Suzuki Swift MOT Results

Registered in 1999
50.2% pass rate
from 267 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 1999 cars and highlighted areas where the Suzuki Swift is unusually good or bad.

  • 22% fail on Suspension
    • 15% fail on Prescribed areas (150% worse than other 1999 cars)
      • 14% fail on Component mounting (190% worse than other 1999 cars)
      • 1.1% fail on Subframe mounting
      • 0.75% fail on Spring mounting
    • 4.9% fail on Drive shafts
      • 4.9% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 4.5% fail on Constant velocity joints
        • 0.37% fail on Couplings
    • 3.7% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.7% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.9% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 1.5% fail on Rear
      • 0.37% fail on Front
    • 1.1% fail on Coil springs
      • 0.75% fail on Condition
      • 0.37% fail on Location
    • 0.37% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.37% fail on Condition
    • 0.37% fail on Front suspension joints
  • 20% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 7.9% fail on Position lamps
      • 6.4% fail on Front lamps
      • 2.2% fail on Rear lamps
    • 4.5% fail on Stop lamp
    • 4.1% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.4% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 2.2% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 2.2% fail on Fog lamp
    • 2.2% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.2% fail on Flashing type
        • 1.9% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.37% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.37% fail on Side repeaters
    • 1.5% fail on Headlamps
      • 1.5% fail on Headlamp
    • 1.1% fail on Battery
    • 0.37% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.37% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.37% fail on Switch
  • 17% fail on Brakes
    • 10% fail on Brake performance
      • 5.2% fail on Front wheels
      • 4.9% fail on Rear wheels
      • 2.2% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.5% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.37% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.37% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 7.1% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 6.4% fail on Components
        • 5.6% fail on Pipes
        • 0.37% fail on Hoses
        • 0.37% fail on Reservoirs
      • 1.5% fail on Leaks
      • 0.75% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
    • 1.5% fail on Hub components
      • 1.1% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.37% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.37% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.37% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.37% fail on Actuating linkage mounting
  • 15% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 8.6% fail on Emissions
    • 6.7% fail on Exhaust system
    • 2.2% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 1.1% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.75% fail on System
      • 0.37% fail on Cap
  • 11% fail on Tyres
    • 8.6% fail on Tread depth (77% worse than other 1999 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Condition
    • 0.75% fail on Valve stem (6 times worse than other 1999 cars)
  • 7.9% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 7.9% fail on Seat belts (110% worse than other 1999 cars)
      • 7.5% fail on Prescribed areas (140% worse than other 1999 cars)
      • 0.37% fail on Condition
  • 7.5% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 4.5% fail on Body condition (120% worse than other 1999 cars)
    • 2.2% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 2.2% fail on Chassis
    • 1.1% fail on Doors
      • 1.1% fail on Passengers other
  • 6.0% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 4.5% fail on Wipers
    • 1.5% fail on Washers
    • 0.37% fail on Bonnet
    • 0.37% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.37% fail on Mirrors
  • 0.75% fail on Steering (83% better than other 1999 cars)
    • 0.75% fail on Steering system (81% better than other 1999 cars)
      • 0.37% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.37% fail on Track rod end
  • 0.75% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 0.75% fail on Registration plate

Search Good Garages