
- 1.1% fail on Condition
- 1.1% fail on Tread depth
0.71% fail on Registration plates and VIN
- 0.71% fail on Registration plate
0.53% fail on Road Wheels
- 0.53% fail on Attachment
0.36% fail on Towbars
- 0.18% fail on Towbar
- 0.18% fail on Vehicle structure