Nissan Cube MOT Results

Registered in 2010
64.6% pass rate
from 912 tests in 2020
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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Nissan Cube is unusually good or bad.

  • 16% fail on Suspension (50% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 14% fail on Suspension arms (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 12% fail on Ball joint (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.8% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 1.1% fail on Ball joint dust cover (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.3% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.44% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
      • 0.22% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.11% fail on Linkage
    • 0.44% fail on Sub-frames (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.11% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.11% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.44% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.44% fail on Ball joint (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.33% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.33% fail on Springs (91% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.33% fail on Coil springs (91% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.33% fail on Coil spring (91% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Mounting
    • 0.22% fail on Shock absorbers (84% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.11% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
  • 9.6% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (25% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Position lamps
      • 3.3% fail on Position lamp (65% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.2% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 2.9% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.33% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.5% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 1.2% fail on Stop lamp (60% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Headlamps (62% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Headlamp (60% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.44% fail on Rear reflectors (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.44% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.44% fail on Horn
    • 0.11% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.11% fail on Reversing lamps
  • 9.0% fail on Brakes
    • 4.8% fail on Mechanical brake components (49% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.8% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 3.8% fail on Brake pads (55% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 1.3% fail on Brake discs
    • 3.7% fail on Brake performance
      • 2.0% fail on Parking brake performance (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.0% fail on Rbt (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 2.0% fail on Parking brake performance (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 1.9% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 1.5% fail on Service brake performance
        • 1.5% fail on Rbt
          • 1.1% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.66% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.22% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.22% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.22% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.11% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.11% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.55% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.55% fail on Lever
    • 0.22% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.22% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.22% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.22% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.11% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.11% fail on Electronic stability control
  • 5.7% fail on Visibility
    • 3.2% fail on Wipers
    • 2.3% fail on Washers
    • 0.33% fail on View to rear
      • 0.33% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.22% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.11% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.11% fail on Windscreen
  • 4.7% fail on Tyres
    • 2.5% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.4% fail on Condition
  • 2.7% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 1.9% fail on Exhaust system
    • 0.77% fail on Doors (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.77% fail on Other passenger's door (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.77% fail on Door condition (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.11% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.11% fail on Bumpers
  • 2.4% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 2.3% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 2.1% fail on Spark ignition
        • 1.1% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 0.77% fail on Emissions not tested (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.33% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
      • 0.22% fail on Compression ignition (82% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.11% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.11% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.11% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 0.77% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.44% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.33% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.33% fail on Condition
  • 0.66% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.66% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.33% fail on Steering (82% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.33% fail on Steering linkage components (78% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.11% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.11% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.11% fail on Locking devices
  • 0.33% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.33% fail on Attachment
Read the Honest John Review

  • Nissan Cube (2010 - 2011)
    Decent to drive with quiet yet torquey 1.6 chain cam engine, sensible gearing, light controls and excellent ride quality.

    Search Good Garages