MOT failure rates released
The government agency which oversees the MOT system has backed down after 18 months and released data which shows how often different makes and models of cars and small vans fail MOTs.
This means that car and van buyers will now have access to the detailed MOT records of individual models, including reasons for failures. The figures show wide variation between different models, even when comparing vehicles of the same age.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), an arm of the Department for Transport, yesterday revealed 1,200 pages of detailed statistics on MOT failures following a freedom of information request made by the BBC in July 2008.
VOSA initially declined to supply the material, but last month the information commissioner ruled that disclosure is in the public interest and overturned VOSA's refusal.
The agency had maintained that publication could mislead the public and would breach commercial confidentiality. It argued:
"The release of information relating to specific make and model would be likely to be commercially damaging to vehicle manufacturers whose failure rates appear higher, and therefore less favourable, than other manufacturers...this information would be likely to be used by some manufacturers to gain a competitive advantage, for example by publicising that their failure rate is lower than another manufacturer's failure rate for a comparable vehicle model."
When I wrote about the commissioner's decision to reject VOSA's case, prior to the material being issued, there was some disagreement in the comments as to how useful it might be. Now you can judge for yourself.
The data has now been placed on the VOSA website, although only in the form of a pdf file of 1,200 pages, which is a format difficult to analyse.
The agency insisted, for reasons that are unclear, that it would be several more days before it could supply the material in a more useful format such as a spreadsheet.
However I have converted the pdf into an Excel spreadsheet which I am posting here, so that you can analyse it yourself if you want to do so.
The information relates to MOTs in 2007, since that was the latest annual data when the BBC's FOI request was made in July 2008. VOSA now says it will issue the 2008 and 2009 statistics later this year, and will publish this material routinely in future on an annual basis.
The figures give average MOT failure rates for individual models of cars and small vans, as well as breaking them down by year of manufacture.
Not surprisingly older vehicles fail more often, and older models therefore tend to have higher average failure rates. However I have used the spreadsheet to examine vehicles first used in 2004, which were therefore all three years old in 2007 at the time generally of their first MOT.
Limiting this to the most popular models - those with over 20,000 MOTs in 2007 - produces the following table for these vehicles made in 2004:
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders stresses that the roadworthiness of vehicles is influenced by how their drivers treat them. A spokesman said:
"Pass rates will be determined by a wide range of factors, but particularly the level of use, ownership profile and the frequency of servicing or regular maintenance."
A Vauxhall Motors spokesman commented:
"Many of the failed items highlighted in this report, such as brakes, driver's view of the road, reg plates and tyres, are directly attributable to vehicles that have covered above average mileages. Since Vauxhall was one of the largest suppliers of fleet vehicles during the period surveyed (2004-2007), and fleet vehicles typically cover higher mileages than most, it comes as no suprise that some of our cars appear in this list."
I have also looked at vehicles first used in 1997, ten years old at the time of their 2007 MOT. Limiting this to the popular models with over 10,000 MOTs gives this table:
There is clearly an enormous wealth of information in the 1,200 pages now available. It's possible to examine all sorts of angles - how less popular models fare, the records of individual manufacturers, how failure rates for various models change over time, the different kinds of reasons (brakes, lights, steering, and so on) which different models are most likely to have problems with.
One small point to note: it's rare for a dataset as large as this not to contain some errors and you can see this one isn't perfect. For example, one MOT testing station seems to think there's an Audi 80 out there which was first used in 1883.
Update 12:30, 15 January 2010: Thanks very much to everyone for your comments below so far, many of which help to illuminate some wider aspects of this.
What has struck me most in the response to my post is the way others have taken the data, now that it is publicly available, and presented it in various more accessible and useful forms. For those both within and outside government who want the large quantities of state-held data to be opened up, this is exactly what they hope and argue would happen.
A couple of readers have produced searchable databases - see comments 78 and 79. And comments 23, 24, 58, 60 and 71 are also relevant.
I have also been sent this table [69KB PDF] by Tony Hindle of Lancaster University Management School, which compares the overall records of manufacturers for cars first used in 2004 (whereas I compared popular individual models).
And Simon Marsh, a business analyst, has sent me a tidied-up spreadsheet with analysis by brand, model and age.
I should stress that I haven't examined any of these pieces of work to check their calculations are valid. The raw data remains available for those who are interested.
Various points have been made about reasons for MOT failure. The question when comparing models is whether these involve systematic differences between models. Mileage can clearly be a relevant factor in some cases (as Vauxhall and Renault have pointed out), and I hope we will be able to do some more work on this point.
A number of you have pointed out that there are plainly some errors in the VOSA data (these may well be errors in the records made at MOT testing stations which have then been supplied to and compiled by VOSA). This is indeed a point I made myself in the final paragraph of this blog entry. Errors of the kind identified do not invalidate the comparisons I have made between the most popular models, where a few incorrect dates won't matter. Such errors could conceivably undermine the robustness of the failure rates for much less common models (which is one of the reasons why I decided to limit my analysis to popular models).
A 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~22~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It is great that you've got this info, but I agree with the comment that any comparison should include mileages. I suspect that if we included costs of MOT repairs at least one company that would benefit from mileage inclusion would do far worse out of it!!
Complain about this comment
Superb work Martin - if data like this isn't in the public interest - I'd be hard pushed to think why not!
And what crummy tactics to pretend that it would take DAYS to release the original document [which didn't start life as a PDF] and frankly if it wasn't a spreadsheet in the first place I'd love to know what it was...
Complain about this comment
Heard you this morning on Today Martin. Happy New year. MOT figures. Hmm. My DVLA days come to mind.
Does anyone write on the Law at the Beeb. That other matter. I was wondering about how dispute are settled? Someone sort of told me there may be a queue of "gainsayers" into the release of any and I mean ANY information. How do they - possible gainsayers know? That it is there is information to say "halt" to its release? Yes - I need legal advice. Remember that postion in a very long line I mentioned holding more than 4 years ago. I have not moved forward an inch.
I must be due an MOT but someone cannot decide if I am to be tested as a Ford or BMW. lol
Complain about this comment
And how do re-tests of vehicles come through? Is it where you see 1 pass 1 failure 50% pass rate?
Another thing is that in looking through some of the info in your spreadsheet how is it that, take for instance Landrover, the Discovery wasn't built in 1958, 1969 or even 1970, they were not produced until 1989 So can you explain those entrys in your spreadsheet?
Complain about this comment
The MOT is a fail or pass system. Quite how dangerous is a failure on the basis of there not being a BS (British Standard) mark on the numberplate, I don't know. (Yes, apparently the tester has to get on his/her hands and knees and examine the numberplate for the British Standard stamp in tiny type on the base of the numberplate.) But I would be quite happy to drive a car that had just failed on some defect in the script on the numberplate.
The MOT has become officious - it used to be about safety which is a good thing, but in recent years including such things as numberplate text as failing the vehicle on the basis of being unsafe is absurd. (I am sure that many people involved with MOT's will know of many changes that are nothing to do with ensuring the safety of the vehicle but simply to do with administrative nonsense. These nonsensical extra tests should be removed from the MOT.
Complain about this comment
I admire the work and the sentiment that has gone into this but as it stands it surely meaningless and I do not trust the media to use this information responsibly.
To have any kind of value we would need to know whether all the variables had been taken into account. What is the average milage of these vehicles? If your average Transit van does twice the milage of a Toyata Corolla then it is surely bound to fail the MOT more frequently. Does that make the Transit van an inherently less relaible vehicle. No, it just gets worked harder!
The media love league tables Shame they're not so fond of pointing out the weaknesses. I guess it doen't make for good headlines.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the point of milage not taken into account. I do think a lot of work has to be done to make the figures reasonable and fair though.
Are the figures taken into account by the car companies for future design or failure monitoring of the cars and the parts? Maybe not on this listing
Complain about this comment
Interesting information but altogether meaningless without service history, mileage, number of owners etc.
My car is 14 years old now and hasn't failed a test in years, but then I do service it and maintain it regularly. For a lot of people the MoT test is the annual service and the maintenance that their car receives is that which is highlighted as being needed by the results of the test. This alone skews the figures so to rely on this data as a source of manufacturer and model reliability is daft really.
Complain about this comment
This data, as it stands, is largely meaningless. You can fail the MOT for having bald tyres or a cracked number plate. Neither of these are affected by the model of vehicle. If the data excluded those parts affected by how the owners maintained the vehicle then it may be more meaningful. At the moment, all we have are a bunch of statistics that some manufacturers can unfairly beat other manufacturers up with. And they are not going to say that what it really means is that drivers of one type maintain theirs better than another. What a pointless set of statistics.
Complain about this comment
I agree that mileage should definitely be on the cards, but that's not the only potential for skewing the data here.
Look at some of the ones near the top - Corsa, Punto, Clio - the most common cars of bodykit-adorned boy racers. A lot of those MOT failures could be down to the mods on the car not being road legal as much as the mechanical state. I reckon that modified cars should probably be removed from this comparison too as they're not typical of the majority of drivers.
Complain about this comment
Looking at the data for a VW Golf first used in 1992 and MOTd in 2007, 7519 cars failed the test of which 7824 cars failed on brakes, which doesn't make sense. Am I misinterpreting this data?
Complain about this comment
It appears that some cars manage to fail before they exist. Couple of examples I spotted: the Ford Ka and Ford Mondeo (who owns the two 1900 registered versions of these cars?).
Other than that it looks like good data. I will definately be using it in my used car buying decisions.
Complain about this comment
At 08:55am on 13 Jan 2010, Plato-says wrote:
"...frankly if it wasn't a spreadsheet in the first place I'd love to know what it was..."
Assuming VOSA are in any way at all competent the data will have been in a database...
Complain about this comment
My 11 year old Astra passed its MOT without any remedial work this month. The fact it has 63,000 miles on the clock is probably not a coincidence. I rather like that car, do about 4000 city miles a year and keep it as well maintained and serviced as I can because it'll cost me thousands to get a replacement as trustworthy.
In effect my car is the exact opposite of the transit van in the first table....most transits get absolutely hammered by their owners and as they're often fleet vehicles the drivers don't worry too much about it. The real piece of info I want to know is what proportion of white vans older than 3 years are sent in for MOT's in the first place?
Other than that who'd have guessed that Japanese cars normally driven by middle class, middle aged drivers pass their MOT's far more often than Rovers? It "may" explain why Rover went bust and why Toyota and Honda haven't.
Yet again this seems to be freedom of information being used to produce fairly unsuprising data which we're all paying indirectly to be told.
Complain about this comment
Don't wonder that VOSA were reluctant to publish this data, as it is now open to public quality control. Even the briefest of looks casts doubt on any public decision making process using sources such as these.
For idle interest I looked for the total number of imported special interest cars on the road. There is a large section covering various GM USA brands, but not a single Ford Mustang.
It is clear, Martyn, that you could run VOSAs IT department more efficiently than it is now...
Complain about this comment
I'm not surprised that the DVLA didn't process this data any further. Every processing step presents further room for mistakes within the data, and they didn't ask to be held responsible for advising on purchasing decisions.
Also the data has so many underlying variables factors which aren't accounted for that it doesn't say much. Somebody reversed into me and damaged the mounting for my headlight. My car failed, but that's hardly a reliability issue - the lamp clusters' glass and light bulbs remained intact.
With these failings in the information recorded,
Complain about this comment
"And what crummy tactics to pretend that it would take DAYS to release the original document [which didn't start life as a PDF] and frankly if it wasn't a spreadsheet in the first place I'd love to know what it was..."
Gee, could it have been a database...?
Complain about this comment
Surely this data just reflects popular vehicles. Transits are bound to fail more often as there are more of them on the roads.
Complain about this comment
If a wiper blade needs replacing, I think my garage likes to 'fail' - put new blade on - retest to 'pass'. Doesn't worry me, and probably helps their audit statistics look good and tough. Wonder if that counts as 1 fail, or 1 fail and 1 pass, or what? Rather agree that these statistics don't prove much about recent cars - and older ones probably get a more thorough pre-check anyway.
Complain about this comment
With the failings in the information recorded, it is perhaps too little information to be of practical value.
Complain about this comment
All this information exists in Germany and is sold in a magazine called TuV report. It covers most of the cars sold in the U.K. and the statistics are broken down into model year with specific item failures. This enables identification of defects that are related to individual component failures. This forces manufacturers to investigate and engineer out the design weaknesses. As with the U.K. data, Japanese makes perform better than most German makes!
Complain about this comment
I don't see any Alphas on the list. Didn't any of the 1994 models make it through to 1997?
Complain about this comment
I have simplified the data a bit and created a more user-friendly pivot table showing average fail rates for each make and model by first use year.
For those not used to pivot tables, here are some examples of what you can do:
The table on the first tab shows the average fail rate under “total”, so if you look at (say) Audi, you’ll see that of all the tests on Audis in 2007, 43.56% resulted in a fail.
If you double click on a maker’s name you’ll get a list of models for that maker. Double clicking Audi gives you a list of the models tested. The figure in “total” is now the average for each Audi model, so the Audi 100 failed 54.98% of the time, while the Audi A2 failed only 20.85% of the time. Double clicking the maker’s name again hides the models for that maker.
If you double click on a model name, you’ll get a list of first use dates for that make and model, with the “total” being the average fail rate for each first use date. So, double clicking on A2 gives you first use dates from 2000 to 2005, with fail rates dropping from 28.2% for a 2000 registered Audi A2 down to 11.4% for a 2005 registered car (although why a 2005 car had an MOT in 2007 is hard to say). Double clicking on a model name hides the first use dates again.
Clicking on the arrow by the side of the table headings (“Make”, “Model” and “First_use”) gives you a list of options to select or deselect. So, if you were thinking of getting either an Audi A2 or a VW Golf, you could:
- hit the “Make” arrow and make sure that only Audi and VW are selected
- hit the “model” arrow and make sure that only A2 and Golf are selected
you could then see that A2s failed 20.85% of the time, whereas Golfs failed 42.5% of the time.
You might then decide that you’re not going to buy a car more than 5 years old, so you could hit the “first use” arrow and select only 2005, 2006 and 2007. Now the fail rates are 11.4% for Audi A2s and 16.83% for VW Golfs.
To reset the table, you just hit each arrow and hit “show all”. You can then select again – for example, hitting the “first use” arrow and selecting only 1992 will show only those cars registered for first use in 1992 and tested in 2007.
It’s sad to see that 100% of minis (the old one, not the new) first used in 1992 and tested in 2007 failed the test.
To look behind this data, you can double click on the “100%” next to Mini and you’ll get a new tab with the underlying data. Now we can see that only one 1992 Mini was tested in 2007 and it failed because of lighting problems (Lucas the prince of darkness strikes again!).
If you want a copy go here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/umnynygrgxm/MOT 2007 Pivot.xls
Please note:
1. the information shouldn’t be any different from Martin’s – just a little easier to manipulate
2. that means any errors in the underlying MOT data will be the same
(I doubt that there really is a Vauxhall Astra first used in 1901 on the roads now – although if it does exist I suppose I’m not surprised it failed its MOT)
3. you should virus check any file you download before opening it
4. so far as I know, mediafire is a regular file sharing service, but please don’t blame me for popups about your credit score etc
Complain about this comment
PS - as the file name has a space in it, you'll need to copy the whole link
(including '...2007 Pivot.xls') and paste it into your browser address bar - sorry
Complain about this comment
And does this data take in consideration the owners actions during the life of the vehicle, the services undertaken general maintenance, etc. If not it would be meaningless to compare the vehicles at all.
Complain about this comment
These stats certainly don’t provide black and white evidence of which cars are ‘good’ and which aren’t, but they’re surely indicative. Resale value isn’t conclusive evidence either of which are the ‘good’ cars and which aren’t – no doubt the boy-racer favoured cars take an undeserved hit on that front - but it’s all indicative. The best made cars are very unlikely to feature in the top 10 of these lists, just as the most poorly made cars are unlikely to miss out on the top 10.
Oh, and Graham Dell wrote “Transits are bound to fail more often as there are more of them on the roads”.
No Graham, what’s published in the article is relative data, not absolute data. (Including vans in with cars is pretty daft, mind.)
Complain about this comment
#18 - Graham
"Surely this data just reflects popular vehicles. Transits are bound to fail more often as there are more of them on the roads"
No, that's what percentages are for. If 30% of Transits and 10% of Corollas fail then 30% of Transits and 10% of Corollas fail. Obviously that doesn't account for the different ways the vehicles will be used, with Transits being trashed over high mileages and Corollas being driven at walking pace a couple of miles a week (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but the number of each vehicle on the road is completely irrelevant for this study.
Complain about this comment
The milage point is a good one, however so is how the drivers treat the car. Now looking at the raw data there is one column that instantly screms "owner issue" as opposed to a bad car. That is Tyres.
So recalculating the figures for the top 5 on the current 2004 list so that cars that failed because of tyres are now considered to have passed, you get the following, old position and % in brackets
Ford Transit 25.7% (3 26.3)
Renault Megane 22.7% (2 28.1)
Ford Transit Connect 22.1% (1 30.5)
Peugoet 307 18.3% (4 24.7)
Vauxhall Corsa 17.3% (5 24.7)
Thoughts on other columns that are wholely drive and not manufacture issue would be interesting, as whould thoughts on what the above means, besides that Transit Connect drivers should really change tyres more often!
Complain about this comment
I have worked in the motor industry most of my life in the design area and I can remember the statistics before and after the introduction of the MOT, they were exactly the same, proving that the vehicle is seldom to blame, most of the time it is the nut behind the steering wheel (the driver).
Complain about this comment
The MOT was created to ensure people keep their cars in a roadworthy condition. Keeping your car in a roadworthy condition is dependent much more on social factors (regularly serviced, concientious owner, kept in garage, second car, low annual mileage) than which manufacturer built it or which model it is.
All this data will tell you is which cars receive the least TLC on average, or to put it more bluntly which cars tend to be run on a shoestring with little regard to repair and maintenance. This is absolutely not a valid data set to base a make/model purchasing decision on, which I guess is why they were so reluctant to release it.
MOT failure is a reflection of the owner, not the car. Windscreen stone chips, bald tyres, worn brakes, accident damage (tracking, headlight misallignment), bulbs not replaced, number plates, poorly executed repairs and a myriad of other MOT faults have absolutely nothing to do with the make/model. There are also many parts of the car which can fail which will not result in an MOT failure - non-strucural corrosion, water ingress, worn out upholstery, interior falling to bits, radio/clock failure, intermittent non-starter, failure of 'comfort electronics' to name but a few.
Please, while I agree with freedom of information - you have a responsibility to ensure the information is fit for purpose. This information is not fit for purpose if the purpose is to provide a consumer with make/model information on which to base a purchasing decision.
Complain about this comment
To be honest VOSA has a point, the data is interesting but flawed in raw state. This sums the main issue up well .http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/07-05-08_5
Basically, it's alleged that a lot of dealers/garages if you take a car in for MOT and service, will do the MOT first so that they can 'show' you that the work carried out in the service was needed. Eg a fail for windscreen wipers or a fail for wheel nuts . We've *all* had this surely , we take the car in saying ' i think the tyre is a bit dubious' 'i need a new bulb as well' and get a fail for tyre , instead of the garage replacing the tyre ( after asking obviously) first then testing. Obviously most just retest , but it does seem to be a way of skewing data. I'd remove the tyre , windscreen and light issues then look at the data.
Complain about this comment
My car "failed" due to a blown headlight bulb - the garage produced a failure cert, but straight away replaced the bulb and retested (only charging me £1.10 for the bulb) - think people really want to know the cost of repairing the failures, not that a vehicle has failed.
Complain about this comment
#19 & 32 . That sort of thing represents the bulk of MOT failures, especially for relatively new cars. The smart thing to do is have your car serviced and MOT'd on the same day. The service should replace bulbs, wiper blades, worn brake pads etc then the MOT is an almost automatic pass.
Most garages have no charge for MOT retest on the same day but those that DO hit you with the full fee (and against my advice my wife went to one becauuse it was 'cheaper' than the garage I use) will happily hit you with a full retest charge for £1 bulb.
Complain about this comment
Interesting information/statistics that can be skewed easily by incorporating minor 'offences' like light-bulbs. It's good to know that if you look after your basics like brake pads, tyres and light bulbs then you have a good chance of passing. I'd love to know what it means by Driver Visibility Failure which seems to be rather high on the failure list - does this mean windscreen cracks? If so, then this should be another failure that people can easily avoid.
I would use this much more in anger when choosing my next car if the failures where rated HIGH(structural faults/rust), MEDIUM (brake pads), LOW risk (light bulbs) and NON-SAFETY risks (number plate issues).
Reading this info along with other info like JD Power Survey, whatcar etc you get the same impression that French, Ford and Vauxhalls are risky purchases while Honda & Toyota are pretty safe bets.
Complain about this comment
"Transits are bound to fail more often as there are more of them on the roads."
No, that would only mean that more Transits failed. Not the same as Transits failed more often.
Complain about this comment
What are the vehicles failing on?
Complain about this comment
Worse than pointless, since some people will base decisions on that list, thinking it shows something about reliabilty of vehicles.
Complain about this comment
This backs up my anecdotal evidence. I've had two old Corollas that never had much problem with MOTs. The latest (15 year-old 135000 miles, unlooked after and unserviced for 20 months because I was expecting to scrap it) has passed its last 3 tests, albeit with minor corrosion here and there.
Yes, minor things can skew the results, but this factor is probably similar for most normal cars. I note Vauxhall's excuse, but the Meriva is hardly a fleet car is it? But it's as bad as the rest.
Complain about this comment
What a waste of time - there are so many variables your stats are useless. If I was your editor/boss I wouldn't be very happy with this sloppy piece of work.
Can do MUCH better.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
The data is meaningless.
It doesn't take into consideration, who drives what type of vehicle for what purpose!
It should be weighted with average mileage and owner type!
Complain about this comment
Useless and misleading news item. Worn out tyres, failed head lamp bulbs and broken number plates have no relationship to manufacturing quality.
Complain about this comment
A classic case of the misuse or flawed use of statistics, so many variables not taken into account. Where I work we get regular freedom of information requests trying to prove a half baked theory, which is often ends up a waste of public money.
Complain about this comment
Oh and, rather than xls can we have a more transportable format , csv even?
@andyj I agree, 'visibility failure' is that chips on screen? Or is that wiper blade , or is that washer bottle fluid :) .
@peter_sym , yeah, done that. Also had fails remarked when I had expected the garage to have noticed issues or fixed them during a service. That's why I'd paid for the service in a lot of cases.
nice to see the bbc hasn't fallen for it . Oh they have.. 'ford has most mot failures'.
Complain about this comment
I am amazed at so many people saying this data is worthless!
Obviously they are the ones who are incapable of putting things into perspective. Only a fool would compare a Transit to a Toyota. Transits are used by White Van Man so compare it with other vans - where are they on the list?
I would far rather see the full data and be able to apply basic statistical analysis concepts myself than know anyone like most on here had applied some form of misguided filter.
Of course the data generalises! Although I find it odd that Rover 420s can be relied on to fail - mine has never failed in 10 years yet has minimal servicing and a very high mileage... but then I do make sure it has decent tyres.
Manufacturers will be interested in how the public perceive their vehicles and could use this data to adjust their dealers' service criteria. It is not just the driver that influences a vehicles condition.
Complain about this comment
#44 "peter_sym , yeah, done that. Also had fails remarked when I had expected the garage to have noticed issues or fixed them during a service. That's why I'd paid for the service in a lot of cases."
I wouldn't pay for the service & I'd go to a different garage next time.
I'll anticipate a 'freedom of information' request from one of you and tell you that I always use Nationwide Autocentres. Brand dealers charge a ridiculous premium, small garages keep everything they make. The nationwide are quick, courteous, paid a salary and the bullet pointed service with green/amber/red scores for everything on the test means they don't have a leg to stand on if you get an MOT failure from something thats on the checklist.
For those wondering 'visibility failure' usually means some idiot has put in tinted windows which reduce the transmissible light to an illegally low level. If you can barely see the driver inside the car he can barely see you. You can anticipate which types of car get bought by the people who do that... it may explain the high rate of fails in Corsas.
Complain about this comment
Unless a more detailed analysis can be done than just raw failure rates, this is very misleading. e.g. a very common reason to fail an MOT is that your tyres are below minimum tread depth. This can happen to any car and is entirely beyond the control of the manufacturer. I suspect a more meaningful analysis from this would be what sort of drivers buy different makes and model. For example the transit van is up at the top, so we can perhaps infer something on how well white van man looks after his vehicle!
Complain about this comment
The information would be more useful if mileage was included. Also when referring to Ford has most MOT failues - not quite true. Owner related issues should be removed. Also clarifications of what causes a failure.
Some of these are useful pointers to keep an eye on - eg wear related issues wiper blades, tyres , bulbs but are not necessarily caused by the manufacturer
The data is poor considering the DVLA can in most cases tie the cars to an exact description and have a valid first use date - They are on the V5
Also the aggregation of teh data is misleading. A car can have many model and engine types meaning many different tyre types , exhaust types etc. This can in turn lead to different failure rates per type as the parts are different.
Overall poor - and sloppy journalism to sensationalise on a poor set of data - it is potentially highly misleading and commercially damaging as the DVLA said !
Also to correct an assumption above the Vauxhall Meriva was a Fllet car also - many fleets use many sizes of cars particularly rentals !
Complain about this comment
Surely anyone with an old car takes it for an MOT before doing any work on it!? Even if I know it will fail on say a wiper, I am not going to replace that before the MOT because it may fail on many other things and get scrapped, and in any case a retest is free.
I think typically an old vehicle gets one fail and then one pass, thus leading to most old vehicles plateauing at around 50%. (The fraction over 50% are those that get scrapped rather than have the work done.)
In other words, this data does not really tell you much.
Complain about this comment
Slightly misleading data in some cases. For instance, they have grouped BMW Mini with Austin Rover Mini, so the stats look bad for the new Mini, yet it might well be made up of old Mini's
Also some models have got first year of use, before they ever went in to production?
Also if this is the data for 2007 and the first year of use is 2007 why are they having an MoT ?
Steve
Complain about this comment
turraturraturra wrote: "I don't see any Alphas on the list. Didn't any of the 1994 models make it through to 1997?"
Maybe because it is spelt Alfa. There are loads on the list.
Complain about this comment
"49. At 3:22pm on 13 Jan 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
Surely anyone with an old car takes it for an MOT before doing any work on it!? Even if I know it will fail on say a wiper, I am not going to replace that before the MOT because it may fail on many other things and get scrapped, and in any case a retest is free. "
It depends whether you want 'just legal' or 'maintained to the highest possible standard'. My cars old but I've never skimped on maintenance. At Xmas I was told the alternator belt was looking worn (its 11 year old so hardly suprising) so I had them fit a new belt rather than wait for it to snap. Likewise min legal tread on tyres is no use in the current weather. When they get down to 3-4mm tread I change the tyres. The cambelt was changed at 40,000 miles, the wipers get changed when they stop cleaning well etc.
In any case most garages that do MOT & Service together actually do the MOT first, rectify the faults at the service then give you a 'pass' precisely for the reasons you specify.
Complain about this comment
The data should be adjusted to reflect or at least show the mileage of the vehicles, I am sure the Ford Connect (made in Turkey) is a very high mileage vehicle and is 100% purchased for commercial use. A good case for the MOT to be brought forward to 2 years or one year if the mileage has exceeded say 20,000 miles. If we had the mileage data we could then consider faults per 10,000 miles. The German TUV have published the data for many years - with the Ford Focus being the first European built car to have the least numbers of failures overall - and of course the German system has the first test at 2 years and the pass stamp is part of the license plate. For the cost of an MOT why can we have a disc similar to the Tax disc on display?
Complain about this comment
Audi 80s were made until 1996! Is this a motoring journalist? O_O
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that these data have the potential to be extremely useful, so long as you take a sensible approach to their interpretation.
You obviously can't compare a Ford Transit against a Ford Fiesta with these data, but you could look at comparing vehicles of the same class and function.
For example, compare a Fiat Punto against a Honda Jazz. It would be reasonable to assume that the distributions of annual mileage, frequency of servicing and other factors affecting the life of the vehicles is comparable between the two. In cases such as this, comparing the failure rate from these data would seem to be a reasonable contributor to a purchasing decision.
Since motorists and other tax payers fund the data collection, I think we should be able to see these statistics and use them as we see fit.
Complain about this comment
What is repeatedly seen is that the business of government is business. Although funded by the public the different departments and agencies are directed by those they regulate. As with banking, the auto industry pressures the MOT or maye the MOT just does it by itself, and does not provide the public with information, even when addressing issues of saftey. The governments do not belong to the people they belong to business. We are taxed to protect the interest of private business to our own disadvantage. The growth of government was to curb the abuses of the private sector and now we have the governments as partners with the private sector. The corporate state has replaced the government and the government is simply a name used to shield the corporate state.
Complain about this comment
55. At 4:37pm on 13 Jan 2010, Michael wrote:
....For example, compare a Fiat Punto against a Honda Jazz. It would be reasonable to assume that the distributions of annual mileage, frequency of servicing
Well no actually
Fiat Puntos were much more widespread with a wider demographic range.
Honda's seem to be exclusively owned by older people pottering around.
They tend to be pricier so people are wealthier and therefore more likley to maintain them well.
Stats can lie - alot depends on how the car is looked after !
Complain about this comment
My comments plus note at the end for Dr Dave re serious error in his post re pivot sprd sheet.
I do agree with just about all the comments in respect of the true value of the data as released. It also has plenty of errors. At least 25 of the following type
>total cars tested of particular model = x
total number failed on brakes ="pick a range of numbers GREATER than number of that model tested!!
( I realise one car could fail on more than one brake related item, but the whole point of collecting data is that is should be in a form where analysis can be meaningful). My main interest in looking at the data was to confirm my experiences over the years that just about any govt. dept you choose to name. fail misearbly when it comes to doing something useful for what we pay them for.
Not much point in taking notice of any of their stats.
Finally in respect of Dr Daves contribution re the excelpivot table.
Pivot tables are indeed potentially great tools but Dave's has fallen into the trap letting the pivot average percentages. Very easy trap for the unwary. Dave seems pretty good with excel as it takes a fair bit of skill just to tidy up the original excel sheet to make it useable for a pivot table--I know I had to do the same. But the percentages shown on the pivot and quoted in his post are I'm afraid incorrect which can be confirmed from the raw data in his sheet
eg "so the Audi 100 failed 54.98% of the time"
from raw data (allyears) Fails=3037 total tested=6220
Overall failure rate for all Audi 100's is thus actuall 48.8%
I've posted a zipped excel sheet at http://www.mediafire.com/?yqrizkicbhz
(not using pivot table analysis) which allows one to to see the correct percentages by make/model/etc
Hope this helps,
Dave if you're like me you'll be mortified to realise how easy it is to create certain types of errors during data analysis :-)
Complain about this comment
Having been in the Motor Trade since 1970, I am pleased with this data, it proves that the modern motor car should be tested after one year. Our roads are alot safer through having the MOT test. I have viewed the different vehicles on the pdf and it does show that tyres brakes and important safety items are being failed, the brakes are most likely due to lack of servicing, as for the tyres some will be due to excessive use (ex Company Vehicles)and are the drivers responsibilty. The amount of vehicles with badly adjusted headlights or still worse wrongly fitted headlight bulbs on the roads is still high. As the testing equipment is still the same from the start of the test, the beam setter is ok for the older cars, when headlights were standard across the manuafacturers.
But with todays designer cars the headlights are model dependant. Although they are type approved (E mark on the glass)for use in the uk. This does depend on the right sort of bulb being fitted as the focal plain of the filliment and its interaction with the reflector and headlight glass. I have seen at a MOT test station headlights dipping from left to right, we removed the bulb to find someone had filed the keyway away that prevents you fitting it wrongly. As a RAC patrolman (person for those inclined) I had to fit bulbs to members cars, this is something i thought was a good thing. The amount of cost was much cheaper than getting a fine for no light. I attended a large amount of company vehicles which were never serviced during the three years on the company.
Most of these were only given the basic service i.e. an oil change and a glance over. This is not good enough for the safety of others on the road. A goods vehicle or taxi must have a MOT during its first year. Why can't VOSA include company vehicles and those with high mileage in the first year. The mileage could be 25000 miles or less, at present mileage could be 75000 when they sell the vehicle. A privately owned vehicle on average covers 12000 about 1000 a month. This would help the servicing trade out and possibly the dealers to sell more cars.
Complain about this comment
OOOPS!! and DOH!!
re zipped excel sheet link in my just made post
Yes it's very easy to make mistakes----if you need to unprotect pages of the excel sheet(tools/unprotect) to eg change the subtotals shown you'll need a password----use "senior" (no quotes)
Complain about this comment
Here in Northern Ireland the MOT centres are still government run thank heavens. They are pretty tough but totally objective. As a rule, bar the obvious, eg tyres wipers lights, horn etc ,I get nothing doneand await the outcome. In September I had nothing done on my 2002 Suzuki Alto,...passed! In December replaced one tyre on my wife's 2001 Astra...passed. On Monday last my "new" car, (2005) Megane Cabriolet failed due to a worn balljoint. Got a retest tonight , after having balljoint replaced ......car passed .
Heaven forbid the MOT centres here get privatised. Fairness, and toughness =safety on the road.
Complain about this comment
This is the most pointless use of the Freedom of Information Act ever. What a total waste of time, effort and money to gain what is essentially useless information. All involved have obviously never run their own business - they wouldn't have the time to waste on this. Can only assume this action was taken by someone who is funded - possibly by the tax payer.
Complain about this comment
I think that the VOSA computerisation system for MOT Testing is a great leap forwards, but not without some faults. You have mentioned that one mot tester thought a car was manufactured in 1883, this may not be entiry correct, VOSA once advised that they did not want vehicle presenters carrying their V5 documents around at time of MOT Test, so although a tester may know the date is incorrect, the tester may not know what to do about it. What I normally do is change the registration date to 01/month/year on VIN plate or registration number, then advise the presenter.
There are other problems too, Swansea enter data into Computerisation to initially advise the testing scheme what the correct data is for a particular vehicle, I have found on occasions that this data is in fact incorrect and has lead testers into registering vehicles for test incorrectly. On other occasions I have found that the listed data in the drop down menus does not contain the correct information to allow a vehicle to be correctly selected.
Then you have the VIN identifications, if VOSA at Swansea do not enter this data as laid out on the VIN plate, then a mismatch can occur and the tester then has a record on the monthly performance report showing errors the tester has made, which may also be VOSA's fault, but the tester cannot correct such data.
I think I have to say that I do agree with VOSA when they say that publishing the figures could have an adverse effect on the manufacturers, I think that it must be appreciated that there are some fifty thousand mot testers within the UK testing vehicles, and none of us are perfect, thus completing mot testing using standards of Men and not that of Angels, VOSA of course being the Angels?
Complain about this comment
In Sweden they have the failure statistics per car model per year and also the type of failure e.g brakes, headlights , suspension. This is an excellent guide to use before buying a second hand car or preparation before the mot.This is issued by the Swedish department of transport and it also gives the market price per model dependent on mileage.
Complain about this comment
Sean wrote;
61. At 6:05pm on 13 Jan 2010, sean wrote:
Here in Northern Ireland the MOT centres are still government run thank heavens. They are pretty tough but totally objective. As a rule, bar the obvious, eg tyres wipers lights, horn etc ,I get nothing doneand await the outcome. In September I had nothing done on my 2002 Suzuki Alto,...passed! In December replaced one tyre on my wife's 2001 Astra...passed. On Monday last my "new" car, (2005) Megane Cabriolet failed due to a worn balljoint. Got a retest tonight , after having balljoint replaced ......car passed .
Heaven forbid the MOT centres here get privatised. Fairness, and toughness =safety on the road.
I would just like to say that the UK MOT Test is only looking to ensure that the motoring public are not falling below the key minimum road safety standards,i.e. tyres can be worn down to 1.6mm as an example.
I don't think the mot test was every designed to overrule the manufacturer recommended servicing standards,so if a person had their vehicle serviced before the mot test to the required standards, then maybe a lot of mot testing stations would be out of business?
Complain about this comment
I'm not surprised there was resistance to releasing these figures - they are utter rubbish.
Apart from not giving mileage, which renders them useless anyway, here's an example - there is no such vehicle as a 1954 Land Rover Defender 90. The is a 1954 SWB Series II, and then a 1972 SWB Series III, and then from the 1984 the 90 appeared - which has completely different suspension (coils all round), a new engine (2.5L NA and Turbo), a new gearbox (LT77), new axles (with CV's rather than UJ's, new halfshafts etc), completely new body, completely new chassis, disc brakes front and later rear etc etc - and since then has a four completely new engines (200Tdi, 300Tdi, Td5 and TDCi), two new gearboxes (R380 and the current one), In fact the only constant is the general shape.
Anyone taking these figures, without first doing a great deal of research, really needs to think again - they completely ignore new models unless the name is changed! Anyone remember the original Nissan Micra? Does that bear any relationship to the current model?
Complain about this comment
Ah, my problem with the data from VOSA is that it is obviously incomplete. I have looked at the original PDF file and according to that my car was not MOT'd in 2007. In fact there are whole model ranges, years of models and even in some cases complete manufacturers missing from the data. For example I find it hard to believe not one Morris motor car was MOT'd in 2007, nor any Cadillac built prior to 1971. There are a number of glaring errors with registration dates. Whatever spin you want to put on these figures or however you want to argue what they mean I think we can put very little faith that the numbers are right. If they failed to record MOTing a single Morris car when there must still be a fair few thousand Marinas, Minors, Oxfords etc. on the road then who is to say the data for the Renault Meganne or Ford Focus isn't missing a few thousand first time passes or outright fails?
Complain about this comment
I concur what akku has said above. I have tested some very old vehicles over the last four years, and each year the vehicle is returned for mot test and I enter data into Computerisation, the vehicle and its record has been wiped out, completely no trace and I have to re-enter all data again to print a VT40 check sheet. Must be something to do with the environment and their visual emissions tests?
Complain about this comment
It's the same in the USA, many drivers assume that with the higher levels of reliability, they don't need to do anything other than drive it. Maybe an oil change now and then? Owners manuals that contain valuable information about maintenance remains in the glove box, in pristine condition having never been read let alone being used to conduct routine inspections and repairs. I find the number of vehicles failing due to bad brakes amazing. Mind you, some years ago seeing a piano leg used to connect a broken coil spring at the Severn Bridge display, nothing should surprise me.
Complain about this comment
Just to echo #67 and #68, there are some major omissions in the data. For example I am a fan of Triumph cars, but some of the most common models (TR6, Spitfire for example) of which there are hundreds still on the roads are missing from this data.
I'm sure a more thorough examination would reveal that lots of other models and possibly manufacturers are missing too. Naughty DVLA.
Complain about this comment
To all those wondering what to do with the massive PDF (or spreadsheet), I've converted the data into a more usable spreadsheet file (which you could import into Access or Excel) and into a file suitable for loading into MySQL (and, with a little work, probably any other database engine).
For more information, please see this blog post but the direct links to the two files are:
1. CSV file (for Excel, Access and others)
2. SQL file (for MySQL, but could be used for other engines)
Both are released under a creative-commons licence, again, to check the details see my blog post.
Complain about this comment
I've just dropped in from another planet. Is this blog for for the Clarkson cult, or is it about freedom of information? Never mind how the information could be bettered, what about "breach commercial confidentiality" for heaven's sake.
VOSA is under no commercial confidentiality obligation to these companies. It is not in a contractual relationship with these companies and even if it were I would challenge the notorious none-disclosure agreements public bodies are wont to sign. It is a public body, publicly funded and answerable to the public. It has no right to contemplate witholding this information. What on earth could ever have led the staff of VOSA to believe that some confidentiality obligation was binding on them? None of the information is about people, so data protection legislation is wholly irrelevant. Freedom of Information legislation places a statutory duty on VOSA to disclose, but even without FOI legislation, how can public servants entertain the fantasy that they have a right to keep secrets of a none personal nature?
The question is why are we paying such delusional nutters to run our public bodies?
Complain about this comment
High mileage doesn't mean anything in itself, driving a high mileage on motorways isn't anywhere near as bad for a car as driving the kids 2 miles to school and back, pottering around town to do the shopping etc. My Citroen zantia has over 258000 miles on the clock and is a w reg. I am not going to temp fate by saying its still a good car and is reliable, but you can draw your own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
There seem to be quite a few models on the list that don't exist (Jaguar XJS-C from 1959 for example). Is that because the testers are so expert that they don't even know what they are testing or because vehicle records are a total mess or .....?
Complain about this comment
This is an interesting exercise, but the data is not worth anything in the real world so it makes you wonder why VOSA bothers collecting it and the BBC requested it. The reason I say this is that not all MOT test centres are the same. Anyone that has experienced the "your brakes are worn out" line or "corroded brake pies" or similar excuses at the garage will know what I mean. There is a tendency to pass a car if there is other work being conducted on it - otherwise it's work for nowt and the failures are "found". I'm not saying ALL MOT testers do this, but I have seen it and been a victim of it at a number of "reputable" car franchises.
It is quite amazing that we don't have impartiality in the system - and have all MOT tests done by the council or similar. They do this in a number of European countries and the tests are done on a production-line type system where there is no interest in failing a vehicle as ALL they do is MOT's.....anyone who has had their vehicle failed when they honestly believe it should pass would do well to visit one of the council run MOT centres as they are totally impartial and what fails elsewhere quite often passes at the council centre....
Complain about this comment
With reference to post 75. The problem you experience is because VOSA won't recruit people outside their own social circles. They have not got the man power to police the system, and I am of the mind that they like the system the way it is because it keeps them in a job?
VOSA have VE's who are not specialists and possibly have two many responsibilities to focus their time and resources on the mot scheme. I think they should recruit trained engineers and use them as specialists within the scheme to educate and train testers and AE's, but them the excuse would be, on paper everyone is perfect?
Complain about this comment
My faithful Rover 200 (don't laugh) has only 55,000 miles, not bad for a car over ten years old. Although mechanically sound it's had 2 MOT failures: 1. The computer handling the emissions test crashed and so with the MOT incomplete it was registered as a 'Fail'. That was one of the 492 failures for that year/model in 2007. 2. The boot wouldn't unlock, as I pointed out to my friendly local garage. They failed it accordingly (you need access to the boot for the spare), then fixed it immediately afterwards. Nonetheless another MOT fail. Both were essentially unnecessary.
Mind you my car has had all sorts of work done outside MOTs in regular services, for example recently some brake-work. Although I was mildly amused to see in the spreadsheet that the model built one year later, and so on the road for less time, has considerably more brake-related MOT fails, what I think I'd really like to know is simply at what average mileage does part x need repair or replacement.
Complain about this comment
Like numerous people have mentioned, the data is of limited use without mileage - it's searchable at www.motdatabase.co.uk though.
Complain about this comment
Simple to use version of data highlighting most common failures for each year available :-
http://www.prosol.co.uk/mot_test_results/
Produced on 13th but waited for VOSA approval before publishing.
Enjoy.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see that our car, the Nissan Bluebird is not there at all. I know very little about cars, & have no interest in them at all. As long as it works, thats fine with me. Thats probably why I drive a G reg! Which, I should add is extremely reliable (touch wood), and very well maintained ......
Complain about this comment
i am an mot tester, and read some of the numerous comments supplied,and i don't think that the lists do reflect true vehicle failure failings.
Although vosa issue the terms of a failure pre formatted, every vehicle failed has a different person testing it, and therefore each testers interpretation of a "fail" is different.example one may fail an incorrect shade amber indicator bulb to the rear of a vehicle and another may not. there is no constant.
example brake failings may be efficiencies, pipes ,hoses or even corrosion. vosa also seem to take statistics from city type areas,if they took statistics from outlying areas or separate the two areas there would be a completely different set of figures.
Complain about this comment
Having worked for VOSA for many years I do wonder at their statistics.
Many comments here are far more clued up than the authors of the information.
Clearly the inputted data can be what the garages want it to be, and it usually is.
They stick a new bulb or wiper blade on and it a first time pass "no fail".
This reduces the endless paperwork and computer work.
Some garages fail for the extra work they can get. Some just pass the things for their friendly trader. In the hope the trader will put it right later.
The saying lies dammed lies and statistics are so very true, and I hope the car manufacturers will blow this amateur piece of work out of the water.
Oh and also the VOSA enforcers "Vehicle Examiners" would like to do the job of enforcing the regulations, but are held back by incompetent, "silo" stuck pen pushers.
Over to you Jezza.......
Complain about this comment
#72 Steve Horsfield
You hit the nail on the head there Steve and I would have to agree with #15 Ranchero, the quality of the data is very poor.
EG. the numbers for Honda Civic lump the hatchback, coupe and lsi models in together.
The coupe and lsi along with the Rover 414, 416 and 420 are all the same car, the Honda's were assembled in Swindon and the Rovers in Longbridge.
What this data does tell me though is that of the x number of ford fiesta's sold in the UK in 2004 only 78,660 were still on the road.
This is the real reliability figure.
Complain about this comment
we can all see that the driver, use & maintenance is going to be a factor in the equation which leads a high mileage, poorly owned transit to fail due to tyres etc and little old lady/gent run about once a week to the shops to pass. So even though we do not have the mileage info we can accept renault's comment about the megane being a rep mobile, and perhaps likewise the vauxhall vectra. the challenge comes comparing similar models from different manufacturers eg Citroen xsara picasso, Ford Focus Cmax and Vauxhall zafira are similar size cars and appear within 0.1% of each other but the renault scenic is considerably worse. Likewise the vauxhall corsa against ford fiesta should have similar ownership but the fiesta passes more often, and again comparing the Honda Jazz and the Vauxhall Meriva. surely this is a design or build issue with these models rather than ownership.
although I guess were not going to get the specific model data from vosa (eg a base-model 1.2 against 2 litre GT) it would be interesting to know something more like the average mileage or the split between petrol and diesel.
Complain about this comment
Slightly biased report, as its doesn't mention private or fleet vehicles nor mileages although that would take to much to compile & the report is big enough already.
Complain about this comment
Dear Martin,
I didn't think this was a particularly important topic in relation to freedom of information. However, it has, at last, got a few more people to start looking at this very important blog.
Perhaps, you should do something on banks and QE and bring in some of Stephanie and Robert P's customers.
Well done!
Complain about this comment
I fully agree that none of this information allows for the abuse by the owner, but taking that into account it must still be a valid point when purchasing a used car, as it will show which makes and models are more abused by there owners and therefore failing more often. Any information when purchasing a used car can only be for the good....any way great job martyn well done.
Complain about this comment
Hello and thanks for doing all this. I'm in agreement with #72 horsfield and a couple of the testers.
I'm always amazed how many people want to shoot/criticize the messenger, when the messenger has shown us how inept and inadequate the VOSA is in handling the data.
The next question(s) is / are.......................................?
Form an orderly queue.
Complain about this comment
There's other vehicle info that should also be available. I recall that about 15 years ago, when I first had the opportunity to play with internet searching, I found a couple of sites with data on vehicle safety. The gave deaths per car mile by make and model.
The results were very interesting and not what many would have expected. I'll not quote anything because, if I do, the BBC may decide to post-moderate my comment away!
I've searched for similar data in more recent years, but never found it again.
Complain about this comment
Hi all - I put a visualisation of this data up here:
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/CarDataWorkbook/UKMOTFailureDashboard-2007?:embed=yes&:toolbar=yes
I'm happy to update any figures that people think are incorrect. I'll also be updating with further visualisations.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
The MOT has become officious - it used to be about safety which is a good thing, but in recent years including such things as numberplate text as failing the vehicle on the basis of being unsafe is absurd. (I am sure that many people involved with MOT's will know of many changes that are nothing to do with ensuring the safety of the vehicle but simply to do with administrative nonsense. These nonsensical extra tests should be removed from the MOT. John @ Prestige Car Hire
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS