Nissan Note MOT Results

Registered in 2016
88.5% pass rate
from 11,261 tests in 2020
(7.8% better than other 2016 cars)
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 2016 cars and highlighted areas where the Nissan Note is unusually good or bad.

  • 3.9% fail on Visibility (38% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 3.2% fail on Wipers (72% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.69% fail on Washers
    • 0.044% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.044% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.044% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.018% fail on View to rear
      • 0.018% fail on Mirrors
  • 2.2% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (36% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 1.7% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 0.14% fail on Direction indicators (54% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Flashing type (54% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.12% fail on Side repeaters (55% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.027% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 0.12% fail on Headlamps (75% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.080% fail on Headlamp (80% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.044% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 0.11% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.11% fail on Position lamp
    • 0.071% fail on Stop lamp (82% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.062% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.036% fail on Battery(ies) (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.018% fail on Horn
      • 0.0089% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.036% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.036% fail on Reversing lamps
    • 0.027% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (90% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.018% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (88% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.018% fail on Rear fog lamp (88% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.018% fail on Rear fog lamp (88% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.0089% fail on Daytime running lamps
    • 0.0089% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.0089% fail on Switch
  • 2.1% fail on Tyres (41% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.44% fail on Condition (76% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.080% fail on Tyre pressure monitoring system
    • 0.062% fail on Size/type
  • 1.8% fail on Suspension (2 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.5% fail on Wheel bearings (27 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.080% fail on Ball joint dust cover (3 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.062% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.036% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.0089% fail on Suspension arm
    • 0.14% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.036% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.0089% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.0089% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.0089% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.0089% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
  • 1.1% fail on Brakes (47% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.52% fail on Mechanical brake components (64% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.40% fail on Brake linings and pads (69% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.40% fail on Brake pads (69% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.19% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.33% fail on Brake performance
      • 0.23% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.21% fail on Rbt
          • 0.11% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.11% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.018% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.0089% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.0089% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.089% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.089% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.089% fail on Service brake imbalance (170% worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.036% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (70% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.036% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.027% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.018% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.018% fail on Rbt
          • 0.0089% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
          • 0.0089% fail on Parking brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
    • 0.12% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.12% fail on Pedal (170% worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.0089% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.044% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.044% fail on Lever
    • 0.044% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.036% fail on Electronic stability control
      • 0.0089% fail on Anti-lock braking system
    • 0.018% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.018% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.018% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
    • 0.0089% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.0089% fail on Reservoirs
    • 0.0089% fail on Rigid brake pipes
  • 0.56% fail on Body, chassis, structure (98% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.47% fail on Transmission (5 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.45% fail on Drive shafts (5 times worse than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.45% fail on Joints (5 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.018% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.018% fail on Joints (5 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.027% fail on Seats
      • 0.018% fail on Driver's seat
      • 0.0089% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.018% fail on Exhaust system
    • 0.018% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.018% fail on Body
      • 0.018% fail on Other body component
    • 0.0089% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.0089% fail on Engine mounting condition
    • 0.0089% fail on Doors
      • 0.0089% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.0089% fail on Door condition
  • 0.35% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 0.34% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 0.22% fail on Spark ignition
        • 0.18% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.036% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 0.018% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.12% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.071% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.053% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
    • 0.0089% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.0089% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 0.22% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.18% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.18% fail on Condition
    • 0.044% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 0.11% fail on Identification of the vehicle (55% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Registration plates (55% better than other 2016 cars)
  • 0.089% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.089% fail on Attachment
  • 0.036% fail on Steering (72% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.0089% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.0089% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.0089% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 0.0089% fail on Track rod end
    • 0.0089% fail on Steering wheel
    • 0.0089% fail on Steering column
Read the Honest John Review

  • Nissan Note (2013 - 2016)
    Practical design and spacious cabin. Reasonably comfortable. Clear instrument binnacle. Some clever technology on upper grades

    Search Good Garages