MOT Results

Honest John Vans MOT Results » Nissan » Vanette » 2000

Nissan Vanette MOT Results

Registered in 2000
40.7% pass rate
from 204 tests in 2020
(27% worse than other 2000 vans)
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 2000 vans and highlighted areas where the Nissan Vanette is unusually good or bad.

  • 40% fail on Suspension (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 35% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 8.8% fail on Springs (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 6.4% fail on Leaf springs (5 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 4.9% fail on Shackle pins and bushes (15 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.49% fail on Leaf spring
        • 0.49% fail on Anchor bracket
        • 0.49% fail on Anchor pins and bushes
      • 2.9% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.4% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.5% fail on Linkage ball joints
      • 1.5% fail on Linkage ball joint dust cover (5 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.98% fail on Linkage
      • 0.49% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 2.0% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.98% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.49% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
      • 0.49% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.98% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.98% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.49% fail on Shock absorbers
  • 27% fail on Brakes (48% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 19% fail on Brake performance (62% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 10% fail on Service brake performance (110% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 10% fail on Rbt (110% worse than other 2000 vans)
          • 7.4% fail on Service brake performance
          • 3.9% fail on Service brake imbalance (190% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 7.8% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 7.8% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 6.4% fail on Service brake imbalance (120% worse than other 2000 vans)
          • 2.5% fail on Service brake performance
      • 4.4% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 4.4% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 3.4% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 3.4% fail on Rbt
          • 3.4% fail on Parking brake performance (180% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.98% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 15% fail on Rigid brake pipes (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 2.9% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 2.9% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 2.5% fail on Brake pads
        • 0.49% fail on Brake linings
    • 0.98% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.98% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder (6 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.49% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.49% fail on Pressure/vacuum build up
    • 0.49% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.49% fail on Valves
    • 0.49% fail on Load sensing valves
  • 24% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 8.3% fail on Stop lamp
    • 5.9% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 4.4% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 1.5% fail on Headlamp aim not tested (4 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 5.4% fail on Headlamps
      • 5.4% fail on Headlamp
    • 2.5% fail on Position lamps
      • 2.5% fail on Position lamp
    • 2.5% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.5% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.98% fail on Horn
    • 2.0% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.0% fail on Flashing type
        • 0.98% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.98% fail on Side repeaters
    • 2.0% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 2.0% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 1.5% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.49% fail on Switch
    • 0.98% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.98% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 0.98% fail on Main beam tell-tale (16 times worse than other 2000 vans)
  • 19% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 7.4% fail on Chassis (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 7.4% fail on Chassis condition (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.9% fail on Exhaust system
    • 3.4% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 3.4% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 1.5% fail on Towbar
      • 1.5% fail on Vehicle structure (3 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.98% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.49% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device
      • 0.49% fail on System
    • 0.98% fail on Transmission
      • 0.49% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.49% fail on Joints
      • 0.49% fail on Belts
    • 0.49% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.49% fail on Floor
  • 16% fail on Visibility
    • 9.8% fail on Wipers (88% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 6.4% fail on Washers
    • 0.49% fail on Condition of glass
      • 0.49% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.49% fail on View to rear
      • 0.49% fail on Mirrors
  • 9.3% fail on Steering
    • 4.9% fail on Steering gear (150% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 4.9% fail on Steering rack (170% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 2.9% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 1.5% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.49% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.49% fail on Drag link end
      • 0.49% fail on Locking devices
    • 2.5% fail on Power steering (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 2.5% fail on Other components (9 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.49% fail on Operation
  • 7.8% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 5.4% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 5.4% fail on Compression ignition
        • 3.9% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo (6 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 1.5% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.49% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
    • 2.5% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 0.98% fail on Engine oil leaks
      • 0.98% fail on Hydraulic fluid leaks (23 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.98% fail on Other leaks (6 times worse than other 2000 vans)
  • 5.9% fail on Tyres
    • 4.4% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.98% fail on Size/type
    • 0.98% fail on Condition
  • 2.9% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 2.9% fail on Seat belts
      • 1.5% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 1.5% fail on Condition
      • 0.49% fail on Requirements
  • 2.0% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 2.0% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.49% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.49% fail on Attachment