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

Nissan Cabstar MOT Results

Registered in 2000
49.3% pass rate
from 272 tests in 2017
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 2000 vans and highlighted areas where the Nissan Cabstar is unusually good or bad.

  • 32% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 8.8% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 7.4% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 7.0% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.37% fail on Tell tale
    • 7.4% fail on Headlamps (85% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 7.4% fail on Headlamp (89% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.37% fail on Headlamp defects which do require an aim check on retest
        • 0.37% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 6.6% fail on Position lamps
      • 3.7% fail on Front lamps
      • 3.3% fail on Rear lamps
    • 6.6% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 5.5% fail on Direction indicators
      • 5.5% fail on Flashing type
        • 3.7% fail on Individual lamps
        • 1.5% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.37% fail on All direction indicators
    • 4.4% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.3% fail on Horn
    • 2.2% fail on Battery
    • 0.37% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.37% fail on Rear reflectors
    • 0.37% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 28% fail on Brakes (33% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 23% fail on Brake performance (81% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 17% fail on Parking brake performance (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 6.6% fail on Service brake performance
      • 6.3% fail on Rear wheels
      • 4.4% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.74% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.37% fail on Brake operation
      • 0.37% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 9.6% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 7.4% fail on Components
        • 5.1% fail on Pipes
        • 1.8% fail on Valves
        • 0.37% fail on Hoses
      • 1.5% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp (3 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.1% fail on Leaks
    • 2.6% fail on Hub components
      • 1.8% fail on Brake pads
      • 1.1% fail on Brake discs
    • 1.1% fail on Parking brake
      • 1.1% fail on Condition
    • 0.74% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.37% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.37% fail on Components
        • 0.37% fail on Reservoirs
    • 0.37% fail on Locking devices
  • 17% fail on Suspension
    • 5.9% fail on Prescribed areas (46% better than other 2000 vans)
      • 3.3% fail on Component mounting
      • 2.6% fail on Spring mounting
    • 5.5% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 3.3% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 2.9% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.74% fail on Attachment
      • 0.37% fail on Condition
      • 0.37% fail on Linkage condition
    • 2.6% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 2.6% fail on Condition
    • 2.2% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 2.2% fail on Front
    • 1.8% fail on Suspension arms
      • 1.8% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.8% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 1.5% fail on Leaf springs
      • 0.74% fail on Shackle bracket (10 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.37% fail on Condition
      • 0.37% fail on Pins and bushes
        • 0.37% fail on Shackle
      • 0.37% fail on Securing bolts
    • 0.37% fail on Axles
      • 0.37% fail on King pins
  • 14% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (150% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 14% fail on Seat belts (180% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 14% fail on Prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.37% fail on Requirements
      • 0.37% fail on Condition
  • 13% fail on Body, Structure and General Items (55% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 7.7% fail on Body condition
    • 4.0% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 4.0% fail on Chassis
    • 2.6% fail on Seats (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 2.6% fail on Drivers (4 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.37% fail on Engine mountings
    • 0.37% fail on Load security
      • 0.37% fail on Hinged tailboard
  • 12% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 7.0% fail on Washers
    • 4.8% fail on Wipers
    • 1.8% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.37% fail on Windscreen
  • 11% fail on Steering
    • 8.5% fail on Steering system
      • 2.6% fail on Track rod end
      • 2.6% fail on Other components (16 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 2.6% fail on Steering pivot point (17 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.8% fail on Drag link end (12 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.74% fail on Free play
        • 0.74% fail on Steering box (20 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.74% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.74% fail on Steering arm (5 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 1.1% fail on Prescribed areas (7 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.74% fail on Steering operation
    • 0.74% fail on Power steering
      • 0.74% fail on Pipes and hoses
      • 0.37% fail on Operation
  • 8.1% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 4.8% fail on Exhaust system
    • 2.6% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.8% fail on Tank (4 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.1% fail on Cap
      • 0.37% fail on System
    • 1.5% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 1.1% fail on Emissions
  • 3.7% fail on Tyres
    • 2.2% fail on Condition
    • 1.1% fail on Tread depth (73% better than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.74% fail on Size/type
  • 1.1% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.1% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.74% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.74% fail on Attachment
  • 0.37% fail on Towbars
    • 0.37% fail on Towbar