Dream car or Budget, which comes first? Tell us your thoughts | No thanks

Isuzu Rodeo MOT Results

Registered in 2009
58.9% pass rate
from 722 tests in 2017
Pass rate by mileage
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 2009 vans and highlighted areas where the Isuzu Rodeo is unusually good or bad.

  • 26% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 8.9% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 7.2% fail on Position lamps
      • 5.8% fail on Front lamps
      • 1.8% fail on Rear lamps
      • 0.28% fail on All position lamps
    • 6.0% fail on Stop lamp
    • 5.1% fail on Rear fog lamp (160% worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 5.1% fail on Fog lamp (160% worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 4.8% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 4.0% fail on Headlamps
      • 4.0% fail on Headlamp
    • 3.6% fail on Direction indicators
      • 3.6% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.9% fail on Side repeaters (2 times worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.42% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.28% fail on Individual lamps (84% better than other 2009 vans)
    • 0.55% fail on Horn
    • 0.42% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.28% fail on Battery
    • 0.14% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.14% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.14% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.14% fail on Lamp
    • 0.14% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 20% fail on Suspension (33% worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 11% fail on Shock absorbers (7 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 11% fail on Condition (7 times worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 7.3% fail on Leaf springs (5 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 3.9% fail on Pins and bushes (17 times worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 3.3% fail on Shackle (19 times worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.42% fail on Anchor (6 times worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.14% fail on Other pins and bushes
      • 3.6% fail on Condition (4 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.28% fail on Spring eye
      • 0.14% fail on Spring saddle
    • 4.0% fail on Wheel bearings (2 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 4.0% fail on Front (3 times worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 3.9% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 2.8% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (120% worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 1.1% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (67% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.42% fail on Attachment
    • 2.8% fail on Suspension arms
      • 2.8% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.1% fail on Drive shafts (61% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.97% fail on Front drive shafts (65% better than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.69% fail on Constant velocity joints (75% better than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.42% fail on Drive shafts (18 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.14% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.14% fail on Universal joint
    • 0.97% fail on Front suspension joints
  • 13% fail on Brakes
    • 6.6% fail on Hydraulic systems (90% worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 5.8% fail on Components (80% worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 5.3% fail on Pipes (94% worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.69% fail on Hoses
      • 1.4% fail on Operation (15 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.28% fail on Leaks
    • 3.7% fail on Brake performance (43% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 2.1% fail on Parking brake performance (52% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 1.1% fail on Rear wheels (62% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.55% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.42% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.28% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.28% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.9% fail on ABS (2 times worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 1.4% fail on Parking brake
      • 1.4% fail on Condition
    • 1.4% fail on Service brake control components
      • 1.4% fail on Pedal
        • 0.83% fail on Anti-slip
        • 0.55% fail on Condition (6 times worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 1.2% fail on Hub components (70% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.97% fail on Brake pads (70% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.28% fail on Brake discs
    • 0.14% fail on Mechanical components
      • 0.14% fail on Cable
    • 0.14% fail on Restricted movement
  • 6.9% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 3.2% fail on Wipers
    • 3.0% fail on Washers
    • 0.69% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.55% fail on Windscreen
  • 5.0% fail on Tyres
    • 3.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.4% fail on Condition
    • 0.28% fail on Size/type
    • 0.28% fail on Valve stem
  • 2.6% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 2.4% fail on Supplementary restraint systems (2 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp (180% worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.42% fail on Drivers airbag (6 times worse than other 2009 vans)
    • 0.28% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.28% fail on Condition
  • 1.7% fail on Steering (56% better than other 2009 vans)
    • 1.2% fail on Steering system (62% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.69% fail on Track rod end (73% better than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.55% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.42% fail on Steering control (4 times worse than other 2009 vans)
      • 0.42% fail on Steering coupling (14 times worse than other 2009 vans)
        • 0.42% fail on Universal joint (21 times worse than other 2009 vans)
  • 1.2% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.2% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.97% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.42% fail on Body condition
    • 0.14% fail on Speedometer
    • 0.14% fail on Body security
    • 0.14% fail on Doors
      • 0.14% fail on Passengers other
    • 0.14% fail on Load security
      • 0.14% fail on Tailgate
  • 0.55% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (77% better than other 2009 vans)
    • 0.55% fail on Exhaust system
  • 0.28% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.28% fail on Attachment
  • 0.14% fail on Towbars
    • 0.14% fail on Towbar