MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Suzuki » Celerio » 2017

Suzuki Celerio MOT Results

Registered in 2017
87.8% pass rate
from 6,439 tests in 2021
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 2017 cars and highlighted areas where the Suzuki Celerio is unusually good or bad.

  • 7.7% fail on Visibility (110% worse than other 2017 cars)
    • 7.0% fail on Wipers (160% worse than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.89% fail on Washers
    • 0.062% fail on View to rear
      • 0.062% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.016% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.016% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.016% fail on Windscreen
  • 2.2% fail on Tyres (36% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 1.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.82% fail on Condition (58% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.062% fail on Size/type
  • 1.6% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (40% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.95% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 0.95% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 0.23% fail on Stop lamp
    • 0.14% fail on Headlamps (72% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.14% fail on Headlamp (67% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.11% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.11% fail on Horn (2 times worse than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.093% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.078% fail on Direction indicators (68% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.078% fail on Flashing type (68% better than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.047% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.031% fail on Side repeaters (83% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Reversing lamps
      • 0.047% fail on Reversing lamps
    • 0.031% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 0.031% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.031% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.016% fail on Position lamps
      • 0.016% fail on Position lamp
    • 0.016% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.016% fail on Switch
  • 1.1% fail on Brakes (46% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.56% fail on Brake performance
      • 0.28% fail on Service brake performance
        • 0.28% fail on Rbt
          • 0.23% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.062% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.28% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (120% worse than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.28% fail on Rbt (sp) (130% worse than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.12% fail on Parking brake performance (170% worse than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.11% fail on Rbt
          • 0.078% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.031% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
        • 0.016% fail on Plate brake tester
          • 0.016% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.047% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 0.047% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 0.031% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 0.016% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.016% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.39% fail on Mechanical brake components (74% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.37% fail on Brake linings and pads (70% better than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.37% fail on Brake pads (70% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.031% fail on Brake discs and drums (91% better than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.031% fail on Brake discs (91% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.016% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.016% fail on Lever
    • 0.20% fail on Parking brake control (160% worse than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.20% fail on Lever (2 times worse than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.093% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.093% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.031% fail on ABS / EBS / ESC
      • 0.031% fail on Anti-lock braking system
    • 0.016% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.016% fail on Flexible brake hoses
  • 0.39% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 0.31% fail on Seat belts (140% worse than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.30% fail on Condition (140% worse than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.016% fail on Requirements
    • 0.078% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp
  • 0.23% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 0.11% fail on Bumpers (4 times worse than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Chassis (42 times worse than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.047% fail on Chassis condition (55 times worse than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Exhaust system
    • 0.016% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.016% fail on Pipe
    • 0.016% fail on Transmission
      • 0.016% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.016% fail on Joints
    • 0.016% fail on Doors
      • 0.016% fail on Front passenger's door
        • 0.016% fail on Door condition
  • 0.12% fail on Suspension (86% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Springs (86% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.047% fail on Coil springs (86% better than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.047% fail on Coil spring (86% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.047% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.016% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.016% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.016% fail on Macpherson strut
    • 0.016% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.016% fail on Ball joint dust cover
  • 0.062% fail on Identification of the vehicle (70% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.062% fail on Registration plates (70% better than other 2017 cars)
  • 0.062% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.031% fail on Condition
    • 0.031% fail on Attachment
  • 0.047% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (92% better than other 2017 cars)
    • 0.031% fail on Exhaust emissions (94% better than other 2017 cars)
      • 0.031% fail on Compression ignition (86% better than other 2017 cars)
        • 0.016% fail on On or after 01/01/2014
        • 0.016% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.016% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.016% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 0.016% fail on Steering
    • 0.016% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 0.016% fail on Track rod end
Read the Honest John Review

Search Good Garages