SAAB 9-5 MOT Results

Registered in 2010

71.3% pass rate

from 800 tests in 2020

(17% 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 SAAB 9-5 is unusually good or bad.

12% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
- 4.0% fail on Position lamps (95% worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 3.9% fail on Position lamp (94% worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.13% fail on All position lamps
- 3.3% fail on Headlamps
  - 2.9% fail on Headlamp
  - 0.38% fail on Headlamp cleaning device (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.9% fail on Stop lamp
- 1.8% fail on Headlamp aim
  - 1.5% fail on Headlamp aim
  - 0.25% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
- 1.0% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
- 0.38% fail on Direction indicators (80% better than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.38% fail on Flashing type (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    - 0.25% fail on Individual direction indicators
    - 0.13% fail on Side repeaters
- 0.38% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
  - 0.38% fail on Rear fog lamp
    - 0.38% fail on Rear fog lamp
- 0.38% fail on Mandatory tell-tales (20 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.25% fail on Main beam tell-tale (63 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.13% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
- 0.38% fail on Electrical equipment
  - 0.38% fail on Horn
- 0.25% fail on Reversing lamps
  - 0.25% fail on Reversing lamps
- 0.13% fail on Rear reflectors
7.9% fail on Suspension (27% better than other 2010 cars)
- 3.5% fail on Springs
  - 3.5% fail on Coil springs
    - 3.5% fail on Coil spring
- 1.9% fail on Anti-roll bars
  - 1.3% fail on Linkage ball joints
  - 0.25% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover
  - 0.13% fail on Pins and bushes
  - 0.13% fail on Ball joint dust cover
  - 0.13% fail on Linkage attachment bracket and mounting
- 1.1% fail on Shock absorbers
- 0.63% fail on Suspension arms (80% better than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.63% fail on Pins and bushes
- 0.50% fail on Sub-frames (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.50% fail on Pins and bushes (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.50% fail on Other suspension component
  - 0.38% fail on Pins and bushes (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.13% fail on Ball joint
- 0.25% fail on Wheel bearings
- 0.25% fail on Macpherson strut
  - 0.13% fail on Macpherson strut
  - 0.13% fail on Pins and bushes
- 0.13% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
6.3% fail on Brakes
- 3.1% fail on Mechanical brake components
  - 2.6% fail on Brake linings and pads
    - 2.6% fail on Brake pads
  - 0.63% fail on Brake discs and drums
    - 0.50% fail on Brake discs
    - 0.13% fail on Brake drums
  - 0.25% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
    - 0.13% fail on Rod
    - 0.13% fail on Lever
- 2.4% fail on Brake performance
  - 0.88% fail on Service brake performance
    - 0.88% fail on Rbt
      - 0.63% fail on Service brake performance
      - 0.25% fail on Service brake imbalance
  - 0.88% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
    - 0.88% fail on Rbt (sp)
  - 0.38% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
    - 0.38% fail on Rbt (sp)
      - 0.25% fail on Service brake performance
      - 0.13% fail on Service brake imbalance
  - 0.38% fail on Parking brake performance
    - 0.38% fail on Rbt
      - 0.38% fail on Parking brake performance
  - 0.25% fail on Brake performance not tested
- 0.38% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
  - 0.38% fail on Anti-lock braking system
  - 0.13% fail on Electronic stability control
- 0.25% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
  - 0.25% fail on Hand lever
- 0.25% fail on Parking brake control
  - 0.25% fail on Lever
- 0.25% fail on Flexible brake hoses
- 0.13% fail on Hydraulic systems
  - 0.13% fail on Brake fluid
- 0.13% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
  - 0.13% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
5.6% fail on Tyres
- 4.0% fail on Tread depth
- 2.1% fail on Condition
4.5% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (58% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 4.0% fail on Exhaust emissions
  - 2.3% fail on Spark ignition
    - 2.1% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (170% worse than other 2010 cars)
    - 0.13% fail on Catalyst emissions
  - 1.8% fail on Compression ignition
    - 1.1% fail on On or after 01/07/2008
    - 0.75% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
    - 0.13% fail on Emissions not tested
- 0.50% fail on Fluid leaks
  - 0.25% fail on Engine oil leaks
  - 0.13% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks
  - 0.13% fail on Other leaks
3.0% fail on Visibility (39% better than other 2010 cars)
- 2.5% fail on Wipers
- 0.50% fail on Washers (78% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.25% fail on View to rear
  - 0.25% fail on Mirrors
1.5% fail on Body, chassis, structure (53% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.38% fail on Exhaust system
- 0.38% fail on Fuel system
  - 0.38% fail on System (14 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.25% fail on Bumpers
- 0.25% fail on Transmission (79% better than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.25% fail on Drive shafts
    - 0.13% fail on Drive shaft
    - 0.13% fail on Joints
- 0.13% fail on Doors
  - 0.13% fail on Front passenger's door
    - 0.13% fail on Door condition
- 0.13% fail on Undertray
0.63% fail on Identification of the vehicle
- 0.63% fail on Registration plates
0.63% fail on Steering (66% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.38% fail on Power steering (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.25% fail on Other components (13 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  - 0.13% fail on Pipes and hoses
- 0.25% fail on Steering gear
  - 0.25% fail on Steering rack
0.38% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
- 0.38% fail on Seat belts
  - 0.38% fail on Condition
0.13% fail on Road Wheels
- 0.13% fail on Attachment

Read the Honest John Review

Saab 9-5 (2010 - 2011)
Distinctive design. Comfortable cabin. Impressive rear passenger room and large boot. Fuel efficient 2.0 TiD engine. Well equipped as standard.