MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Nissan » Note » 2016

Nissan Note MOT Results

Registered in 2016
88.0% pass rate
from 10,908 tests in 2021
(29% better than other 2016 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 2016 cars and highlighted areas where the Nissan Note is unusually good or bad.

  • 4.1% fail on Visibility
    • 3.6% fail on Wipers (25% worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.59% fail on Washers (47% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.018% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.018% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.0092% fail on View to rear
      • 0.0092% fail on Mirrors
  • 2.0% fail on Tyres (49% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Tread depth (39% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.81% fail on Condition (62% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.046% fail on Size/type
  • 1.8% fail on Suspension
    • 1.0% fail on Wheel bearings (10 times worse than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.58% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.39% fail on Pins and bushes (61% worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.16% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.037% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.10% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.055% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 0.018% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (17 times worse than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.018% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
      • 0.0092% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.083% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.073% fail on Springs (94% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.073% fail on Coil springs (94% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.073% fail on Coil spring (94% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.0092% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.0092% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.0092% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
  • 1.6% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (54% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 1.2% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.0092% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 0.16% fail on Headlamps (78% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.13% fail on Headlamp (80% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 0.10% fail on Direction indicators (72% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.10% fail on Flashing type (72% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.092% fail on Side repeaters (67% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.0092% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 0.064% fail on Stop lamp (90% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.064% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (82% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.028% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (85% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Rear fog lamp (85% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.028% fail on Rear fog lamp (85% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.018% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.018% fail on Reversing lamps
    • 0.0092% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.0092% fail on Position lamp
    • 0.0092% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.0092% fail on Horn
  • 1.4% fail on Brakes (51% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.83% fail on Mechanical brake components (56% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.62% fail on Brake linings and pads (61% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.61% fail on Brake pads (61% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.0092% fail on Brake linings
      • 0.32% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.32% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.0092% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.0092% fail on Linkage
    • 0.39% fail on Brake performance (46% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.32% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.31% fail on Rbt
          • 0.21% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.11% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.0092% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.0092% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.064% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (72% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.064% fail on Rbt (sp) (71% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.028% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.018% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.0092% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.0092% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.0092% fail on Rbt
          • 0.0092% fail on Parking brake performance
    • 0.064% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.046% fail on Electronic stability control
      • 0.018% fail on Anti-lock braking system
    • 0.055% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.037% fail on Pedal
      • 0.018% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.055% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.037% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
      • 0.018% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.037% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.037% fail on Lever
    • 0.018% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.018% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.0092% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.0092% fail on Reservoirs
  • 0.81% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 0.77% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 0.61% fail on Spark ignition
        • 0.39% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.17% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 0.055% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.17% fail on Compression ignition (52% better than other 2016 cars)
        • 0.14% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.018% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
        • 0.0092% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.037% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.037% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 0.39% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 0.21% fail on Transmission
      • 0.20% fail on Drive shafts
        • 0.20% fail on Joints
      • 0.0092% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.0092% fail on Joints
    • 0.055% fail on Exhaust system (66% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.028% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.018% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.018% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.018% fail on Doors
      • 0.0092% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.0092% fail on Door condition
      • 0.0092% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.0092% fail on Door condition
    • 0.018% fail on Seats
      • 0.018% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.0092% fail on Spare wheel
      • 0.0092% fail on Spare wheel condition
    • 0.0092% fail on Towbar
      • 0.0092% fail on Towbar condition
    • 0.0092% fail on Body
      • 0.0092% fail on Other body component
    • 0.0092% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.0092% fail on Boot lid condition
    • 0.0092% fail on Undertray
  • 0.12% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (58% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.092% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.092% fail on Condition
    • 0.028% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (77% better than other 2016 cars)
  • 0.11% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.11% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.092% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.092% fail on Attachment
  • 0.037% fail on Steering (86% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.028% fail on Steering linkage components (87% better than other 2016 cars)
      • 0.028% fail on Track rod end (87% better than other 2016 cars)
    • 0.0092% 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