Rover 100 MOT Results
Registered in 199645.7% pass rate
from 127 tests in 2017
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 1996 cars and highlighted areas where the Rover 100 is unusually good or bad.
-
21% fail on
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
-
7.9% fail on
Rear fog lamp
(190% worse than other 1996 cars)
- 7.9% fail on Fog lamp (2 times worse than other 1996 cars)
-
4.7% fail on
Direction indicators
-
4.7% fail on
Flashing type
- 3.1% fail on Side repeaters
- 1.6% fail on Individual lamps
-
4.7% fail on
Flashing type
- 4.7% fail on Headlamp aim
- 3.1% fail on Battery
- 3.1% fail on Stop lamp
- 1.6% fail on Registration plate lamp
-
0.79% fail on
Position lamps
- 0.79% fail on Rear lamps
-
0.79% fail on
Headlamps
- 0.79% fail on Headlamp
- 0.79% fail on Horn
- 0.79% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
-
7.9% fail on
Rear fog lamp
(190% worse than other 1996 cars)
-
19% fail on
Brakes
-
17% fail on
Brake performance
(91% worse than other 1996 cars)
- 9.4% fail on Rear wheels (170% worse than other 1996 cars)
- 6.3% fail on Front wheels
- 6.3% fail on Parking brake performance
- 3.9% fail on Service brake performance
- 0.79% fail on Brake performance not tested
-
3.9% fail on
Hydraulic systems
-
2.4% fail on
Components
- 1.6% fail on Pipes
- 0.79% fail on Hoses
- 0.79% fail on Operation
- 0.79% fail on Leaks
-
2.4% fail on
Components
-
0.79% fail on
Parking brake
- 0.79% fail on Condition
-
0.79% fail on
Service brake control components
-
0.79% fail on
Pedal
- 0.79% fail on Anti-slip
-
0.79% fail on
Pedal
-
0.79% fail on
Mechanical components
- 0.79% fail on Clevis joint
-
17% fail on
Brake performance
(91% worse than other 1996 cars)
-
17% fail on
Suspension
-
7.1% fail on
Prescribed areas
- 5.5% fail on Subframe mounting (3 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 1.6% fail on Component mounting
-
3.9% fail on
Fluid suspension
(81 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 2.4% fail on Operation (160 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 1.6% fail on Suspension unit (78 times worse than other 1996 cars)
-
3.9% fail on
Suspension arms
- 3.1% fail on Condition (17 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 0.79% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
-
2.4% fail on
Sub-frames
(6 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 1.6% fail on Condition (7 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 0.79% fail on Attachment
-
2.4% fail on
Drive shafts
-
2.4% fail on
Front drive shafts
- 2.4% fail on Constant velocity joints
-
2.4% fail on
Front drive shafts
- 0.79% fail on General condition
- 0.79% fail on Front suspension joints
-
7.1% fail on
Prescribed areas
-
17% fail on
Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
- 13% fail on Emissions (120% worse than other 1996 cars)
- 4.7% fail on Exhaust system
- 1.6% fail on Emissions not tested
-
0.79% fail on
Fuel system
- 0.79% fail on Tank
-
13% fail on
Body, Structure and General Items
(130% worse than other 1996 cars)
- 5.5% fail on Body condition
-
4.7% fail on
Vehicle structure
- 4.7% fail on Chassis
-
2.4% fail on
Seats
(4 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 1.6% fail on Passengers (6 times worse than other 1996 cars)
- 0.79% fail on Drivers
-
1.6% fail on
Doors
- 1.6% fail on Drivers (6 times worse than other 1996 cars)
-
9.4% fail on
Tyres
- 7.9% fail on Condition (190% worse than other 1996 cars)
- 2.4% fail on Tread depth
-
5.5% fail on
Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
-
5.5% fail on
Seat belts
- 3.9% fail on Prescribed areas
- 0.79% fail on Requirements
- 0.79% fail on Condition
-
5.5% fail on
Seat belts
-
5.5% fail on
Driver's view of the road
- 4.7% fail on Washers
- 0.79% fail on Wipers
-
2.4% fail on
Steering
-
2.4% fail on
Steering system
- 1.6% fail on Track rod end
- 0.79% fail on Steering rack
-
2.4% fail on
Steering system
-
0.79% fail on
Registration plates and VIN
- 0.79% fail on Registration plate