Rover 200 MOT Results
Registered in 199564.3% pass rate
from 417 tests in 2021
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 1995 cars and highlighted areas where the Rover 200 is unusually good or bad.
-
13% fail on
Body, chassis, structure
-
5.8% fail on
Transmission
(140% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
4.8% fail on
Drive shafts
(150% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 4.8% fail on Joints (150% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
0.72% fail on
Prop shafts
- 0.72% fail on Joints
- 0.24% fail on Belts
-
4.8% fail on
Drive shafts
(150% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 3.4% fail on Exhaust system
-
1.7% fail on
Integral vehicle structure
- 1.7% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
-
0.96% fail on
Chassis
- 0.96% fail on Chassis condition
-
0.96% fail on
Seats
- 0.48% fail on Driver's seat
- 0.48% fail on Passenger's seat
-
0.48% fail on
Body
- 0.24% fail on Panel
- 0.24% fail on Other body component
-
0.24% fail on
Fuel system
- 0.24% fail on Tank
-
0.24% fail on
Doors
-
0.24% fail on
Front passenger's door
- 0.24% fail on Door condition
-
0.24% fail on
Front passenger's door
-
0.24% fail on
Boot lid
- 0.24% fail on Boot lid condition
-
5.8% fail on
Transmission
(140% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
11% fail on
Suspension
- 6.7% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
-
4.1% fail on
Suspension arms
- 2.2% fail on Pins and bushes
- 1.2% fail on Ball joint
- 1.2% fail on Ball joint dust cover
- 0.24% fail on Suspension arm
-
2.4% fail on
Anti-roll bars
- 1.4% fail on Linkage pins and bushes (2 times worse than other 1995 cars)
- 0.72% fail on Pins and bushes
- 0.24% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
-
0.24% fail on
Sub-frames
- 0.24% fail on Sub-frame
-
0.24% fail on
Other suspension component
- 0.24% fail on Ball joint
-
10% fail on
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
-
3.4% fail on
Electrical equipment
(140% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 1.9% fail on Battery(ies) (190% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 1.4% fail on Horn
-
2.9% fail on
Direction indicators
-
2.9% fail on
Flashing type
- 2.2% fail on Side repeaters
- 1.2% fail on Individual direction indicators
-
2.9% fail on
Flashing type
-
2.2% fail on
Headlamp aim
- 1.7% fail on Headlamp aim
- 0.48% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
- 1.9% fail on Stop lamp
-
1.2% fail on
Headlamps
- 1.2% fail on Headlamp
-
0.96% fail on
Front and rear fog lamps
-
0.96% fail on
Rear fog lamp
- 0.96% fail on Rear fog lamp
-
0.96% fail on
Rear fog lamp
-
0.48% fail on
Position lamps
- 0.48% fail on Position lamp
- 0.48% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
-
3.4% fail on
Electrical equipment
(140% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
10% fail on
Noise, emissions and leaks
-
9.8% fail on
Exhaust emissions
-
9.6% fail on
Spark ignition
(54% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 7.0% fail on Catalyst emissions
- 2.6% fail on Emissions not tested (130% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 0.24% fail on Non catalyst emissions
- 0.24% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
-
0.24% fail on
Compression ignition
- 0.24% fail on On or after 01/07/2008
-
9.6% fail on
Spark ignition
(54% worse than other 1995 cars)
-
0.24% fail on
Fluid leaks
- 0.24% fail on Engine oil leaks
-
9.8% fail on
Exhaust emissions
-
9.8% fail on
Brakes
-
8.9% fail on
Brake performance
-
4.3% fail on
Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
-
4.3% fail on
Rbt (sp)
- 3.4% fail on Service brake performance (110% worse than other 1995 cars)
- 1.2% fail on Service brake imbalance
-
4.3% fail on
Rbt (sp)
-
4.1% fail on
Service brake performance
-
4.1% fail on
Rbt
- 3.4% fail on Service brake performance
- 1.2% fail on Service brake imbalance
-
4.1% fail on
Rbt
-
3.8% fail on
Parking brake efficiency (sp)
- 3.8% fail on Rbt (sp)
-
1.7% fail on
Parking brake performance
-
1.7% fail on
Rbt
- 1.7% fail on Parking brake performance
-
1.7% fail on
Rbt
- 0.24% fail on Brake performance not tested
-
4.3% fail on
Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
-
0.48% fail on
Mechanical brake components
-
0.48% fail on
Brake linings and pads
- 0.48% fail on Brake pads
-
0.48% fail on
Brake linings and pads
-
0.48% fail on
ABS / EBS / ESC
- 0.48% fail on Anti-lock braking system
-
0.24% fail on
Parking brake control
- 0.24% fail on Lever
-
0.24% fail on
Hydraulic systems
- 0.24% fail on Brake fluid
-
0.24% fail on
Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
- 0.24% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
-
8.9% fail on
Brake performance
-
6.2% fail on
Visibility
- 4.3% fail on Wipers
- 1.7% fail on Washers
-
0.48% fail on
View to rear
- 0.48% fail on Mirrors
- 0.24% fail on Bonnet
-
0.24% fail on
Condition of glass
- 0.24% fail on Windscreen
-
5.0% fail on
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
-
4.8% fail on
Seat belts
- 4.1% fail on Prescribed areas
- 0.96% fail on Condition
- 0.24% fail on Requirements
- 0.48% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
-
4.8% fail on
Seat belts
-
4.6% fail on
Tyres
- 2.2% fail on Condition
- 1.7% fail on Tread depth
- 0.72% fail on Size/type (4 times worse than other 1995 cars)
-
4.3% fail on
Steering
-
2.2% fail on
Steering gear
- 1.9% fail on Steering rack
- 0.24% fail on Operation
-
1.4% fail on
Steering linkage components
- 1.2% fail on Track rod end
- 0.24% fail on Drag link end
- 0.24% fail on Locking devices
-
0.96% fail on
Power steering
- 0.72% fail on Pipes and hoses (5 times worse than other 1995 cars)
- 0.24% fail on Operation
-
2.2% fail on
Steering gear
-
0.48% fail on
Road Wheels
- 0.48% fail on Attachment
-
0.24% fail on
Identification of the vehicle
- 0.24% fail on Registration plates
Read the Honest John Review
-
Rover 200 (1995 - 1999)
Smart styling. The Vi is quick and economical, the 1.6 CVT responsive. Feels compact in town yet comfortable on the motorway.