Volvo 240 MOT Results

Registered in 1992
61.4% pass rate
from 259 tests in 2020
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 1992 cars and highlighted areas where the Volvo 240 is unusually good or bad.

  • 20% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 5.8% fail on Stop lamp (100% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 5.4% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 3.9% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.9% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 2.7% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 2.7% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 2.7% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 2.7% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.5% fail on Horn
      • 1.2% fail on Battery(ies)
    • 2.3% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.3% fail on Flashing type
        • 1.9% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.39% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.39% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 1.9% fail on Headlamps
      • 1.9% fail on Headlamp
    • 1.9% fail on Position lamps
      • 1.5% fail on Position lamp
      • 0.39% fail on All position lamps
    • 1.2% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 0.77% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
      • 0.39% fail on Main beam tell-tale
  • 12% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 7.3% fail on Exhaust system (120% worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 2.7% fail on Chassis
      • 2.7% fail on Chassis condition
    • 1.9% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 1.9% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
      • 0.39% fail on Sub-frame
        • 0.39% fail on Sub-frame condition
    • 1.9% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.77% fail on Pipe
      • 0.39% fail on Tank
      • 0.39% fail on Hose
      • 0.39% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 0.77% fail on Engine mounting (12 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Engine mounting condition
      • 0.39% fail on Bracket
    • 0.39% fail on Doors
      • 0.39% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.39% fail on Door condition
  • 12% fail on Brakes
    • 9.3% fail on Brake performance
      • 5.0% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 5.0% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 3.9% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 3.9% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 2.3% fail on Service brake performance
          • 1.9% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 2.3% fail on Service brake performance
        • 2.3% fail on Rbt
          • 1.2% fail on Service brake performance
          • 1.2% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 0.77% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.77% fail on Rbt
          • 0.39% fail on Parking brake performance
          • 0.39% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.39% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.5% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 1.5% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 1.5% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.39% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.39% fail on Brake discs
    • 1.2% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.77% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.77% fail on Pedal
    • 0.77% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.77% fail on Master cylinder (16 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Brake fluid
    • 0.39% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.39% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 0.39% fail on Prescribed areas
        • 0.39% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting
  • 12% fail on Suspension
    • 6.9% fail on Suspension arms (170% worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 2.3% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 2.3% fail on Ball joint
      • 1.2% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting (14 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.39% fail on Suspension arm
    • 2.3% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 2.3% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 1.5% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.77% fail on Pins and bushes (7 times worse than other 1992 cars)
      • 0.39% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.77% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 0.77% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.39% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.39% fail on Axles
      • 0.39% fail on Swivel pins and bushes
    • 0.39% fail on Springs
      • 0.39% fail on Coil springs
        • 0.39% fail on Mounting
    • 0.39% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.39% fail on Pins and bushes
  • 7.7% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 7.3% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 6.6% fail on Spark ignition
        • 4.6% fail on Catalyst emissions
        • 1.2% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.77% fail on Malfunction indicator lamp
        • 0.39% fail on Non catalyst emissions
      • 0.77% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.39% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
        • 0.39% fail on On or after 01/07/2008
        • 0.39% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.39% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.39% fail on Engine oil leaks
  • 5.4% fail on Visibility
    • 3.5% fail on Wipers
    • 3.1% fail on Washers
  • 4.6% fail on Steering
    • 2.3% fail on Steering gear
      • 2.3% fail on Steering rack
    • 1.5% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 1.2% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.39% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.77% fail on Steering play
      • 0.77% fail on Steering rack (9 times worse than other 1992 cars)
    • 0.39% fail on Power steering
      • 0.39% fail on Other components
    • 0.39% fail on Steering column
  • 3.9% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 3.9% fail on Seat belts
      • 2.3% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 1.5% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 1992 cars)
  • 2.7% fail on Tyres
    • 2.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.39% fail on Condition
  • 0.77% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.77% fail on Attachment
  • 0.39% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.39% fail on Registration plates

Search Good Garages