Nissan Pixo MOT Results

Registered in 2010
73.5% pass rate
from 3,971 tests in 2017
(8.9% better than other 2010 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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Nissan Pixo is unusually good or bad.

  • 11% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (16% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.0% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 2.9% fail on Stop lamp
    • 2.7% fail on Horn (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.1% fail on Headlamp aim (40% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Position lamps (42% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.5% fail on Front lamps (36% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Rear lamps (65% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.60% fail on Headlamps (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.60% fail on Headlamp (72% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.23% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.23% fail on Fog lamp
    • 0.18% fail on Direction indicators (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Flashing type (88% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.13% fail on Individual lamps (85% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.025% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.025% fail on Side repeaters
    • 0.050% fail on Battery
  • 8.6% fail on Driver's view of the road (81% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 6.5% fail on Wipers (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Washers
    • 0.15% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.15% fail on Mirrors
  • 5.5% fail on Tyres (18% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.3% fail on Condition (31% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Size/type
    • 0.025% fail on Valve stem
  • 5.4% fail on Brakes
    • 2.5% fail on Hydraulic systems (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.3% fail on Components (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.2% fail on Pipes (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.13% fail on Hoses
        • 0.050% fail on Cylinders (12 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.076% fail on Operation
      • 0.076% fail on Leaks
      • 0.025% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
    • 1.8% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.2% fail on Front wheels (85% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.55% fail on Rear wheels (47% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.23% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.050% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.025% fail on Parking brake performance
    • 1.4% fail on Hub components (48% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Brake pads (47% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Brake discs (73% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.025% fail on Brake calipers
    • 0.15% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.15% fail on Condition
    • 0.076% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.050% fail on Service brake control components
      • 0.050% fail on Pedal
        • 0.050% fail on Condition
    • 0.025% fail on ABS
    • 0.025% fail on Locking devices
  • 4.7% fail on Suspension (42% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Wheel bearings (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Front (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.18% fail on Rear
    • 0.91% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.81% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.076% fail on Attachment
      • 0.050% fail on Condition (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.68% fail on Drive shafts
      • 0.65% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 0.65% fail on Constant velocity joints
      • 0.025% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.025% fail on Drive shafts
    • 0.43% fail on Shock absorbers (60% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.43% fail on Condition (60% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Anti-roll bars (89% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.025% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.10% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.076% fail on Condition (39 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.025% fail on Attachment
    • 0.10% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.10% fail on Condition (18 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.10% fail on Front suspension retaining and locking devices (24 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.10% fail on Front suspension joints (71% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.076% fail on Coil springs (98% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.050% fail on Location
      • 0.025% fail on Condition
    • 0.076% fail on Prescribed areas (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.076% fail on Component mounting (16 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.050% fail on Axles (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.050% fail on Axle beam (20 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.025% fail on Bonded suspension
      • 0.025% fail on Condition
    • 0.025% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.025% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.025% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.025% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
  • 0.63% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 0.58% fail on Supplementary restraint systems (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.55% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.025% fail on Drivers airbag
    • 0.050% fail on Seat belts (82% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.050% fail on Condition (79% better than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.53% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (63% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.30% fail on Exhaust system (68% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.25% fail on Emissions
    • 0.10% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 0.38% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.38% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.20% fail on Steering (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.18% fail on Steering system (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.10% fail on Track rod end (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.050% fail on Other components (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.025% fail on Steering pivot point
        • 0.025% fail on Steering component
      • 0.025% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.025% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.025% fail on Locking devices
  • 0.15% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.076% fail on Condition
    • 0.076% fail on Attachment
  • 0.15% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.076% fail on Body condition
    • 0.076% fail on Doors
      • 0.050% fail on Drivers
      • 0.025% fail on Passengers other
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