MOT Results

Honest John Vans MOT Results » Citroen » Relay » 1995
Do you have a minute to answer an electric vehicle survey? Start the survey | No thanks

Citroen Relay MOT Results

Registered in 1995
60.7% pass rate
from 61 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 1995 vans and highlighted areas where the Citroen Relay is unusually good or bad.

  • 25% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 9.8% fail on Direction indicators (190% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 9.8% fail on Flashing type (190% worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 6.6% fail on Side repeaters (3 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 3.3% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 8.2% fail on Stop lamp
    • 6.6% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 6.6% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 6.6% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 3.3% fail on Headlamps
      • 3.3% fail on Headlamp
    • 3.3% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.3% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.3% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 3.3% fail on Horn
    • 1.6% fail on Position lamps
      • 1.6% fail on Position lamp
    • 1.6% fail on Hazard warning
      • 1.6% fail on Switch
    • 1.6% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
  • 20% fail on Brakes
    • 13% fail on Brake performance
      • 8.2% fail on Service brake performance
        • 8.2% fail on Rbt
          • 6.6% fail on Service brake performance
          • 1.6% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 8.2% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 8.2% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 4.9% fail on Service brake performance
          • 4.9% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 4.9% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 4.9% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 1.6% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 6.6% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 3.3% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 1.6% fail on Servos
      • 1.6% fail on Valves
    • 1.6% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 1.6% fail on Additional braking device
  • 20% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 8.2% fail on Chassis
      • 8.2% fail on Chassis condition
    • 6.6% fail on Transmission
      • 6.6% fail on Drive shafts
        • 6.6% fail on Joints
    • 4.9% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 4.9% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 4.9% fail on Fuel system
      • 3.3% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device (11 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.6% fail on System
    • 1.6% fail on Bumpers
    • 1.6% fail on Towbar
      • 1.6% fail on Vehicle structure
    • 1.6% fail on Body
      • 1.6% fail on Other body component
    • 1.6% fail on Doors
      • 1.6% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 1.6% fail on Door condition
  • 18% fail on Suspension
    • 15% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 8.2% fail on Sub-frames (6 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 8.2% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (7 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.6% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 1.6% fail on Springs
      • 1.6% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 1.6% fail on Shock absorbers
  • 16% fail on Visibility
    • 11% fail on Washers (180% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 6.6% fail on Wipers
    • 1.6% fail on View to rear
      • 1.6% fail on Mirrors
  • 9.8% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 9.8% fail on Seat belts
      • 6.6% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 3.3% fail on Requirements (15 times worse than other 1995 vans)
  • 4.9% fail on Steering
    • 1.6% fail on Power steering
      • 1.6% fail on Operation
    • 1.6% fail on Steering coupling
      • 1.6% fail on Universal joint
    • 1.6% fail on Steering play
      • 1.6% fail on Steering rack
  • 3.3% fail on Tyres
    • 3.3% fail on Size/type (9 times worse than other 1995 vans)
  • 1.6% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 1.6% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 1.6% fail on Other leaks