MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Proton » GEN-2 » 2010

Proton GEN-2 MOT Results

Registered in 2010
51.3% pass rate
from 152 tests in 2021
(39% worse than other 2010 cars)
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 Proton GEN-2 is unusually good or bad.

  • 30% fail on Brakes (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 15% fail on Brake performance (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 12% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 12% fail on Rbt (sp) (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 8.6% fail on Parking brake performance (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 8.6% fail on Rbt (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 7.9% fail on Parking brake performance (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.66% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 2.0% fail on Service brake performance
        • 2.0% fail on Rbt
          • 2.0% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.3% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 1.3% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 1.3% fail on Service brake performance (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.66% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.66% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 7.9% fail on Mechanical brake components (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.9% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 3.9% fail on Brake pads
      • 3.3% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 3.3% fail on Brake discs
      • 1.3% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages (11 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.66% fail on Cable
        • 0.66% fail on Lever
    • 5.3% fail on Rigid brake pipes (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.6% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Pedal (12 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.66% fail on Hand lever
    • 2.0% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders) (14 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers (20 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Parking brake control
      • 1.3% fail on Lever
    • 0.66% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.66% fail on Brake fluid
  • 23% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (94% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 7.9% fail on Headlamp aim (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 7.9% fail on Headlamp aim (200% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 7.2% fail on Headlamps (140% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.9% fail on Headlamp
      • 1.3% fail on Headlamp levelling device (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 6.6% fail on Stop lamp
    • 2.6% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 2.0% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.0% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.0% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 1.3% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 1.3% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 1.3% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.66% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.66% fail on Battery(ies)
  • 13% fail on Body, chassis, structure (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.9% fail on Transmission (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 5.9% fail on Drive shafts (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 5.9% fail on Joints (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.3% fail on Exhaust system (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Doors (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Front passenger's door (17 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.3% fail on Door condition (18 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.66% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.66% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.66% fail on Bumpers
  • 11% fail on Suspension
    • 9.9% fail on Anti-roll bars (180% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.6% fail on Linkage (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 1.3% fail on Anti-roll bar (40 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 1.3% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
      • 0.66% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.66% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.66% fail on Linkage attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.66% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.66% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.66% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.66% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.66% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.66% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.66% fail on Pins and bushes
  • 11% fail on Visibility (97% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 7.2% fail on Wipers (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.3% fail on Washers
    • 1.3% fail on View to rear (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Mirrors (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 8.6% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 8.6% fail on Exhaust emissions (160% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 8.6% fail on Spark ignition (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 5.3% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.0% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 2.0% fail on Emissions not tested (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 8.6% fail on Tyres
    • 5.3% fail on Condition
    • 3.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.66% fail on Size/type
  • 2.6% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 2.0% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
    • 1.3% fail on Seat belts
      • 1.3% fail on Condition
  • 0.66% fail on Steering
    • 0.66% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.66% fail on Steering rack
  • 0.66% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.66% fail on Attachment
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages