Suzuki Alto MOT Results
Registered in 200970.6% pass rate
from 5,634 tests in 2017
(9.8% better than other 2009 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 2009 cars and highlighted areas where the Suzuki Alto is unusually good or bad.
-
14% fail on
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
- 6.9% fail on Registration plate lamp (70% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 3.5% fail on Stop lamp
-
2.9% fail on
Position lamps
(21% better than other 2009 cars)
- 2.8% fail on Front lamps
- 0.18% fail on Rear lamps (78% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on All position lamps
- 2.1% fail on Headlamp aim (48% better than other 2009 cars)
- 2.1% fail on Horn (8 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.80% fail on
Headlamps
(70% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.80% fail on Headlamp (68% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.37% fail on
Rear fog lamp
- 0.37% fail on Fog lamp
- 0.018% fail on Tell tale
-
0.16% fail on
Direction indicators
(90% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.16% fail on
Flashing type
(90% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.12% fail on Individual lamps (86% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on All direction indicators
- 0.018% fail on Side repeaters
-
0.16% fail on
Flashing type
(90% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.14% fail on Battery
- 0.035% fail on Electrical wiring
-
0.035% fail on
Hazard warning
- 0.035% fail on Switch
-
8.5% fail on
Driver's view of the road
(62% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 6.0% fail on Wipers (110% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 2.7% fail on Washers (26% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.27% fail on Windscreen
- 0.089% fail on Mirrors
- 0.053% fail on Bonnet
-
7.3% fail on
Brakes
-
3.8% fail on
Hydraulic systems
(3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
3.6% fail on
Components
(4 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 3.4% fail on Pipes (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.27% fail on Hoses (110% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on Cylinders
- 0.18% fail on Operation (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.035% fail on Leaks
-
3.6% fail on
Components
(4 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
2.1% fail on
Brake performance
(28% better than other 2009 cars)
- 1.3% fail on Front wheels (56% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.59% fail on Rear wheels (60% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.25% fail on Brake imbalance
- 0.20% fail on Parking brake performance (80% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.035% fail on Service brake performance
- 0.035% fail on Brake operation
- 0.018% fail on Brake performance not tested
-
1.7% fail on
Hub components
(41% better than other 2009 cars)
- 1.2% fail on Brake pads (47% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.44% fail on Brake discs
- 0.035% fail on Brake calipers
- 0.018% fail on Brake drums
- 0.20% fail on ABS
- 0.12% fail on Electronic stability system
- 0.12% fail on Restricted movement
-
0.071% fail on
Parking brake
(84% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.071% fail on Condition (83% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.071% fail on
Service brake control components
-
0.071% fail on
Pedal
- 0.053% fail on Condition
- 0.018% fail on Anti-slip
-
0.071% fail on
Pedal
-
0.018% fail on
Air and vacuum systems
-
0.018% fail on
Components
- 0.018% fail on Pipes
-
0.018% fail on
Components
-
3.8% fail on
Hydraulic systems
(3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
6.4% fail on
Tyres
- 3.4% fail on Tread depth
- 2.8% fail on Condition (20% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.23% fail on Valve stem (140% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.16% fail on Size/type
-
4.4% fail on
Suspension
(59% better than other 2009 cars)
-
1.8% fail on
Wheel bearings
(2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 1.5% fail on Front (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.32% fail on Rear
-
0.71% fail on
Suspension arms
(62% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.62% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (66% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.089% fail on Condition (7 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.48% fail on
Drive shafts
(56% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.48% fail on
Front drive shafts
(56% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.48% fail on Constant velocity joints (55% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.48% fail on
Front drive shafts
(56% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.43% fail on
Anti-roll bars
(83% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.34% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (83% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.053% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (86% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on Condition
- 0.018% fail on Linkage condition
-
0.34% fail on
Shock absorbers
(71% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.34% fail on Condition (71% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.28% fail on
Prescribed areas
(15 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.23% fail on Component mounting (23 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.035% fail on Spring mounting (8 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on Subframe mounting
-
0.20% fail on
Trailing arms
- 0.12% fail on Attachment (13 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.071% fail on Condition (31 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.18% fail on
Coil springs
(96% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.16% fail on Condition (96% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on Location
-
0.14% fail on
Axles
(8 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.14% fail on Axle beam (23 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.089% fail on
Sub-frames
- 0.089% fail on Condition (4 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.071% fail on Front suspension retaining and locking devices (10 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.053% fail on
Radius arms
- 0.018% fail on Condition
- 0.018% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
- 0.018% fail on Attachment
-
0.018% fail on
Tie bars/rods
- 0.018% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
-
0.018% fail on
Torque/reaction arms
- 0.018% fail on Condition
- 0.018% fail on Attachment
- 0.018% fail on Front suspension joints
-
1.8% fail on
Wheel bearings
(2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.98% fail on
Body, Structure and General Items
(120% worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.71% fail on
Doors
(2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.30% fail on Drivers (5 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.28% fail on Passengers front (3 times worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.12% fail on Passengers other
- 0.20% fail on Body condition
- 0.035% fail on Engine mountings
-
0.035% fail on
Seats
- 0.035% fail on Drivers
- 0.018% fail on Body security
-
0.71% fail on
Doors
(2 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.82% fail on
Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
-
0.73% fail on
Supplementary restraint systems
(110% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.69% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp (120% worse than other 2009 cars)
- 0.035% fail on Drivers airbag
-
0.11% fail on
Seat belts
(62% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.071% fail on Condition (70% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on Attachment
- 0.018% fail on Prescribed areas
-
0.73% fail on
Supplementary restraint systems
(110% worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.82% fail on
Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
(59% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.60% fail on Exhaust system (53% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.37% fail on Emissions
- 0.11% fail on Emissions not tested
-
0.035% fail on
Fuel system
(82% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.018% fail on Pipe
- 0.018% fail on Cap
-
0.46% fail on
Steering
(61% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.23% fail on
Steering system
(78% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Track rod end (77% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.035% fail on Steering rack
- 0.018% fail on Ball joint
- 0.018% fail on Steering arm
- 0.20% fail on Locking devices (15 times worse than other 2009 cars)
-
0.035% fail on
Power steering
- 0.018% fail on Electronic power steering
- 0.018% fail on Operation
- 0.018% fail on Steering operation
-
0.23% fail on
Steering system
(78% better than other 2009 cars)
-
0.35% fail on
Registration plates and VIN
- 0.35% fail on Registration plate
-
0.11% fail on
Road Wheels
(69% better than other 2009 cars)
- 0.071% fail on Condition
- 0.035% fail on Attachment (84% better than other 2009 cars)
Read the Honest John Review
-
Suzuki Alto (2009 - 2015)
Cute little small hatch clone offering low emissions, low tax, good fuel economy and a proper 4-speed automatic option. Decent to drive.