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

Vauxhall Movano MOT Results

Registered in 2000
41.5% pass rate
from 860 tests in 2017
(17% worse than other 2000 vans)
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 Vauxhall Movano is unusually good or bad.

  • 33% fail on Suspension (39% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 16% fail on Prescribed areas (42% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 7.7% fail on Component mounting
      • 7.1% fail on Spring mounting (69% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 3.4% fail on Subframe mounting
    • 8.4% fail on Drive shafts (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 8.3% fail on Front drive shafts (140% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 8.0% fail on Constant velocity joints (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.23% fail on Couplings (5 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.12% fail on Any drive shaft which is part of the suspension
        • 0.12% fail on Drive shafts
    • 6.0% fail on Suspension arms (58% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 6.0% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (67% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.9% fail on Wheel bearings (120% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 3.8% fail on Front (150% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.2% fail on Rear
    • 4.9% fail on Front suspension joints (93% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.4% fail on Shock absorbers (120% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 4.4% fail on Condition (120% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 3.0% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.7% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.93% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.23% fail on Condition
      • 0.23% fail on Linkage condition
    • 1.0% fail on Leaf springs
      • 0.47% fail on Shackle bracket (6 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.35% fail on Anchor bracket
      • 0.12% fail on Spring eye
      • 0.12% fail on Pins and bushes
        • 0.12% fail on Shackle
    • 0.12% fail on Trailing arms
      • 0.12% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 0.12% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 0.12% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
  • 30% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 8.3% fail on Stop lamp (37% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 7.7% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.5% fail on Rear lamps (52% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 3.5% fail on Front lamps
    • 6.9% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 5.6% fail on Direction indicators (52% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 5.6% fail on Flashing type (52% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 4.9% fail on Individual lamps (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.58% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.23% fail on Switch
    • 4.9% fail on Registration plate lamp (43% better than other 2000 vans)
    • 4.8% fail on Battery (130% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 3.8% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 3.8% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.12% fail on Tell tale
    • 2.3% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.3% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.23% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.23% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 2.1% fail on Horn
    • 1.5% fail on Rear reflectors (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.58% fail on Electrical wiring
    • 0.12% fail on Trailer electrical socket
    • 0.12% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.12% fail on Switch
  • 29% fail on Brakes (39% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 21% fail on Brake performance (62% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 10% fail on Service brake performance (180% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 10% fail on Parking brake performance (90% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 8.5% fail on Rear wheels (55% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 7.0% fail on Front wheels (43% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.4% fail on Brake imbalance
      • 0.35% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 13% fail on Hydraulic systems (29% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 13% fail on Components (33% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 8.3% fail on Valves (190% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 3.3% fail on Pipes (40% better than other 2000 vans)
        • 2.3% fail on Hoses
        • 0.12% fail on Reservoirs
        • 0.12% fail on Servos
      • 0.58% fail on Leaks
      • 0.23% fail on Operation
    • 1.4% fail on Service brake control components
      • 1.4% fail on Pedal
        • 1.3% fail on Anti-slip (160% worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.12% fail on Condition
    • 1.3% fail on Hub components
      • 0.70% fail on Brake pads
      • 0.23% fail on Brake drums (5 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.23% fail on Wheel cylinder
      • 0.12% fail on Brake calipers
    • 0.81% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.81% fail on Condition
    • 0.70% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.58% fail on Mechanical components
      • 0.58% fail on Cable
    • 0.12% fail on Air and vacuum systems
      • 0.12% fail on Operation
  • 18% fail on Driver's view of the road (54% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 12% fail on Washers (150% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 6.3% fail on Wipers
    • 1.2% fail on Bonnet (3 times worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 0.70% fail on Mirrors
    • 0.47% fail on Windscreen
  • 13% fail on Steering (74% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 13% fail on Steering system (95% worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 10% fail on Steering rack (4 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.7% fail on Track rod end (55% better than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.81% fail on Free play (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
        • 0.81% fail on Steering rack (2 times worse than other 2000 vans)
      • 0.81% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.12% fail on Other components
        • 0.12% fail on Steering pivot point
    • 0.70% fail on Power steering
      • 0.35% fail on Operation
      • 0.23% fail on Other components
      • 0.12% fail on Pipes and hoses
    • 0.12% fail on Steering operation
  • 13% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (50% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 12% fail on Exhaust system (100% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 1.0% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.47% fail on Tank
      • 0.23% fail on Cap
      • 0.23% fail on System
      • 0.12% fail on Pipe
    • 0.70% fail on Emissions not tested
    • 0.47% fail on Emissions (74% better than other 2000 vans)
  • 11% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 6.4% fail on Body condition (43% worse than other 2000 vans)
    • 2.7% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 2.7% fail on Chassis
    • 0.93% fail on Doors
      • 0.35% fail on Passengers front
      • 0.35% fail on Passengers other
      • 0.12% fail on Emergency exits
      • 0.12% fail on Drivers
    • 0.47% fail on Seats
      • 0.47% fail on Drivers
    • 0.23% fail on Engine mountings
    • 0.23% fail on Body security
    • 0.23% fail on Load security
      • 0.23% fail on Loading door
    • 0.12% fail on Speedometer
    • 0.12% fail on Spare wheel
  • 7.3% fail on Tyres
    • 4.0% fail on Condition
    • 3.0% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.47% fail on Valve stem
    • 0.23% fail on Size/type
  • 4.2% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 4.0% fail on Seat belts
      • 2.2% fail on Prescribed areas (45% better than other 2000 vans)
      • 1.4% fail on Condition
      • 0.23% fail on Attachment
      • 0.12% fail on Requirements
    • 0.23% fail on Supplementary restraint systems
      • 0.23% fail on SRS Malfunction Indicator Lamp
  • 1.4% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.3% fail on Registration plate
    • 0.12% fail on Vehicle Identification Number