Nissan Murano MOT Results
Registered in 201081.1% pass rate
from 111 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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Nissan Murano is unusually good or bad.
-
9.0% fail on
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
-
3.6% fail on
Position lamps
- 3.6% fail on Front lamps
- 1.8% fail on Battery (14 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
1.8% fail on
Headlamps
-
0.90% fail on
Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
- 0.90% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
- 0.90% fail on Headlamp
-
0.90% fail on
Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
-
0.90% fail on
Rear fog lamp
- 0.90% fail on Fog lamp
- 0.90% fail on Headlamp aim
-
3.6% fail on
Position lamps
-
5.4% fail on
Suspension
-
5.4% fail on
Anti-roll bars
(2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 5.4% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
5.4% fail on
Anti-roll bars
(2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
4.5% fail on
Brakes
-
3.6% fail on
Hub components
- 3.6% fail on Brake pads
-
0.90% fail on
Brake performance
- 0.90% fail on Rear wheels
-
3.6% fail on
Hub components
-
3.6% fail on
Tyres
- 1.8% fail on Condition
- 1.8% fail on Tread depth
-
1.8% fail on
Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
-
1.8% fail on
Seat belts
(5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.8% fail on Requirements (94 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
1.8% fail on
Seat belts
(5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
1.8% fail on
Driver's view of the road
- 1.8% fail on Wipers
-
0.90% fail on
Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
- 0.90% fail on Exhaust system
Read the Honest John Review
-
Nissan Murano (2008 - 2011)
Comfortable SUV, reasonable performance, pleasant and easy to drive, 2.5-litre diesel finally introduced in 2010.