MOT Results

Honest John Vans MOT Results » Renault » Master » 1995
Do you have a minute to answer an electric vehicle survey? Start the survey | No thanks

Renault Master MOT Results

Registered in 1995
49.0% pass rate
from 147 tests in 2020
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.

  • 29% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 7.5% fail on Direction indicators (120% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 7.5% fail on Flashing type (120% worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 4.8% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 2.7% fail on Side repeaters
    • 6.8% fail on Registration plate lamp(s) (150% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 5.4% fail on Headlamps
      • 5.4% fail on Headlamp
    • 4.8% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.1% fail on Position lamp
      • 0.68% fail on All position lamps
    • 4.8% fail on Stop lamp
    • 3.4% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.4% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.4% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 3.4% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 3.4% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 2.7% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.4% fail on Horn
      • 0.68% fail on Electrical wiring
      • 0.68% fail on Battery(ies)
    • 2.0% fail on Rear reflectors (5 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 1.4% fail on Outline marker lamps
      • 0.68% fail on All outline marker lamps
      • 0.68% fail on Outline marker lamp
    • 0.68% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.68% fail on Switch
  • 27% fail on Suspension (44% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 13% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 8.2% fail on Wheel bearings (5 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 7.5% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.4% fail on Ball joint
      • 2.7% fail on Ball joint dust cover
      • 1.4% fail on Pins and bushes
    • 2.0% fail on Springs
      • 2.0% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 2.0% fail on Suspension rods (17 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 1.4% fail on Ball joint (32 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.68% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 1.4% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.68% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.68% fail on Attachment bracket and mounting
    • 0.68% fail on Shock absorbers
    • 0.68% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.68% fail on Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
  • 24% fail on Brakes (58% worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 20% fail on Brake performance (99% worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 14% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp) (4 times worse than other 1995 vans)
        • 14% fail on Rbt (sp) (4 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 9.5% fail on Service brake performance
        • 9.5% fail on Rbt
          • 7.5% fail on Service brake performance
          • 2.0% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 3.4% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 3.4% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 3.4% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.68% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 1.4% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 1.4% fail on Rbt
          • 1.4% fail on Parking (secondary brake performance) (14 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 2.0% fail on Load sensing valves
    • 1.4% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.68% fail on Hydraulic brake callipers
      • 0.68% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 1.4% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 0.68% fail on Brake discs and drums
        • 0.68% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.68% fail on Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages
        • 0.68% fail on Cable
    • 0.68% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.68% fail on Pedal
    • 0.68% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.68% fail on Lever
    • 0.68% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.68% fail on Valves
    • 0.68% fail on Other components and prescribed areas
      • 0.68% fail on Prescribed areas
        • 0.68% fail on Park brake mechanism/associated mountings
  • 20% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 6.1% fail on Chassis
      • 6.1% fail on Chassis condition
    • 5.4% fail on Exhaust system
    • 4.8% fail on Transmission
      • 4.1% fail on Drive shafts
        • 4.1% fail on Joints
      • 0.68% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.68% fail on Joints
    • 2.7% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 2.7% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 2.7% fail on Fuel system
      • 2.0% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device (6 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 0.68% fail on System
    • 1.4% fail on Bumpers
    • 1.4% fail on Body
      • 1.4% fail on Panel
  • 12% fail on Visibility
    • 4.8% fail on Wipers
    • 4.8% fail on Washers
    • 3.4% fail on View to rear (7 times worse than other 1995 vans)
      • 3.4% fail on Mirrors (8 times worse than other 1995 vans)
    • 0.68% fail on Driver's view
    • 0.68% fail on Bonnet
  • 7.5% fail on Tyres
    • 4.8% fail on Condition
    • 2.7% fail on Tread depth
  • 4.1% fail on Steering
    • 2.0% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 2.0% fail on Track rod end
    • 1.4% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.68% fail on Operation
      • 0.68% fail on Steering rack
    • 0.68% fail on Prescribed areas
    • 0.68% fail on Power steering
      • 0.68% fail on Other components
  • 4.1% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 4.1% fail on Seat belts
      • 2.7% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 2.0% fail on Requirements (9 times worse than other 1995 vans)
  • 3.4% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 2.7% fail on Fluid leaks
      • 2.7% fail on Engine oil leaks
    • 1.4% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 0.68% fail on Spark ignition
        • 0.68% fail on Emissions not tested
      • 0.68% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.68% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 0.68% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.68% fail on Registration plates