MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Nissan » Pixo » 2010

Nissan Pixo MOT Results

Registered in 2010
67.2% pass rate
from 4,384 tests in 2021
(12% 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 Nissan Pixo is unusually good or bad.

  • 12% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 4.7% fail on Stop lamp (60% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.6% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (34% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Headlamps (29% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.1% fail on Headlamp (25% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.023% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 2.1% fail on Headlamp aim (30% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Headlamp aim (27% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.16% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.7% fail on Electrical equipment (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Horn (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.023% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.46% fail on Direction indicators (78% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.46% fail on Flashing type (78% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.34% fail on Individual direction indicators (73% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.091% fail on Side repeaters (87% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.023% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.25% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (56% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.25% fail on Rear fog lamp (56% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.25% fail on Rear fog lamp (56% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.14% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.14% fail on Reversing lamps
    • 0.046% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.046% fail on Position lamp
  • 8.2% fail on Visibility (53% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.6% fail on Wipers (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.9% fail on Washers
    • 0.16% fail on View to rear
      • 0.16% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.046% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.046% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.023% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.023% fail on Bonnet
  • 7.5% fail on Brakes
    • 4.1% fail on Rigid brake pipes (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Brake performance (42% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.7% fail on Service brake performance
        • 1.6% fail on Rbt
          • 1.3% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.41% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.023% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.023% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.52% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.52% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.39% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 0.16% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.32% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (82% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.32% fail on Rbt (sp) (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Parking brake performance (83% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.14% fail on Rbt (82% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.091% fail on Parking brake performance (86% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.046% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.023% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.5% fail on Mechanical brake components (50% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.98% fail on Brake linings and pads (53% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.96% fail on Brake pads (54% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.023% fail on Brake linings
      • 0.66% fail on Brake discs and drums (41% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.62% fail on Brake discs (45% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.068% fail on Brake drums (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC (53% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.25% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.023% fail on Electronic stability control
    • 0.16% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.14% fail on Lever
      • 0.023% fail on Electronic parking brake
    • 0.11% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.068% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.023% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.023% fail on Brake fluid
      • 0.023% fail on Valves
    • 0.046% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (86% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.023% fail on Pedal
      • 0.023% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.046% fail on Air and vacuum systems (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.023% fail on Leaks
      • 0.023% fail on Servos
    • 0.023% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.023% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
    • 0.023% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 0.023% fail on Prescribed areas
        • 0.023% fail on Park brake mechanism/associated mountings
  • 7.2% fail on Suspension (46% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Suspension arms (19% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.62% fail on Suspension arm (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Ball joint (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.36% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.18% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Wheel bearings (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.2% fail on Anti-roll bars (66% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.55% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (53% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.18% fail on Linkage ball joints (84% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.068% fail on Ball joint (79% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.43% fail on Springs (92% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Coil springs (95% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.21% fail on Coil spring (96% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.091% fail on Mounting
      • 0.11% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.023% fail on Leaf springs
        • 0.023% fail on Anchor bracket
    • 0.34% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.25% fail on Shock absorbers (70% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.23% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.21% fail on Sub-frame
      • 0.023% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.23% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.14% fail on Other suspension component (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.046% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.023% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.023% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.18% fail on Axles
      • 0.18% fail on Axle (20 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.023% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.023% fail on Macpherson strut
    • 0.023% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.023% fail on Ball joint dust cover
  • 5.1% fail on Tyres (16% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.9% fail on Condition (33% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Size/type
  • 2.7% fail on Body, chassis, structure (31% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Transmission
      • 1.2% fail on Drive shafts
        • 1.2% fail on Joints
      • 0.046% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.046% fail on Joints
    • 0.66% fail on Exhaust system (61% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Bumpers (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.16% fail on Doors
      • 0.091% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.091% fail on Door condition
      • 0.068% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.068% fail on Door condition
    • 0.14% fail on Body
      • 0.091% fail on Other body component
      • 0.023% fail on Mounting fixings
      • 0.023% fail on Panel
    • 0.068% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.046% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
      • 0.023% fail on Tank
    • 0.046% fail on Chassis
      • 0.046% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.046% fail on Seats
      • 0.046% fail on Driver's seat
    • 0.023% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.023% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 0.023% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.023% fail on Engine mounting condition
    • 0.023% fail on Boot lid
      • 0.023% fail on Boot lid condition
  • 2.0% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (43% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Exhaust emissions (46% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.7% fail on Spark ignition
        • 0.73% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 0.59% fail on Emissions not tested (86% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.57% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (41% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.091% fail on Compression ignition (93% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.046% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.023% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.023% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.30% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.30% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 1.3% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (43% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.94% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (98% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.34% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.30% fail on Condition
      • 0.023% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.023% fail on Attachment
    • 0.023% fail on Airbags
      • 0.023% fail on Drivers airbag
  • 0.64% fail on Steering (73% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.57% fail on Steering linkage components (70% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Locking devices (20 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Track rod end (92% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.046% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.023% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.023% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.023% fail on Steering coupling
      • 0.023% fail on Flexible coupling
    • 0.023% fail on Electronic power steering
  • 0.43% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.43% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.23% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.16% fail on Condition
    • 0.068% fail on Attachment (80% better than other 2010 cars)
Read the Honest John Review

  • Nissan Pixo (2009 - 2013)
    Cheap to buy new, low CO2 emissions and high economy mean it's cheap to run. Available with an automatic gearbox. Nicer seats than near identical Suzuki Alto.

    Search Good Garages