Suzuki Alto MOT Results

Registered in 2010
68.7% pass rate
from 5,173 tests in 2020
(8.4% better than other 2010 cars)
Pass rate by mileage
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 Suzuki Alto is unusually good or bad.

  • 14% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 5.1% fail on Stop lamp (69% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 3.7% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (75% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.4% fail on Electrical equipment (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 2.3% fail on Horn (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.097% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.019% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 2.0% fail on Headlamp aim (32% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.9% fail on Headlamp aim (32% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.15% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 1.7% fail on Position lamps
      • 1.7% fail on Position lamp
      • 0.039% fail on All position lamps
    • 1.5% fail on Headlamps (49% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.4% fail on Headlamp (48% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.019% fail on Matched pair
      • 0.019% fail on Headlamp levelling device
      • 0.019% fail on Headlamp cleaning device
    • 0.41% fail on Direction indicators (78% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.41% fail on Flashing type (78% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.27% fail on Individual direction indicators (76% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.097% fail on Side repeaters (85% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.039% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.31% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 0.31% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.31% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.19% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.17% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.019% fail on Reversing lamp switch
  • 8.9% fail on Brakes (25% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.3% fail on Rigid brake pipes (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.6% fail on Brake performance
      • 2.2% fail on Service brake performance (29% worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 2.1% fail on Rbt (31% worse than other 2010 cars)
          • 1.8% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.48% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.039% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.039% fail on Service brake efficiency (Trikes, quads and pre-68 vehicles)
      • 0.41% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.41% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.35% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 0.077% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.25% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (81% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.25% fail on Rbt (sp) (80% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Parking brake performance (78% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.14% fail on Rbt (77% better than other 2010 cars)
          • 0.14% fail on Parking brake performance (74% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 2.0% fail on Mechanical brake components (39% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Brake linings and pads (48% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 1.3% fail on Brake pads (48% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.73% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.73% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.077% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.058% fail on Cable
        • 0.019% fail on Lever
    • 0.56% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.46% fail on Anti-lock braking system
      • 0.29% fail on Electronic stability control
    • 0.29% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.29% fail on Lever
    • 0.19% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.12% fail on Pedal
      • 0.077% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.15% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.058% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.058% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.058% fail on Other components and prescribed areas (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Prescribed areas (30 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.019% fail on Park brake mechanism/associated mountings
        • 0.019% fail on Actuating linkage mounting
        • 0.019% fail on Other braking system component
  • 7.1% fail on Visibility (43% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 4.9% fail on Wipers (110% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Washers
    • 0.097% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.077% fail on View to rear
      • 0.077% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.039% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.039% fail on Windscreen
  • 5.9% fail on Tyres
    • 3.9% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.1% fail on Condition (26% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Size/type
  • 5.6% fail on Suspension (48% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Wheel bearings (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 2.0% fail on Suspension arms (37% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 1.3% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.31% fail on Suspension arm (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.21% fail on Ball joint (88% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (9 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.62% fail on Shock absorbers (54% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.56% fail on Anti-roll bars (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.19% fail on Ball joint dust cover (58% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.17% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (83% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Linkage ball joints (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.039% fail on Ball joint (85% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.019% fail on Anti-roll bar
    • 0.31% fail on Axles (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.31% fail on Axle (59 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (12 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.15% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.12% fail on Sub-frame (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.019% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.019% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.12% fail on Springs (97% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.077% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas (21 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Coil springs (98% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.039% fail on Mounting
        • 0.019% fail on Coil spring
    • 0.12% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.058% fail on Other suspension component (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (10 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.019% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 0.019% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.019% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.019% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.019% fail on Suspension rod
  • 2.3% fail on Body, chassis, structure (27% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.79% fail on Transmission (33% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.73% fail on Drive shafts (35% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.72% fail on Joints (36% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.019% fail on Flexible couplings
      • 0.058% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.058% fail on Joints
    • 0.52% fail on Exhaust system (62% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.50% fail on Doors (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.31% fail on Driver's door (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.31% fail on Door condition (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.12% fail on Door condition
      • 0.077% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.077% fail on Door condition
    • 0.23% fail on Bumpers (150% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.17% fail on Body
      • 0.15% fail on Other body component
      • 0.019% fail on Body condition
    • 0.077% fail on Engine mounting
      • 0.039% fail on Engine mounting condition
      • 0.039% fail on Bracket
    • 0.058% fail on Seats
      • 0.039% fail on Driver's seat
      • 0.019% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.039% fail on Chassis
      • 0.039% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.039% fail on Fuel system (81% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.019% fail on Tank
      • 0.019% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.019% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 0.019% fail on Sub-frame
        • 0.019% fail on Sub-frame condition
    • 0.019% fail on Undertray
  • 1.5% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (100% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (190% worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.33% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.27% fail on Condition
      • 0.058% fail on Attachment (6 times worse than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.077% fail on Airbags (3 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.077% fail on Drivers airbag (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
  • 0.93% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (67% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.85% fail on Exhaust emissions (68% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.79% fail on Spark ignition (47% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.37% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp (53% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.31% fail on Catalyst emissions (52% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.15% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.058% fail on Compression ignition (95% better than other 2010 cars)
        • 0.039% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.019% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
    • 0.077% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.077% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 0.37% fail on Steering (80% better than other 2010 cars)
    • 0.27% fail on Steering linkage components (82% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Locking devices (7 times worse than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.077% fail on Track rod end (95% better than other 2010 cars)
      • 0.058% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.039% fail on Electronic power steering
    • 0.019% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.019% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.019% fail on Power steering
      • 0.019% fail on Operation
    • 0.019% fail on Steering wheel
  • 0.31% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.31% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.29% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.19% fail on Condition
    • 0.097% fail on Attachment (66% better than other 2010 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.

    Search Good Garages