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

Renault Master MOT Results

Registered in 2000
46.3% pass rate
from 1,043 tests in 2017
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 2000 vans and highlighted areas where the Renault Master is unusually good or bad.

  • 29% fail on Brakes (38% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 21% fail on Brake performance (63% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 12% fail on Parking brake performance (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 9.3% fail on Rear wheels (70% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 8.5% fail on Service brake performance (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 5.2% fail on Front wheels
      • 1.3% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.19% fail on Brake operation
      • 0.19% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 12% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 11% fail on Components
        • 5.9% fail on Valves (110% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 3.8% fail on Pipes
        • 2.8% fail on Hoses
        • 0.38% fail on Reservoirs
      • 0.67% fail on Leaks
      • 0.38% fail on Operation
      • 0.19% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
    • 1.9% fail on Service brake control components (190% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Pedal (190% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 1.9% fail on Anti-slip (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.096% fail on Condition
    • 1.2% fail on Hub components
      • 0.67% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.48% fail on Brake discs
      • 0.19% fail on Brake calipers
    • 0.96% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.86% fail on Condition
      • 0.096% fail on Fitment
    • 0.77% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.48% fail on Mechanical components
      • 0.48% fail on Cable
    • 0.48% fail on ABS
    • 0.096% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.096% fail on Components
        • 0.096% fail on Hoses
  • 27% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 8.4% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.7% fail on Rear lamps (58% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 3.8% fail on Front lamps
      • 0.19% fail on All position lamps
    • 6.3% fail on Stop lamp
    • 5.6% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 5.0% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 4.9% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.19% fail on Switch
    • 4.8% fail on Registration plate lamp (44% better than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.2% fail on Battery (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 3.5% fail on Direction indicators
      • 3.5% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.8% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.48% fail on Side repeaters
        • 0.38% fail on All direction indicators
    • 2.8% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.8% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.096% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.096% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 1.3% fail on Rear reflectors (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 1.3% fail on Horn (52% better than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.67% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.48% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.48% fail on Lamp
    • 0.19% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.19% fail on Headlamp aim not tested
  • 27% fail on Suspension (15% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 14% fail on Prescribed areas (24% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 6.5% fail on Component mounting
      • 6.5% fail on Spring mounting (56% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 2.6% fail on Subframe mounting
    • 7.2% fail on Drive shafts (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 7.1% fail on Front drive shafts (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 7.1% fail on Constant velocity joints (110% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.096% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.096% fail on Drive shafts
    • 5.6% fail on Wheel bearings (160% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 3.2% fail on Front (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 2.4% fail on Rear (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.7% fail on Suspension arms
      • 4.7% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 3.5% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 2.6% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 2.6% fail on Condition
    • 2.3% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.3% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.48% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.38% fail on Linkage condition
      • 0.19% fail on Attachment
    • 0.67% fail on Leaf springs
      • 0.29% fail on Pins and bushes
        • 0.19% fail on Shackle
        • 0.096% fail on Anchor
      • 0.19% fail on Anchor bracket
      • 0.096% fail on Shackle bracket
      • 0.096% fail on Securing bolts
    • 0.29% fail on Air suspension (24 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.19% fail on Operation (32 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.19% fail on Bellows (32 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.096% fail on Accumulator
    • 0.096% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.096% fail on Condition
  • 17% fail on Driver's view of the road (42% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 11% fail on Washers (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 7.2% fail on Wipers
    • 0.67% fail on Bonnet
    • 0.67% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.58% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.096% fail on Indirect vision devices
  • 11% fail on Steering (43% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 9.7% fail on Steering system (50% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 6.9% fail on Steering rack (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.7% fail on Track rod end (56% better than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.77% fail on Free play (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.77% fail on Steering rack (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.77% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.19% fail on Drag link end
      • 0.096% fail on Steering arm
    • 0.96% fail on Power steering
      • 0.38% fail on Operation
      • 0.19% fail on Pipes and hoses
      • 0.19% fail on Other components
      • 0.096% fail on Drive system
      • 0.096% fail on Rams
    • 0.86% fail on Steering control (3 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.67% fail on Steering coupling (8 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.67% fail on Universal joint (9 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.096% fail on Steering wheel
      • 0.096% fail on Steering column
    • 0.096% fail on Locking devices
  • 9.6% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 8.1% fail on Exhaust system (44% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 1.4% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.67% fail on Cap
      • 0.29% fail on Pipe
      • 0.29% fail on System
      • 0.096% fail on Tank
      • 0.096% fail on Hose
    • 1.1% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.67% fail on Emissions (63% better than other 2000 vans)
  • 8.4% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 4.6% fail on Body condition
    • 2.8% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 2.8% fail on Chassis
    • 1.2% fail on Doors
      • 0.58% fail on Passengers other
      • 0.38% fail on Passengers front
      • 0.096% fail on Passenger entrance/exit doors (Class 5)
      • 0.096% fail on Drivers
    • 0.48% fail on Load security (4 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.48% fail on Loading door (8 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.19% fail on Seats
      • 0.096% fail on Passengers
      • 0.096% fail on Drivers
    • 0.096% fail on Steps and stairs
      • 0.096% fail on Steps
    • 0.096% fail on Spare wheel
  • 5.8% fail on Tyres
    • 3.2% fail on Condition
    • 2.5% fail on Tread depth (39% better than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.29% fail on Size/type
    • 0.19% fail on Valve stem
  • 4.5% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 3.8% fail on Seat belts
      • 2.0% fail on Condition (110% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.9% fail on Prescribed areas (52% better than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.38% fail on Attachment
    • 0.77% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.77% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
  • 1.2% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.2% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.38% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.19% fail on Condition
    • 0.19% fail on Attachment
  • 0.19% fail on Towbars
    • 0.19% fail on Towbar