MOT Results

Honest John Good Garage Guide MOT Results » Toyota » Urban Cruiser » 2010

Toyota Urban Cruiser MOT Results

Registered in 2010
80.7% 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
    • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    • 0.18% 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 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
  • 0.27% 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
  • 0.18% 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

Search Good Garages