MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » SEAT » Leon » 2010

SEAT Leon MOT Results

Registered in 2010
71.1% pass rate
from 6,852 tests in 2017
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 SEAT Leon is unusually good or bad.

  • 11% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (15% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 5.6% fail on Registration plate lamp (55% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.3% fail on Headlamp aim (24% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.89% fail on Headlamps (61% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.83% fail on Headlamp (62% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.044% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
        • 0.015% fail on Headlamp levelling device
      • 0.015% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest
        • 0.015% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 0.63% fail on Position lamps (79% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.45% fail on Front lamps (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Rear lamps (67% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.44% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 0.41% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.044% fail on Switch
    • 0.34% fail on Stop lamp (86% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.28% fail on Horn
    • 0.26% fail on Direction indicators (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.26% fail on Flashing type (83% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.12% fail on Side repeaters (79% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.10% fail on Individual lamps (88% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.044% fail on Tell tales (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Rear reflectors (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.10% fail on Battery
    • 0.044% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.029% fail on Switch
      • 0.015% fail on Tell tale
    • 0.029% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.029% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 11% fail on Suspension (31% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.4% fail on Coil springs (33% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 4.4% fail on Condition (34% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Location
    • 3.4% fail on Anti-roll bars (120% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.1% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.29% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.015% fail on Condition
    • 3.3% fail on Shock absorbers (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.3% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.35% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.19% fail on Front
      • 0.16% fail on Rear
    • 0.35% fail on Drive shafts (53% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.34% fail on Front drive shafts (55% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.34% fail on Constant velocity joints (54% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.015% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.015% fail on Drive shafts
    • 0.13% fail on Suspension arms (90% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.088% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (93% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Attachment
      • 0.015% fail on Condition
    • 0.058% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.058% fail on Condition
    • 0.058% fail on Front suspension joints (83% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.029% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.029% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.015% fail on Fluid suspension
      • 0.015% fail on Suspension unit
    • 0.015% fail on Air suspension
      • 0.015% fail on Pipes
    • 0.015% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.015% fail on Subframe mounting
  • 7.6% fail on Tyres (13% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.2% fail on Tread depth (21% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Condition
    • 0.86% fail on Tyre pressure monitoring system (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.073% fail on Valve stem
    • 0.058% fail on Size/type
  • 5.6% fail on Brakes
    • 3.6% fail on Hub components (30% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 3.1% fail on Brake pads (29% worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.66% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.044% fail on Brake calipers
      • 0.029% fail on Brake linings
      • 0.015% fail on Brake drums
    • 2.2% fail on Brake performance
      • 1.3% fail on Rear wheels
      • 0.80% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.53% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.13% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.073% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.058% fail on Brake operation (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.044% fail on Service brake performance
    • 0.13% fail on Electronic stability system
    • 0.12% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.058% fail on Hydraulic systems (89% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.044% fail on Components (90% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.044% fail on Hoses
      • 0.015% fail on Leaks
    • 0.044% fail on ABS (78% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.029% fail on Parking brake (92% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Condition (91% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.015% fail on Mechanical components
      • 0.015% fail on Cable
  • 3.2% fail on Driver's view of the road (33% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.4% fail on Washers (23% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Wipers (50% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.36% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.13% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.029% fail on Bonnet
  • 2.1% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (48% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.7% fail on Exhaust system (82% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.25% fail on Emissions
    • 0.16% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.088% fail on Cap
      • 0.073% fail on System
    • 0.088% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 0.82% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.63% fail on Doors (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.50% fail on Passengers other (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Passengers front
      • 0.015% fail on Drivers
    • 0.12% fail on Load security (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Bootlid (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Tailgate (17 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.058% fail on Body condition
    • 0.015% fail on Body security
    • 0.015% fail on Seats
      • 0.015% fail on Drivers
  • 0.55% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 0.39% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.35% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
      • 0.044% fail on Drivers airbag
    • 0.18% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.18% fail on Condition
  • 0.51% fail on Road Wheels (70% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.44% fail on Attachment (130% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.073% fail on Condition
  • 0.50% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.50% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.20% fail on Steering (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Steering system (84% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.10% fail on Track rod end (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.029% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.015% fail on Free play
        • 0.015% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.058% fail on Power steering
      • 0.029% fail on Electronic power steering
      • 0.015% fail on Operation
      • 0.015% fail on Other components
Read the Honest John Review

  • SEAT Leon Cupra R (2010 - 2013)
    Strong performance, manages to put its power down very cleanly, understated looks, great handling, relatively economical, forgiving ride. Chain cam engine.
  • SEAT Leon (2005 - 2013)
    Stylish design. Excellent road manners. Roomy and well-equipped cabin. An easy car to live with and enjoy. Superb value. FR models are the best.

    Search Good Garages