Mitsubishi Shogun MOT Results
Registered in 201075.2% pass rate
from 1,076 tests in 2017
(15% 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 Mitsubishi Shogun is unusually good or bad.
-
12% fail on
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
-
3.9% fail on
Position lamps
- 2.6% fail on Front lamps
- 1.7% fail on Rear lamps (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.093% fail on All position lamps
- 3.3% fail on Stop lamp
- 2.5% fail on Registration plate lamp
- 2.2% fail on Headlamp aim
-
1.6% fail on
Headlamps
- 0.65% fail on Headlamp (70% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.56% fail on
Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest
(17 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.56% fail on Headlamp levelling device (29 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
0.37% fail on
Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
(5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.19% fail on Headlamp levelling device (39 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.19% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
-
1.3% fail on
Rear fog lamp
(2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.3% fail on Fog lamp (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.37% fail on Trailer electrical socket (30 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
0.19% fail on
Direction indicators
(88% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.19% fail on
Flashing type
(88% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.19% fail on Side repeaters
-
0.19% fail on
Flashing type
(88% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.093% fail on Electrical wiring
- 0.093% fail on Rear reflectors
- 0.093% fail on Horn
-
3.9% fail on
Position lamps
-
9.5% fail on
Brakes
(70% worse than other 2010 cars)
-
4.2% fail on
Hub components
(51% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 4.1% fail on Brake pads (72% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.28% fail on Brake discs
- 0.093% fail on Brake calipers
-
3.6% fail on
Brake performance
(67% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.6% fail on Front wheels (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.1% fail on Rear wheels
- 1.1% fail on Parking brake performance
- 0.37% fail on Brake imbalance
- 0.19% fail on Brake performance not tested (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.093% fail on Gradient hand brake
- 0.093% fail on Service brake performance
-
2.7% fail on
Hydraulic systems
(3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
2.6% fail on
Components
(5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 2.5% fail on Pipes (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.28% fail on Hoses
- 0.093% fail on Reservoirs
- 0.093% fail on Operation
- 0.093% fail on Leaks
-
2.6% fail on
Components
(5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
0.74% fail on
Parking brake
- 0.74% fail on Condition
- 0.56% fail on ABS
- 0.37% fail on Restricted movement
- 0.19% fail on Electronic stability system
-
0.093% fail on
Service brake control components
-
0.093% fail on
Pedal
- 0.093% fail on Anti-slip
-
0.093% fail on
Pedal
-
4.2% fail on
Hub components
(51% worse than other 2010 cars)
-
4.8% fail on
Driver's view of the road
- 3.3% fail on Wipers
- 1.3% fail on Washers
- 0.28% fail on Windscreen
- 0.093% fail on Mirrors
-
4.3% fail on
Suspension
(47% better than other 2010 cars)
-
1.9% fail on
Coil springs
(43% better than other 2010 cars)
- 1.9% fail on Condition (43% better than other 2010 cars)
-
1.1% fail on
Anti-roll bars
- 0.56% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
- 0.46% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
- 0.19% fail on Attachment (18 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.093% fail on Linkage condition
-
0.46% fail on
Suspension arms
- 0.46% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
-
0.37% fail on
Trailing arms
- 0.28% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
- 0.093% fail on Attachment
-
0.28% fail on
Drive shafts
-
0.28% fail on
Front drive shafts
- 0.28% fail on Constant velocity joints
-
0.28% fail on
Front drive shafts
-
0.19% fail on
Wheel bearings
- 0.093% fail on Front
- 0.093% fail on Rear
-
0.19% fail on
Shock absorbers
(82% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.19% fail on Condition (82% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.093% fail on
Torque/reaction arms
- 0.093% fail on Attachment
- 0.093% fail on Front suspension joints
-
1.9% fail on
Coil springs
(43% better than other 2010 cars)
-
3.0% fail on
Tyres
(56% better than other 2010 cars)
- 1.8% fail on Tread depth (50% better than other 2010 cars)
- 1.2% fail on Condition (64% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.093% fail on Size/type
-
1.6% fail on
Steering
-
1.0% fail on
Steering system
- 0.65% fail on Steering rack (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.46% fail on Track rod end
-
0.37% fail on
Power steering
(5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.28% fail on Operation (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.19% fail on Other components (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
0.093% fail on
Steering control
-
0.093% fail on
Steering coupling
- 0.093% fail on Universal joint
-
0.093% fail on
Steering coupling
- 0.093% fail on Steering operation
-
1.0% fail on
Steering system
-
0.93% fail on
Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
-
0.46% fail on
Supplementary restraint systems
- 0.46% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
-
0.46% fail on
Seat belts
- 0.46% fail on Condition
-
0.46% fail on
Supplementary restraint systems
-
0.65% fail on
Registration plates and VIN
- 0.65% fail on Registration plate
-
0.46% fail on
Road Wheels
- 0.46% fail on Attachment
-
0.19% fail on
Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
(87% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.19% fail on
Fuel system
- 0.093% fail on Tank
- 0.093% fail on System
-
0.19% fail on
Fuel system
-
0.093% fail on
Towbars
- 0.093% fail on Towbar
-
0.093% fail on
Body, Structure and General Items
- 0.093% fail on Body condition
Read the Honest John Review
-
Mitsubishi Shogun (2007 - 2019)
A rugged hard-worker that can tow heavy loads without breaking sweat and conquer terrain that would faze nearly all of its rivals, spacious cabin and seven seats, reasonably affordable and most version well equipped.