Suzuki Baleno MOT Results

Registered in 2000
40.9% pass rate
from 127 tests in 2017
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 2000 cars and highlighted areas where the Suzuki Baleno is unusually good or bad.

  • 26% fail on Suspension
    • 14% fail on Drive shafts (2 times worse than other 2000 cars)
      • 13% fail on Front drive shafts (200% worse than other 2000 cars)
        • 13% fail on Constant velocity joints (200% worse than other 2000 cars)
      • 1.6% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension (16 times worse than other 2000 cars)
        • 1.6% fail on Drive shafts (18 times worse than other 2000 cars)
    • 6.3% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 4.7% fail on Component mounting
      • 1.6% fail on Subframe mounting
    • 4.7% fail on Sub-frames (8 times worse than other 2000 cars)
      • 4.7% fail on Condition (14 times worse than other 2000 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.1% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 3.1% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 0.79% fail on Coil springs
      • 0.79% fail on Condition
    • 0.79% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.79% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.79% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.79% fail on Condition
    • 0.79% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.79% fail on Front
      • 0.79% fail on Rear
    • 0.79% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 0.79% fail on Condition
  • 24% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 7.9% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 7.1% fail on Position lamps
      • 6.3% fail on Front lamps
      • 0.79% fail on Rear lamps
    • 6.3% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 6.3% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.1% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.1% fail on Headlamp
    • 0.79% fail on Horn
  • 18% fail on Brakes
    • 11% fail on Brake performance
      • 7.9% fail on Front wheels (140% worse than other 2000 cars)
      • 7.9% fail on Rear wheels
      • 0.79% fail on Brake imbalance
    • 7.1% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 7.1% fail on Components
        • 6.3% fail on Pipes
        • 0.79% fail on Cylinders
      • 0.79% fail on Leaks
    • 6.3% fail on Hub components
      • 4.7% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.79% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.79% fail on Brake calipers
  • 13% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 7.9% fail on Wipers
    • 4.7% fail on Washers
    • 0.79% fail on Bonnet
    • 0.79% fail on Windscreen
  • 10% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 6.3% fail on Emissions
    • 2.4% fail on Exhaust system
    • 2.4% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.79% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.79% fail on Pipe
  • 5.5% fail on Tyres
    • 3.1% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.6% fail on Condition
    • 0.79% fail on Size/type
    • 0.79% fail on Valve stem
  • 5.5% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 2.4% fail on Body condition
    • 2.4% fail on Doors
      • 1.6% fail on Passengers other
      • 0.79% fail on Drivers
    • 0.79% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 0.79% fail on Chassis
  • 5.5% fail on Registration plates and VIN (3 times worse than other 2000 cars)
    • 5.5% fail on Registration plate (3 times worse than other 2000 cars)
  • 3.9% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 3.9% fail on Seat belts
      • 3.9% fail on Prescribed areas
  • 1.6% fail on Road Wheels
    • 1.6% fail on Attachment
  • 0.79% fail on Steering
    • 0.79% fail on Locking devices
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages