MOT Results

Honest John Vans MOT Results » Citroen » Berlingo » 1997
Do you have a minute to answer an electric vehicle survey? Start the survey | No thanks

Citroen Berlingo MOT Results

Registered in 1997
54.6% pass rate
from 207 tests in 2020
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 1997 vans and highlighted areas where the Citroen Berlingo is unusually good or bad.

  • 27% fail on Suspension (36% worse than other 1997 vans)
    • 13% fail on Suspension arms (2 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 6.3% fail on Ball joint (2 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 5.8% fail on Pins and bushes (6 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 0.97% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 0.48% fail on Suspension arm
      • 0.48% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 8.7% fail on Anti-roll bars (150% worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 2.9% fail on Linkage ball joints (4 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 2.4% fail on Ball joint (11 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 2.4% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (6 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 0.48% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.48% fail on Linkage pins and bushes
      • 0.48% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 8.7% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 1.9% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 1.9% fail on Springs
      • 1.9% fail on Coil springs
        • 1.9% fail on Coil spring
    • 1.4% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.97% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
      • 0.48% fail on Sub-frame
    • 0.97% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.97% fail on Macpherson strut (6 times worse than other 1997 vans)
      • 0.48% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.48% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.97% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.48% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.48% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.48% fail on Suspension rods
      • 0.48% fail on Ball joint
  • 18% fail on Brakes
    • 12% fail on Brake performance
      • 7.2% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 7.2% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 4.8% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 3.4% fail on Service brake performance
      • 4.3% fail on Service brake performance
        • 4.3% fail on Rbt
          • 3.9% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.48% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 3.4% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 3.4% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.97% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.97% fail on Rbt
          • 0.97% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.48% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 4.3% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 3.4% fail on Load sensing valves
    • 1.4% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 1.4% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 1.4% fail on Brake pads
    • 0.97% fail on Flexible brake hoses
    • 0.48% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.48% fail on Reservoirs
    • 0.48% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 0.48% fail on Prescribed areas
        • 0.48% fail on Other braking system component
  • 16% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 7.7% fail on Stop lamp
    • 5.8% fail on Direction indicators
      • 5.8% fail on Flashing type
        • 3.9% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 1.4% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.48% fail on All direction indicators
    • 3.9% fail on Position lamps
      • 3.9% fail on Position lamp
    • 1.9% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 1.9% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 1.9% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 1.9% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 1.9% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 0.97% fail on Headlamps
      • 0.97% fail on Headlamp
    • 0.97% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.48% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.48% fail on Switch
    • 0.48% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.48% fail on Horn
  • 12% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 6.3% fail on Exhaust system
    • 2.9% fail on Transmission
      • 2.9% fail on Drive shafts
        • 2.9% fail on Joints
    • 1.9% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 1.9% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 1.4% fail on Chassis
      • 1.4% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.97% fail on Seats
      • 0.97% fail on Passenger's seat
    • 0.48% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.48% fail on System
  • 8.7% fail on Visibility
    • 4.3% fail on Wipers
    • 3.9% fail on Washers
    • 0.48% fail on Bonnet
    • 0.48% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.48% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.48% fail on View to rear
      • 0.48% fail on Mirrors
  • 7.7% fail on Tyres
    • 3.9% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.9% fail on Condition
    • 1.4% fail on Size/type (6 times worse than other 1997 vans)
  • 7.2% fail on Steering
    • 5.8% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 5.8% fail on Track rod end (170% worse than other 1997 vans)
    • 1.4% fail on Steering gear
      • 1.4% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.48% fail on Power steering
      • 0.48% fail on Other components
  • 3.4% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 1.9% fail on Seat belts
      • 1.4% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.48% fail on Condition
    • 1.4% fail on SRS malfunction indicator lamp (13 times worse than other 1997 vans)
  • 0.48% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.48% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.48% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 0.48% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.48% fail on Other leaks
  • 0.48% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.48% fail on Attachment