MOT Results

Honest John Vans MOT Results » LDV » Convoy » 1996
Dream car or Budget, which comes first? Tell us your thoughts | No thanks

LDV Convoy MOT Results

Registered in 1996
49.5% pass rate
from 111 tests in 2017
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 1996 vans and highlighted areas where the LDV Convoy is unusually good or bad.

  • 34% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 14% fail on Registration plate lamp (110% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 12% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 9.9% fail on Horn (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 9.0% fail on Battery (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 7.2% fail on Direction indicators
      • 7.2% fail on Flashing type
        • 3.6% fail on Individual lamps
        • 3.6% fail on Side repeaters
        • 1.8% fail on All direction indicators
    • 6.3% fail on Position lamps
      • 5.4% fail on Front lamps
      • 2.7% fail on Rear lamps
    • 3.6% fail on Electrical wiring (6 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 3.6% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 2.7% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.90% fail on Tell tale
    • 3.6% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.7% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.90% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.90% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 2.7% fail on Stop lamp
    • 1.8% fail on Hazard warning
      • 1.8% fail on Switch
      • 0.90% fail on Lamp
      • 0.90% fail on Tell tale
    • 0.90% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.90% fail on Rear reflectors
  • 31% fail on Brakes (65% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 24% fail on Brake performance (110% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 13% fail on Front wheels (170% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 13% fail on Rear wheels (130% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 7.2% fail on Service brake performance
      • 6.3% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 5.4% fail on Brake imbalance (3 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.8% fail on Brake performance not tested (6 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 11% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 11% fail on Components
        • 9.0% fail on Pipes
        • 0.90% fail on Reservoirs
        • 0.90% fail on Servos
      • 0.90% fail on Leaks
    • 3.6% fail on Hub components
      • 2.7% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.90% fail on Wheel cylinder
    • 1.8% fail on Service brake control components
      • 1.8% fail on Pedal
        • 1.8% fail on Condition (5 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 1.8% fail on Air and vacuum systems (31 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.8% fail on Operation (114 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 0.90% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.90% fail on Condition
    • 0.90% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.90% fail on Park brake mechanism/associated mountings
  • 20% fail on Suspension
    • 9.9% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 8.1% fail on Component mounting
      • 1.8% fail on Spring mounting
    • 5.4% fail on Wheel bearings (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 5.4% fail on Front (3 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 2.7% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.90% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.90% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.90% fail on Attachment
    • 2.7% fail on Axles (20 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 2.7% fail on King pins (68 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 2.7% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 2.7% fail on Condition
    • 0.90% fail on Leaf springs
      • 0.90% fail on Anchor bracket
    • 0.90% fail on Front suspension joints
  • 18% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (130% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 8.1% fail on Vehicle structure (200% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 8.1% fail on Chassis (200% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 7.2% fail on Body condition
    • 5.4% fail on Seats (7 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 3.6% fail on Drivers (6 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.8% fail on Passengers (7 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 2.7% fail on Doors
      • 2.7% fail on Drivers (6 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 1.8% fail on Body security (9 times worse than other 1996 vans)
  • 14% fail on Tyres (140% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 8.1% fail on Condition (180% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 8.1% fail on Tread depth (170% worse than other 1996 vans)
  • 14% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 9.0% fail on Washers (130% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 7.2% fail on Wipers
    • 1.8% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.90% fail on Bonnet
  • 13% fail on Steering (100% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 6.3% fail on Power steering (5 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 2.7% fail on Operation (6 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.8% fail on Pipes and hoses (5 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.90% fail on Drive system
      • 0.90% fail on Other components
    • 5.4% fail on Steering system
      • 2.7% fail on Track rod end
      • 1.8% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.90% fail on Steering box
    • 1.8% fail on Prescribed areas (18 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 0.90% fail on Steering operation
  • 13% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 6.3% fail on Exhaust system
    • 3.6% fail on Emissions
    • 3.6% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.8% fail on Cap
      • 0.90% fail on Tank
      • 0.90% fail on System
  • 9.9% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 9.9% fail on Seat belts
      • 7.2% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 1.8% fail on Requirements (5 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.8% fail on Attachment (11 times worse than other 1996 vans)
  • 2.7% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 2.7% fail on Registration plate