Nissan Navara MOT Results

Registered in 2010
63.6% pass rate
from 2,527 tests in 2017
(8.0% better than other 2010 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 2010 vans and highlighted areas where the Nissan Navara is unusually good or bad.

  • 19% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment (21% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 7.8% fail on Registration plate lamp (25% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 5.6% fail on Position lamps (20% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 4.9% fail on Front lamps
      • 1.1% fail on Rear lamps (41% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.040% fail on All position lamps
    • 3.0% fail on Headlamp aim (33% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 2.8% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.8% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.6% fail on Side repeaters (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.24% fail on Individual lamps (86% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 2.5% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.3% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.20% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest (11 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.20% fail on Headlamp cleaning device (55 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 2.3% fail on Stop lamp (62% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 1.1% fail on Rear fog lamp (37% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 1.1% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.040% fail on Tell tale
    • 0.75% fail on Horn
    • 0.32% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.24% fail on Battery
    • 0.16% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.16% fail on Switch
    • 0.12% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.12% fail on Rear reflectors
  • 13% fail on Suspension
    • 4.4% fail on Suspension arms (100% worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 4.4% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (100% worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.040% fail on Condition
    • 3.7% fail on Front suspension joints (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 2.5% fail on Drive shafts
      • 2.3% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 2.2% fail on Constant velocity joints
        • 0.040% fail on Couplings
      • 0.20% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.12% fail on Universal joint (14 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.079% fail on Drive shafts
    • 1.6% fail on Leaf springs (110% worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 1.5% fail on Condition (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.079% fail on Securing bolts
      • 0.040% fail on Pins and bushes
        • 0.040% fail on Shackle
      • 0.040% fail on Shackle bracket
    • 1.1% fail on Anti-roll bars (74% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.67% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints (77% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.24% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (79% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.12% fail on Attachment
      • 0.079% fail on Linkage condition
      • 0.040% fail on Condition
    • 0.91% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.87% fail on Front
      • 0.079% fail on Rear
    • 0.67% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 0.67% fail on Condition
    • 0.20% fail on Coil springs (91% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.20% fail on Condition (91% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.040% fail on Air suspension
      • 0.040% fail on Pipes
    • 0.040% fail on Radius arms
      • 0.040% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.040% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.040% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.040% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.040% fail on Condition
    • 0.040% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.040% fail on Spring mounting
  • 7.8% fail on Brakes (33% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 3.3% fail on Hub components (24% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 2.9% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.40% fail on Brake discs (63% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.12% fail on Brake drums (21 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.079% fail on Wheel cylinder (15 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 2.7% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 2.6% fail on Components
        • 1.9% fail on Pipes
        • 0.51% fail on Valves (9 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.24% fail on Hoses
      • 0.040% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
      • 0.040% fail on Operation
      • 0.040% fail on Leaks
    • 2.0% fail on Brake performance (62% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.83% fail on Front wheels
      • 0.83% fail on Rear wheels (64% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.28% fail on Parking brake performance (92% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.24% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.24% fail on Service brake performance
      • 0.079% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 0.55% fail on ABS
    • 0.44% fail on Electronic stability system (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.12% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.079% fail on Service brake control components (88% better than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.079% fail on Pedal (88% better than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.040% fail on Condition
        • 0.040% fail on Anti-slip
    • 0.040% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.040% fail on Condition
  • 7.5% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 4.1% fail on Washers (32% worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 3.0% fail on Wipers
    • 0.40% fail on Windscreen (61% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.36% fail on Mirrors
  • 5.2% fail on Steering (38% worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 3.9% fail on Steering system
      • 3.3% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.24% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.16% fail on Free play
        • 0.16% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.12% fail on Steering arm
      • 0.12% fail on Other components (3 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.079% fail on Steering component (25 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.040% fail on Steering pivot point
      • 0.040% fail on Steering rack
    • 1.1% fail on Steering control (12 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.67% fail on Steering coupling (24 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.44% fail on Universal joint (19 times worse than other 2010 vans)
        • 0.24% fail on Flexible coupling (49 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.28% fail on Steering shaft (38 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.16% fail on Steering column (6 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.28% fail on Power steering
      • 0.12% fail on Operation
      • 0.079% fail on Other components
      • 0.040% fail on Drive system
      • 0.040% fail on Pump
  • 4.9% fail on Tyres (22% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 3.6% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.1% fail on Condition (59% better than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.16% fail on Size/type
    • 0.12% fail on Valve stem
  • 2.6% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (100% worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 2.2% fail on Supplementary restraint systems (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 2.1% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
      • 0.16% fail on Drivers airbag (3 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.47% fail on Seat belts
      • 0.36% fail on Condition
      • 0.16% fail on Requirements
  • 2.3% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 2.2% fail on Exhaust system (140% worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.16% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.040% fail on Emissions
  • 1.4% fail on Registration plates and VIN (71% worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 1.4% fail on Registration plate (71% worse than other 2010 vans)
  • 0.63% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 0.36% fail on Body condition
    • 0.12% fail on Doors
      • 0.040% fail on Drivers
      • 0.040% fail on Passengers front
      • 0.040% fail on Passengers other
    • 0.079% fail on Spare wheel
    • 0.040% fail on Engine mountings
    • 0.040% fail on Body security
  • 0.55% fail on Road Wheels (160% worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.51% fail on Attachment (2 times worse than other 2010 vans)
    • 0.040% fail on Condition
  • 0.079% fail on Towbars
    • 0.040% fail on Towbar
    • 0.040% fail on Swivelling towbar