Toyota Urban Cruiser MOT Results
Registered in 201080.7% pass rate
from 1,110 tests in 2017
(34% better than other 2010 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 2010 cars and highlighted areas where the Toyota Urban Cruiser is unusually good or bad.
-
7.4% fail on
Brakes
-
3.2% fail on
Hub components
- 2.8% fail on Brake pads
- 0.99% fail on Brake discs
-
2.9% fail on
Brake performance
- 1.5% fail on Rear wheels
- 0.90% fail on Front wheels
- 0.36% fail on Brake imbalance
- 0.27% fail on Parking brake performance
- 0.090% fail on Service brake performance
- 0.090% fail on Brake operation
-
1.3% fail on
Hydraulic systems
(130% worse than other 2010 cars)
-
1.2% fail on
Components
(180% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.2% fail on Pipes (2 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.090% fail on Operation
-
1.2% fail on
Components
(180% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.45% fail on Electronic stability system (5 times worse than other 2010 cars)
-
0.27% fail on
Parking brake
- 0.27% fail on Condition
- 0.18% fail on Restricted movement
-
3.2% fail on
Hub components
-
5.9% fail on
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
(55% better than other 2010 cars)
- 1.8% fail on Registration plate lamp (50% better than other 2010 cars)
-
1.7% fail on
Position lamps
- 1.6% fail on Front lamps
- 0.090% fail on Rear lamps
- 1.7% fail on Headlamp aim (50% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.63% fail on Stop lamp (74% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Battery
-
0.18% fail on
Headlamps
(92% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Headlamp (92% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Rear reflectors
-
0.18% fail on
Direction indicators
(88% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.18% fail on
Flashing type
(88% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Side repeaters
-
0.18% fail on
Flashing type
(88% better than other 2010 cars)
-
5.8% fail on
Driver's view of the road
- 4.5% fail on Wipers (71% worse than other 2010 cars)
- 1.4% fail on Washers
- 0.18% fail on Windscreen
-
3.7% fail on
Tyres
(45% better than other 2010 cars)
- 2.0% fail on Tread depth (44% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.99% fail on Condition (71% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.45% fail on Valve stem (4 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.27% fail on Size/type
-
1.3% fail on
Suspension
(84% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.45% fail on
Shock absorbers
- 0.45% fail on Condition
-
0.27% fail on
Drive shafts
-
0.27% fail on
Front drive shafts
- 0.27% fail on Constant velocity joints
-
0.27% fail on
Front drive shafts
-
0.18% fail on
Suspension arms
(86% better than other 2010 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (86% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.090% fail on
Coil springs
- 0.090% fail on Condition
-
0.090% fail on
Anti-roll bars
- 0.090% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
-
0.090% fail on
Wheel bearings
- 0.090% fail on Rear
- 0.090% fail on Front suspension joints
-
0.45% fail on
Shock absorbers
-
0.45% fail on
Registration plates and VIN
- 0.45% fail on Registration plate
-
0.36% fail on
Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
-
0.36% fail on
Seat belts
- 0.18% fail on Requirements (8 times worse than other 2010 cars)
- 0.18% fail on Condition
-
0.36% fail on
Seat belts
-
0.27% fail on
Steering
(74% better than other 2010 cars)
-
0.27% fail on
Steering system
- 0.18% fail on Steering rack
-
0.090% fail on
Free play
- 0.090% fail on Steering rack
-
0.27% fail on
Steering system
-
0.18% fail on
Road Wheels
- 0.18% fail on Attachment
-
0.090% fail on
Body, Structure and General Items
- 0.090% fail on Body condition
-
0.090% fail on
Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
- 0.090% fail on Emissions not tested