Suzuki Carry MOT Results
Registered in 199958.6% pass rate
from 169 tests in 2017
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 1999 vans and highlighted areas where the Suzuki Carry is unusually good or bad.
-
22% fail on
Suspension
-
16% fail on
Prescribed areas
- 13% fail on Component mounting (81% worse than other 1999 vans)
- 4.1% fail on Spring mounting
- 1.8% fail on Subframe mounting
-
4.7% fail on
Suspension arms
- 4.7% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
- 3.6% fail on Front suspension joints
-
1.2% fail on
Wheel bearings
- 0.59% fail on Front
- 0.59% fail on Rear
-
0.59% fail on
Coil springs
- 0.59% fail on Condition
-
0.59% fail on
Shock absorbers
- 0.59% fail on Condition
-
0.59% fail on
Drive shafts
-
0.59% fail on
Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
- 0.59% fail on Universal joint
-
0.59% fail on
Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
-
16% fail on
Prescribed areas
-
20% fail on
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
- 5.3% fail on Registration plate lamp
- 5.3% fail on Stop lamp
-
4.7% fail on
Headlamps
- 4.7% fail on Headlamp
- 3.6% fail on Headlamp aim
-
2.4% fail on
Rear fog lamp
- 2.4% fail on Fog lamp
-
1.8% fail on
Direction indicators
-
1.8% fail on
Flashing type
- 1.2% fail on Side repeaters
- 0.59% fail on Individual lamps
-
1.8% fail on
Flashing type
- 0.59% fail on Battery
-
0.59% fail on
Position lamps
- 0.59% fail on Rear lamps
- 0.59% fail on Rear reflectors
-
10% fail on
Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
- 7.1% fail on Emissions (3 times worse than other 1999 vans)
- 3.6% fail on Exhaust system
- 1.2% fail on Emissions not tested
-
0.59% fail on
Fuel system
- 0.59% fail on Cap
-
9.5% fail on
Driver's view of the road
- 5.3% fail on Wipers
- 3.0% fail on Bonnet (10 times worse than other 1999 vans)
- 1.8% fail on Washers
-
8.3% fail on
Body, Structure and General Items
-
3.6% fail on
Vehicle structure
- 3.6% fail on Chassis
- 3.6% fail on Body condition
-
1.8% fail on
Doors
- 1.2% fail on Passengers other
- 0.59% fail on Passengers front
-
3.6% fail on
Vehicle structure
-
7.7% fail on
Tyres
- 4.7% fail on Tread depth
- 2.4% fail on Condition
- 0.59% fail on Valve stem
-
5.9% fail on
Steering
-
4.1% fail on
Steering system
- 1.8% fail on Steering rack
- 1.2% fail on Ball joint
-
0.59% fail on
Free play
- 0.59% fail on Steering rack
- 0.59% fail on Track rod end
-
1.2% fail on
Steering control
(6 times worse than other 1999 vans)
-
1.2% fail on
Steering coupling
(13 times worse than other 1999 vans)
- 0.59% fail on Flexible coupling
- 0.59% fail on Universal joint
-
1.2% fail on
Steering coupling
(13 times worse than other 1999 vans)
- 1.2% fail on Steering operation (7 times worse than other 1999 vans)
-
4.1% fail on
Steering system
-
5.3% fail on
Brakes
(74% better than other 1999 vans)
-
3.0% fail on
Hydraulic systems
(68% better than other 1999 vans)
-
2.4% fail on
Components
(73% better than other 1999 vans)
- 2.4% fail on Pipes
- 0.59% fail on Leaks
-
2.4% fail on
Components
(73% better than other 1999 vans)
-
3.0% fail on
Brake performance
(76% better than other 1999 vans)
- 1.2% fail on Front wheels
- 1.2% fail on Rear wheels
- 0.59% fail on Service brake performance
-
1.2% fail on
Hub components
- 1.2% fail on Brake pads
-
3.0% fail on
Hydraulic systems
(68% better than other 1999 vans)
-
3.0% fail on
Registration plates and VIN
- 3.0% fail on Registration plate
-
0.59% fail on
Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
-
0.59% fail on
Seat belts
- 0.59% fail on Prescribed areas
-
0.59% fail on
Seat belts