Do you have a minute to answer an electric vehicle survey? Start the survey | No thanks

Citroen C15 MOT Results

Registered in 1992
43.4% pass rate
from 113 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 vans and highlighted areas where the Citroen C15 is unusually good or bad.

  • 40% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (69% worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 17% fail on Direction indicators (3 times worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 17% fail on Flashing type (3 times worse than other 1992 vans)
        • 13% fail on Side repeaters (7 times worse than other 1992 vans)
        • 2.7% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.88% fail on All direction indicators
    • 15% fail on Headlamp aim (2 times worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 15% fail on Headlamp aim (2 times worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 9.7% fail on Headlamps (120% worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 8.0% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.88% fail on Dipswitch
      • 0.88% fail on Headlamp levelling device
    • 8.0% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (190% worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 6.2% fail on Position lamps
      • 6.2% fail on Position lamp
    • 6.2% fail on Hazard warning (6 times worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 6.2% fail on Switch (6 times worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 5.3% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 5.3% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 4.4% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 1.8% fail on Switch
    • 1.8% fail on Stop lamp
    • 1.8% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 1.8% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
    • 0.88% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.88% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 0.88% fail on Battery(ies)
  • 26% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 9.7% fail on Transmission
      • 9.7% fail on Drive shafts (120% worse than other 1992 vans)
        • 9.7% fail on Joints (120% worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 6.2% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 6.2% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 5.3% fail on Chassis
      • 5.3% fail on Chassis condition
    • 5.3% fail on Exhaust system
    • 3.5% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.8% fail on Pipe
      • 1.8% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
    • 1.8% fail on Body
      • 0.88% fail on Panel
      • 0.88% fail on Other body component
    • 1.8% fail on Doors
      • 1.8% fail on Driver's door (7 times worse than other 1992 vans)
        • 1.8% fail on Door condition (7 times worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 1.8% fail on Floor (20 times worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 0.88% fail on Cabs
      • 0.88% fail on Prescribed areas
  • 23% fail on Brakes
    • 16% fail on Brake performance
      • 9.7% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 9.7% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 5.3% fail on Service brake imbalance
          • 4.4% fail on Service brake performance
      • 8.8% fail on Service brake performance
        • 8.8% fail on Rbt
          • 7.1% fail on Service brake performance
          • 2.7% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 1.8% fail on Brake performance not tested
      • 0.88% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 0.88% fail on Rbt (sp)
    • 4.4% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 4.4% fail on Load sensing valves
    • 3.5% fail on Other components and prescribed areas (10 times worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 3.5% fail on Prescribed areas (13 times worse than other 1992 vans)
        • 2.7% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting (23 times worse than other 1992 vans)
        • 0.88% fail on Actuating linkage mounting
        • 0.88% fail on Other braking system component
    • 1.8% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 1.8% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 1.8% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.88% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.88% fail on Pedal
      • 0.88% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.88% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.88% fail on Lever
  • 15% fail on Suspension
    • 11% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 5.3% fail on Suspension arms
      • 2.7% fail on Pins and bushes (3 times worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 2.7% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 1.8% fail on Ball joint
    • 3.5% fail on Sub-frames (4 times worse than other 1992 vans)
      • 3.5% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (4 times worse than other 1992 vans)
    • 1.8% fail on Springs
      • 0.88% fail on Coil springs
        • 0.88% fail on Coil spring
      • 0.88% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.88% fail on Wheel bearings
  • 13% fail on Visibility
    • 8.0% fail on Washers
    • 5.3% fail on Wipers
    • 0.88% fail on Driver's view
  • 8.0% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 8.0% fail on Seat belts
      • 8.0% fail on Prescribed areas
  • 5.3% fail on Steering
    • 2.7% fail on Steering gear
      • 2.7% fail on Steering rack
    • 2.7% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 2.7% fail on Track rod end
  • 2.7% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 2.7% fail on Registration plates
  • 2.7% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 2.7% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 2.7% fail on Compression ignition
        • 1.8% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.88% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
  • 1.8% fail on Tyres
    • 1.8% fail on Condition
  • 0.88% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.88% fail on Condition
    • 0.88% fail on Attachment