MOT Results

Honest John Vans MOT Results » Renault » Master » 1995

Renault Master MOT Results

Registered in 1995
48.6% pass rate
from 107 tests in 2020
(13% worse than other 1995 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 1995 vans and highlighted areas where the Renault Master is unusually good or bad.

  • 28% fail on Brakes (76% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 22% fail on Brake performance (110% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 16% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (4 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 15% fail on Rbt (sp) (5 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 0.93% fail on Decelerometer (sp)
      • 5.6% fail on Service brake performance (4.6% worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 5.6% fail on Rbt (6.6% worse than other 1995 vans)
          • 5.6% fail on Service brake performance (31% worse than other 1995 vans)
          • 2.8% fail on Service brake imbalance (94% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 5.6% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (7.7% worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 5.6% fail on Rbt (sp) (10% worse than other 1995 vans)
          • 4.7% fail on Service brake performance (70% worse than other 1995 vans)
          • 1.9% fail on Service brake imbalance (35% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 3.7% fail on Parking brake performance (3 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 3.7% fail on Rbt (3 times worse than other 1995 vans)
          • 2.8% fail on Parking brake performance (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
          • 0.93% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance)
      • 0.93% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 4.7% fail on Load sensing valves (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 2.8% fail on Rigid brake pipes (25% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 2.8% fail on Mechanical brake components (47% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Brake linings and pads (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 2.8% fail on Brake pads (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever (110% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Pedal (160% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders) (11 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
      • 0.93% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.93% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 0.93% fail on Prescribed areas
        • 0.93% fail on Actuating linkage mounting
  • 28% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment (28% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 9.3% fail on Direction indicators (180% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 9.3% fail on Flashing type (180% worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 6.5% fail on Individual direction indicators (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 4.7% fail on Side repeaters (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 9.3% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (3 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 8.4% fail on Stop lamp (130% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 7.5% fail on Headlamps (68% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 7.5% fail on Headlamp (77% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 6.5% fail on Electrical equipment (29% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 4.7% fail on Battery(ies) (180% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Electrical wiring
      • 0.93% fail on Horn
    • 4.7% fail on Headlamp aim (4.6% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 3.7% fail on Headlamp aim (17% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
    • 4.7% fail on Front and rear fog lamps (24% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 4.7% fail on Rear fog lamp (24% better than other 1995 vans)
        • 4.7% fail on Rear fog lamp (22% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Position lamps (3 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Position lamp (3 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 0.93% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.93% fail on Switch
    • 0.93% fail on Rear reflectors
  • 24% fail on Suspension (28% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 16% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (66% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 4.7% fail on Wheel bearings (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 3.7% fail on Shock absorbers (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Suspension arms (56% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.93% fail on Ball joint
    • 1.9% fail on Suspension rods (20 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.93% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.93% fail on Springs
      • 0.93% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
  • 17% fail on Body, chassis, structure (8.0% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 4.7% fail on Integral vehicle structure (23% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 4.7% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition (24% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 3.7% fail on Exhaust system (14% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 3.7% fail on Fuel system (4 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Pipe (6 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device (5 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Tank
    • 2.8% fail on Chassis (21% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Chassis condition (20% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 2.8% fail on Transmission (0.66% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Drive shafts (36% worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 2.8% fail on Joints (39% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Bumpers (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 0.93% fail on Body
      • 0.93% fail on Other body component
    • 0.93% fail on Seats
      • 0.93% fail on Driver's seat
  • 9.3% fail on Steering (63% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 6.5% fail on Steering linkage components (160% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 4.7% fail on Track rod end (130% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Ball joint (6 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 0.93% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.93% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.93% fail on Prescribed areas
    • 0.93% fail on Steering play
      • 0.93% fail on Steering rack
  • 9.3% fail on Visibility (0.030% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 4.7% fail on Wipers (11% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 3.7% fail on Washers (1.2% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 0.93% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.93% fail on View to rear
      • 0.93% fail on Mirrors
  • 5.6% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (30% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 5.6% fail on Seat belts (32% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Prescribed areas (17% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Requirements (11 times worse than other 1995 vans)
  • 4.7% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks (8.1% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 2.8% fail on Fluid leaks (150% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 2.8% fail on Engine oil leaks (2 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Exhaust emissions (43% better than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.93% fail on Spark ignition
        • 0.93% fail on Catalyst emissions
      • 0.93% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.93% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Non turbo
  • 2.8% fail on Tyres (28% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Condition (2.8% better than other 1995 vans)
    • 0.93% fail on Size/type
    • 0.93% fail on Tread depth
  • 1.9% fail on Identification of the vehicle (110% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.9% fail on Registration plates (120% worse than other 1995 vans)