Mazda Bongo MOT Results

Registered in 1996
45.5% pass rate
from 1,990 tests in 2017
(13% worse than other 1996 vans)
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 1996 vans and highlighted areas where the Mazda Bongo is unusually good or bad.

  • 31% fail on Suspension (38% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 17% fail on Prescribed areas (43% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 14% fail on Component mounting (69% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 3.2% fail on Subframe mounting (57% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.7% fail on Spring mounting (49% better than other 1996 vans)
    • 14% fail on Anti-roll bars (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 9.3% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 3.9% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Attachment (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.90% fail on Linkage condition (86% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.25% fail on Condition (3 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 4.8% fail on Suspension arms (62% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 4.7% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (68% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.050% fail on Condition
    • 2.9% fail on Drive shafts
      • 2.8% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 2.8% fail on Constant velocity joints
      • 0.10% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.10% fail on Drive shafts
    • 2.6% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 0.50% fail on Shock absorbers (74% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.50% fail on Condition (74% better than other 1996 vans)
    • 0.25% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.25% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.15% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.15% fail on Condition
    • 0.10% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.10% fail on Condition
    • 0.050% fail on Torsion bars
      • 0.050% fail on Attachment
    • 0.050% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.050% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.050% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.050% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.050% fail on Torque/reaction arms
      • 0.050% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.050% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.050% fail on Front
  • 30% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (11% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 12% fail on Rear fog lamp (99% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 12% fail on Fog lamp (100% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.2% fail on Tell tale (100% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.30% fail on Switch
    • 6.3% fail on Stop lamp (42% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 6.3% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 5.7% fail on Position lamps
      • 3.7% fail on Front lamps
      • 2.0% fail on Rear lamps
      • 0.10% fail on All position lamps
    • 5.5% fail on Headlamps
      • 5.4% fail on Headlamp (29% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.10% fail on Matched pair
      • 0.050% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest
        • 0.050% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
      • 0.050% fail on Switch
    • 5.5% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 1.9% fail on Battery (37% better than other 1996 vans)
    • 1.7% fail on Horn (48% better than other 1996 vans)
    • 1.1% fail on Direction indicators (66% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.1% fail on Flashing type (66% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 0.50% fail on Individual lamps (72% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 0.45% fail on Side repeaters (55% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 0.10% fail on All direction indicators
    • 0.40% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.30% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 0.10% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.10% fail on Hazard warning (87% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.10% fail on Lamp
    • 0.050% fail on Rear reflectors
  • 13% fail on Brakes (32% better than other 1996 vans)
    • 6.4% fail on Brake performance (45% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Front wheels (41% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 2.1% fail on Rear wheels (63% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.5% fail on Parking brake performance (65% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 1.3% fail on Service brake performance (58% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.30% fail on Brake imbalance (74% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.15% fail on Brake operation
      • 0.050% fail on Parking brake operation
      • 0.050% fail on Gradient hand brake
      • 0.050% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 3.9% fail on Hub components (75% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 3.3% fail on Brake pads (140% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.90% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.10% fail on Brake calipers
    • 2.5% fail on Hydraulic systems (67% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 2.5% fail on Components (65% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 2.3% fail on Pipes (44% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 0.20% fail on Hoses (90% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 0.050% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.10% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
      • 0.050% fail on Leaks
    • 1.1% fail on ABS (2 times worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 0.55% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.55% fail on Condition
    • 0.35% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.10% fail on Service brake control components (86% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.10% fail on Pedal (86% better than other 1996 vans)
        • 0.050% fail on Condition
        • 0.050% fail on Anti-slip
  • 10% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 7.2% fail on Wipers
    • 3.2% fail on Washers
    • 0.90% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.25% fail on Mirrors (65% better than other 1996 vans)
  • 9.5% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 6.1% fail on Exhaust system
    • 2.2% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.6% fail on System (76% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.50% fail on Cap
      • 0.10% fail on Pipe
      • 0.050% fail on Tank
    • 1.8% fail on Emissions
    • 0.65% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 8.4% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 5.5% fail on Body condition (29% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 2.6% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 2.6% fail on Chassis
    • 0.35% fail on Doors
      • 0.20% fail on Passengers other
      • 0.10% fail on Drivers
      • 0.050% fail on Passengers front
    • 0.20% fail on Seats (70% better than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.20% fail on Passengers
    • 0.050% fail on Body security
  • 6.5% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 6.3% fail on Seat belts
      • 5.5% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.50% fail on Condition
      • 0.30% fail on Requirements
      • 0.15% fail on Attachment
    • 0.20% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.20% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
  • 5.9% fail on Tyres
    • 3.2% fail on Tread depth
    • 2.5% fail on Condition
    • 0.30% fail on Valve stem
    • 0.15% fail on Size/type
  • 5.8% fail on Steering
    • 4.3% fail on Steering system
      • 2.5% fail on Track rod end
      • 1.8% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.25% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.050% fail on Free play
        • 0.050% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.050% fail on Steering box
    • 1.2% fail on Power steering
      • 0.95% fail on Other components (180% worse than other 1996 vans)
      • 0.20% fail on Pipes and hoses
      • 0.050% fail on Operation
    • 0.25% fail on Steering control
      • 0.20% fail on Steering coupling
        • 0.20% fail on Universal joint
      • 0.050% fail on Steering column
    • 0.15% fail on Prescribed areas
    • 0.10% fail on Locking devices
  • 1.2% fail on Towbars (110% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 1.2% fail on Vehicle structure (130% worse than other 1996 vans)
    • 0.050% fail on Towbar
  • 0.40% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.40% fail on Attachment
  • 0.35% fail on Registration plates and VIN (72% better than other 1996 vans)
    • 0.35% fail on Registration plate (71% better than other 1996 vans)