|
I think the stats have to read with a bit of caution, especially the total percentage failure rates, which probably say as much or more about the owners and their attitude to maintenance as about the reliability of the cars themselves. For example, a high proportion of failures are often due to tyres....
|
As an MoT AE a lot of this data does not suprise me, the high failure rate at first MoT of some peugeot and renault models, for example. I have failed low mileage (less than 30k) 3 year old Puegeots with worn steering componets, which is not very good is it.
I would like to see reasons for failure listed against each model. I know this is done in some european countries and I suppose that data could be translated into English if we dont swant to publish our own data.
|
The reason for faulure is important before you try to take any conclusions from this sort of data.
My 4 year old Saab failed its MOT last Friday because of a non functioning sidelight bulb, hardly major but still counts.
Got a bit complacent and didn't check the lights since I had no warning message on the display.
|
|
|
One useful piece of info that can be gleaned from this spreadsheet is a "rotbox index" -- take a ten-year-old car, and look at the body/structure section as a percentage of the total tests (fails plus passes). To be honest that is the main issue with MOTs, as the rest of it (steering, lighting and the like) are mostly a function of maintenance.
At this age the vast majority of the fails will be due to body rot, with dents etc being at a low level and fairly consistent across the board.
Old Ford Escorts etc don't fare well at all, being shown up as some of the worst offenders -- and although the Micra *is* bad, the Primera is no worse than average.
As this is the usual stick that French car owners use to hit the Jap boxes with, it's interesting to see that it doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts in many cases -- especially where the Korean cars are concerned -- 1% of 10 year old Accents and 1.5% of Nubiras failing on structural problems vs 5% of 10 year old Escorts (rising to 10% a year later), 2% of Corollas and Almeras, 1.5% of 306s, 1% of Meganes and 0.5% of 10 year old Astras for instance.
Who'd have thought it, the Accent failing less often on body structure than the galvanised 306. And it confirms my long-held view that old-model Fords are the worst rustbuckets on the market (as well as having the most antiquated engines).
Other than that most cars seem OK -- but I'd be looking at this list for clues as to which cars to avoid.
|
|
Japanese cars used to rust years ago, more recent models a pretty good. In fact structural corrosion is not a major problem now on most cars up to about 10 years old. I see quite a few rusty Fords, mainly Ka and Fiesta and some Focus, its down to poor finishing. I would say older Ka and Fiesta are amongst the rustier cars I see, they go uder the sills, esp B post on the Ka, Puma also. Fiat are no better or worse than average now, Korean cars seem to be OK. I did a 10 year old Matiz the other day and it was rust free.
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8456116.stm
BBC have helpfully put it all on a Spreadsheet.
|
|
|
a bunch of meaningless statistics in my opinion. As previously stated, any car can fail, even a brand new one straight out of the showroom could potentially be a failure. (yes, I know new cars aren't tested until 3 yrs old).
It won't influence me in anyway if I come to source a new 2nd hand car because I've always previously chosen a vehicle on size, practicality and budget therefore the publication of this won't have any influence on me whatsoever.
|
I cant open the excel so will have to look tonight but do agree figures dont mean anything unless backed up with mileage data
fancy a rover being bad too,very surprising that,wonder if its due to emission figure failures?
anyone :-)
|
|
|
|
My Nissan Almera was serviced only by the main dealer - it failed it's 1st MOT on headlight aim which is part of the service schedule ... we'll say n'more!
|
It's not really a make/model specific thing, I checked some of the most expensive cars, and some of those have failed, for example there were at least one or two 2003 Rolls Royce Phantoms which failed - I think because of tyres or brakes.
As for the cars failing because of structural issues/rust, yes its mostly old Fords, not much that could have been done to prevent that except rustproofing within the first few years of ownership.
|
|
I too agree with VOSA in not being keen to release this info. As has been mentioned by folks above so many failures are more owner than vehicle induced. I'd be wary about taking the failures on the body section as an indication of cars that rust. There are hundreds of failures on cars I'd pretty well be sure haven't any rot at the ages involved. Not sure what this could be... badly repaired accident damage, loose trim etc??
|
There are hundreds of failures on cars I'd pretty well be sure haven't any rot at the ages involved. Not sure what this could be... badly repaired accident damage loose trim etc??
What you have to look at though is the fact that these always increase exponentially at a certain point, then level off some time later. Classic rot profile.
What I think the data shows is that (a) Eastern "rotboxes" are clearly nothing of the sort -- otherwise the structural fails would be rampant (in fact they're in line with everything else) and (b) either old Fords do rot, or something else structural is happening (falling to bits? Can't see it somehow) or (c) loads of 10 year old Escorts are involved in accidents that are then bodged (more than any other car? pfft).
I agree about the usage profiles of various cars but this wouldn't affect structural problems in any systematic brand-related way. I don't buy this tired old cliche that all Corsas are driven into the ground by driving schools and all Corollas are gently driven by little old ladies.
|
|
Another survey thats tells us the Japanese have the best blended of car and customer service. They can't all be wrong, why we don't have lots more Japanese branded vehicles in this country is puzzling.
|
According to the report, 1992 Focuses had a 50% failure rate, and 1996 models had a 100% failure rate.
Pretty impressive for a car that wasn't even launched until 1998!
What other errors are in these data if they're getting the year of first use wrong?
As others have said, this is completely meaningless without mileage information. I think the best engineered car in the world would fail its first MOT if driven for 100k by an owner who didn't bother with the service schedule. And I still maintain the Fords and Vauxhalls of this world are far less likely to see proper maintenance once out of warranty if my experience buying them used is anything to go by.
Still, it makes good headlines!
|
I'm equally certain though that the cars that don't get the maintenance are predominantly the bottom-feeders; Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo and to a lesser extent Citroen, Nissan and Mitsubishi.
Yet few of these do especially badly.
And I don't believe for a second that cars rusting is a product of not being serviced regularly.
The errors on there will be down to a few non-electronic MOT forms that haven't been transferred correctly. Statistically insignificant, the numbers being in single figures against 4 or 5 for most mainstream cars.
Completely meaningless, don't think so. Given the numbers involved, the data is good enough to establish trends. Not for the steering/suspension/brakes/lighting etc as these are, as you say a function of maintenance rather than engineering. But the body/structure is significant if one car in this section is a factor of 5 or 10 worse than another. Don't tell me that the average Ford Escort has been treated any worse than the average Vauxhall Astra, that's silly.
|
But the point is Body & Structure is not just about rot. I've looked and it covers loose trim, towbar problems, doors failing to latch, insecure seats, security of spare wheel carriers, unsafe body mods and anything else a tester puts down in that section.
That would explain why there are hundreds of Citroens, Audis, BMWs, Volvos under Body & Structure that probably have no rust at all.
It's a useless set of stats if you are trying to pin issues to a make/model.
|
But the point is Body & Structure is not just about rot. I've looked and it covers loose trim towbar problems doors failing to latch insecure seats security of spare wheel carriers unsafe body mods and anything else a tester puts down in that section.
Again, think about it for a second. An Escort or a Ka ten times more likely to have a towbar problem than an Astra?
|
I'm equally certain though that the cars that don't get the maintenance are predominantly the bottom-feeders; Hyundai Kia Daewoo and to a lesser extent Citroen Nissan and Mitsubishi. Yet few of these do especially badly.
But this is where mileage becomes relevant. Companies don't run Kias, Hyundais and Daewoos in any quantity. They do run Fords and Vauxhalls in huge numbers, and a typical fleet car will do 60-100k in its first three years, against 30-40k for a privately owned car.
And I don't believe for a second that cars rusting is a product of not being serviced regularly.
I'm not sure where you get rusting from. While some 10 yr old cars will have rot on them, "Body and Structure" test items include door catches and handles, seat runners, mounts and locking mechanisms, number plates, VIN plates, and of course fitment of things like aftermarket body kits and other "mods". I suspect a significant number of failures here will be number plate related.
Without knowing what area of Body and Structure the car failed on, you can't say it's down to rust any more than you can say it was because of a failed door catch, or a missing BSAU stamp on a number plate. The data simply doesn't support those kind of conclusions.
Edited by DP on 13/01/2010 at 17:54
|
I'm not sure where you get rusting from. While some 10 yr old cars will have rot on them "Body and Structure" test items include door catches and handles seat runners mounts and locking mechanisms number plates VIN plates and of course fitment of things like aftermarket body kits and other "mods". I suspect a significant number of failures here will be number plate related.
OK, and the things you mention are much more common on older cars than newer ones, or much more common on an Escort than an Astra?
What number plate issues become a problem when a car reaches its 10th birthday?
|
Op
cheers, v interesting and useful reading!
|
Hi
As my dinner awaits me, i've had a quick read of the link.
i've also scanned your comments.
what you must remeber is that if one brandd/make is 50% fault rate and another manufafturer and model has a 1% failure rate, regardless of how people keep/drive/treat/service their vheicle, i'd be of the judgement that thos that had the highest pass rate would be taken into consideration for me.
importantly, years ago my son had afiesta when they came with one years warranty - a friend had exactly the same model - my sons car was spot on for the 3 years he had it but our friends car had many probs.
|
I am not disputing that more Escorts and Astras fail MOTs than their Japanese counterparts. The data supports that conclusion.
What I am disputing is your assertion they fail on rust. Which is pure guesswork given the available data.
Also something like a failed door catch would be picked up and corrected at a service. A number plate issued by a reputable garage would be BSAU compliant. A penny pinching, "patch it up" owner wouldn't bother about either.
Edited by DP on 13/01/2010 at 18:07
|
What I am disputing is your assertion they fail on rust. Which is pure guesswork using the available data.
It's not guesswork, it's deduction.
Look at all the things that come under the banner of body/structure. These include, as pointed out, trim, number plates etc... and rot.
Mostly rot.
Corrosion is one of the biggest killers of old cars, and it is covered in this section.
A typical 5 year old car has around a 0.001% chance of failing in this section. For a nine year old Escort (1998 -- this is based on 2007 data) this increases to 10%.
Now look at what that could be. Does an Escort crack its number plate 10,000 times more often than a typical 5 year old car? Does its trim fall off with this frequency?
Go through all the permutations, and the only one that makes any sense in this context is the elephant in the room, surely?
|
A regularly serviced car will have faults picked up and corrected before they become MOT fail items. And number plates don't need to be cracked to fail an MOT. If they are missing the tiny BSAU logo in the corner, as many cheap internet sourced items are, it will fail. Same as if a back door or boot can't be opened properly
Corrosion isn't a service item, correct (although detection and remedy of it is) but everything else in this sector is very unlikely to be left to the point where it causes an MOT fail on a regularly serviced car with a conscienscious (sp?) owner.
And surely a 1 in 10 chance of failing a test on rust doesn't account solely for the failure rates being talked about in this report.
I would love to know how many of the 9 year old Escorts you mention ever see a mechanic between MOT tests.
|
A regularly serviced car will have faults picked up and corrected before they become MOT fail items.
As an MoT Authorised Examiner and also someone who services and repairs cars I would very much dispute that statement. You would be surprised how many franchised-dealer-only serviced cars fail their first MoT!
And I wouldn't get too hung up on BS markings on numberplates, I have failed very few cars on that one, its usually only those daft enough to turn up with custom plates. The majority of cars come in with legal plates as fitted by the dealer.
Many many "regularly serviced" cars turn up with knackered and splitting bushes, too much play in the steering, seatbelts that dont retract, corrosion on pipes (why is this still a problem in the 21st Centry??) and emission fails. Certain cars have higher pass rates because they are ofa more robust construction and better designed. Many cars have stock faults and you can guess what they will fail on before they drive into the test lane.
The VW polo scores well because its quite a well designed and contructed car. Main failure items in my experience are front wishbone rear bushes, rear beam bushes, front suspension top mounts. Other than this they dont present with many other faults, and cant remember seeing one with proper structural rust. I dont incude things like tyres, lights out etc because they are not a function of the car and I would think that in the overall statistics these sort of faults would occur across all brands and so even out.
|
You still seem to be clinging to an idea that the like of illegal plates, knackered locks etc are somehow more likely on old-model Fords than they are on newer model ones, cheap Korean cars that have been cheap for a very long time already and the old Fords' competitors made by GM.
None of that is satisfactory.
I would love to know where the evidence is to suggest that old Fords are less likely to be seen by a mechanic between MOT tests than any other old car.
If, as you seem to be suggesting, the problem with poor maintenance of old Fords is so bad that the cars are five or ten times more likely to fail than the equivalent GM, then this in itself presents a major question. Should the authorities be targetting old Fords in preference to other cars, seeing as the problem of poor maintenance is apparently so rife with these cars.
|
OK
Most , if not all will agree with me!
The best yardstick to determine which car is more reliable than the other or more cost effective to run is by looking at the stats from those 'extended car warranty' people.
I rest my case!
|
|
Don't rest your case just yet. Those warranty stats you refer to do not represent any make/model as a whole.... just a biased sample. Biased towards those cars the owners though might need a warranty.
Edited by M.M on 13/01/2010 at 19:03
|
|
i recall reading a limited car by car figures. the cars are usually the popular ones, so you will agree with me that i was right in advice.
|
Paul2007 stop using exclamation marks please. Thanks. I assume you're really not shouting at everyone.
Thanks
|
If as you seem to be suggesting the problem with poor maintenance of old Fords is so bad that the cars are five or ten times more likely to fail than the equivalent GM then this in itself presents a major question.
Not once have I made any distinction between GM and Ford. I tend to think both suffer from neglect as they age, and it would appear the GM cars cope with it better. Fine, I have never once argued to the contrary. These cars have low residual values and are more likely to be viewed as cheap / disposable transport by people than, say a Golf which commands as much as 50% more at 3yrs old.
I can only speak from personal experience. When we were looking for a Fiesta for SWMBO a few years ago, I looked at 8 before I found one that had any tangible evidence of servicing after 3 yrs/60,000 miles. Most were knackered dogs which I wouldn't have recommended to my worst enemy. When I found a nice one, with an impeccable service history, it was a tight, rust free gem of a car. Ditto when I bought a Mondeo shortly after that - in fact more than half complete service histories on 5yr old Mondeos are so scarce I actually gave up and bought on condition.
When we bought a Golf last year, of the 7 cars we looked at, all but 1 had a stamped service book and a wodge of invoices.
I repeat again, this data, without knowing anything about the mileages and service histories of the cars involved tells us remarkably little about a given model's inherent durability or reliability in general, let alone its rot resistance. I could render a brand new Honda Accord an MOT failure in 2 miles. Or I could treat it well, keep on top of all the maintenance and upkeep, and have it sail every MOT for 10 yrs and 150,000 miles. I could do the same to a Focus, a Pagani Zonda or a Vauxhall Astra. The biggest variable is the treatment of the car, not the car itself.
|
Do all Toyota Corollas get looked after immaculately?
Do all Toyota Yarises get looked after perfectly?
Of course not.
And yet the failure statistics are best ..for Corollas 11% iirc and Yaris 16%.
It is simply not credible to assume that certain makes of car when over say 7 years old are maintained and others not.
Period.
And anyone who compares the list of problems on Toyotas on this forum versus Fords .. or Toyotas versus Mercedes Benz.. will realise there is a reason why Toyotas last better and pass MOTs better.
They are better designed , better built and easier to fix..when they do go wrong (which is less often).#
The simplest and most obvious reason...
And the same logic applies to other makes..
As I have owned and driven both Ford, Toyota and MB, I can assure you that the statement # above is obvious when working on the cars.
Even simple things : like hinges on rear seats.. compare a Yaris to a Fiesta.. Engineering wise a win all the way for Toyota..
As for maintenance, anyone tried to remove a Mark4 Fiesta rear brake drum? versus a Yaris one? No comparison. Yaris wins every time.
There is an article about oil suction devices and the need for them with full engine undertrays.. Not on Toyotas : most have flaps to drain the engine oil.. and remove the filter..
Edited by madf on 13/01/2010 at 20:10
|
|
Sorry madf don't agree with you here. Yes Toyotas are reliable and well built, but the design of Fords is such that they are very easy/cheap to repair, especially the old Fiestas and Kas - you can't get much simpler than removing seats from these cars, and most other stuff like working on the brakes, etc is simple too. I think the main problem with Toyotas is the wait for parts if they are needed, same for Nissan. But with Ford this isn't a problem.
|
Car data is one thing, how about the the figures on the pass rate by centre. It would be interesting to know the difference between certain places.
I'd bet Toyota dealers would have a far lower percentage of failure than most.
|
|
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have a vehicle MOT'd at a different garage than where you have it serviced, like I did with my Almera - More so if you have it serviced by a main dealer.
|
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have a vehicle MOT'd at a different garage than where you have it serviced like I did with my Almera - More so if you have it serviced by a main dealer.
How do you know the MOT centre isn't trying to pull a fast one too. My car failed the MOT on the first one due to headlamp aim the same as yours did. But IMHO it was the MOT centre at fault not the person doing my servicing.
|
|
i avoid the special offer MOT stations, i use the same one every year...he doesnt do repairs or welding....in fact he involves the owner during the test, you get to go around and under the car with the tester whilst its on the hoist and he points out possible faults and offers remedies ...£50 fee and a drink for him and his oppo....jobs a gooden
|
|
Those toyotas (97) will have been driven by old pensioners who do 2k a a year. There is not anything like enough statistics to make many meaningful conclusions from.
|
As an Ex AE & MOT tester older cars tend to suffer from neglect & mostly fails on Tyres, bulbs etc.
Its quite shocking how many much newer cars fails on bulbs & tyres as well. Sometimes i was left speechless by the condition of tyres on some expensive cars & put a new dimension on the old saying" baldini supersport!"
There are also shed loads of old fords around & the Rover 420's used to exchange hands for pennies & as such suffer neglect
|
> Rover 420's used to exchange hands for pennies & as such suffer neglect
Well, it must be said that, say, a Daewoo Lanos exchanges hands for pennies.
They've been worth less than a grand for a very long time now -- some of them were worth £800 at three years old.
When you look them up on Autotrader they seem to fall into two categories -- a small number of well looked after low-mileage cars, and a bigger quantity of high-mileage sheds that have obvious signs of neglect.
Yet they're still around. The figures are not shocking. Why is that?
Some people seem to think that those cars that do badly have some sort of monopoly on neglect.
|
I have to say I have a theory on the MOT failure question.
I'd say it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that most, if not all, cars beyond a certain age are pretty much guaranteed to fail an MOT on something.
When you look at these figures, some of the older cars' pass/fail stats are very close.
If we take the Renault Megane as a random selection, you get to a point in 1997 where the number of fails marginally exceeds the passes.
I'd like to suggest that the fails are just that. A car gets put in for MOT, fails, is fixed up and put back in and passes.
Thus, ignoring the occasional (and doubtless rare) case of a car failing two or three times, I'd like to suggest that the true "failure rate" can be derived as follows:
fail/pass * 100.
Where fail > pass, this is an indicator of the number of cars scrapped as a result of the MOT process.
So, for the Megane, the true failure rate is as follows (allowing for the above, the true figures are probably a little lower, of the order of maybe 2-3%):
04 = 39%
03 = 46%
02 = 42%
01 = 45%
00 = 61%
99 = 75%
98 = 89%
97 = 100%, with around 1000 vehicles of this age scrapped.
96 = 100%, with around 900 vehicles of this age scrapped.
This is more in line with common-sense, and experience from owning older cars of various marques.
So the "tipping point" at which Meganes start to hit the crusher in volume as a result of MOT failures seems to be around the 10 year old mark. Other cars seem to follow a similar pattern.
Interestingly for the Corolla this point seems to be closer to 15 years or so.
|
As an Ex AE & MOT tester older cars tend to suffer from neglect & mostly fails on Tyres bulbs etc. Its quite shocking how many much newer cars fails on bulbs & tyres as well. Sometimes i was left speechless by the condition of tyres on some expensive cars & put a new dimension on the old saying" baldini supersport!" There are also shed loads of old fords around & the Rover 420's used to exchange hands for pennies & as such suffer neglect
I agree with your about neglect. People seem to be trying to squeeze more miles out of their tyres. We are seeing more and more cars with illegal tyres. Theres a lot of people can just about make the payments on their shiny new car but didnt budget for tyres and brake replacement! Its all sorts of cars too, the prestige stuff often suffers more because the costs are higher. A lot of customers get a shock when there low-profile high-speed-rated tyres need replacing, they think they are going to get a set for £200 and find that only buys one tyre!
Not sure why you should think old fords dont get serviced. the ones that really skimp are the kia/proton etc buyers. They sometimes get one service and then nothing! we got offered a proton as a p/x, it was 10 years old and never been serviced! The damn thing ran ok though!
|
Not sure why you should think old fords dont get serviced. the ones that really skimp are the kia/proton etc buyers. They sometimes get one service and then nothing! we got offered a proton as a p/x, it was 10 years old and never been serviced! The damn thing ran ok though!
In other words, a well designed and built car..
|
>>> How do you know the MOT centre isn't trying to pull a fast one too <<<
Quite true comrade carl, using my Vulcan logic + years in the motor trade, I would suggest a family run independent is probably the best route to take = word of mouth, recommendation etc.
|
>> It's not guesswork it's deduction.
>>>>
It's not deduction, it's induction.
Deduction is testing a theory by means of its predicted open-ended outcomes. Induction is forming a theory from a fixed set of observations, a much less reliable process.
|
|
A word in support of MoT testing stations. 99.9% are honest and thorough. Monitoring is very tight. There will be small differences in interpretation of the rules beacuse a proportion of the test is subjective, but nearly all testers I know take the job very seriously and try to be as fair and accurate as possible.
|
A word in support of MoT testing stations.
That's good to hear WT, thanks.
|
|
But some testers are too thorough and just nitpick and put down advisories which actually have nothing to do with the test, which is not on if you ask me.
|
put down advisories which actually have nothing to do with the test
I doubt it.
|
But some testers .......put down advisories which actually have nothing to do with the test.....
I'm always grateful for that. Doesn't affect the result of the MOT and warns me to keep an eye on something.
|
I actually ignored all the MoT failure rate stuff and was more intrested in gleaning such amazing statistics as "More AC Cobras' were submitted for an MoT in 2007 than Austin Ambassadors".
interesting stuff.......
|
I have learned that any stats and claims such as these are rubbish unless you get all the data - is it that Renaults are not looked after as well by their owners for instance.
The stats are meaningless so I would just ignore them.
|
is it that Renaults are not looked after as well by their owners for instance.
No. Renault quality failures are well known . They managed to produce the most unreliable cars on the UK market and if you read a buyers guide for 2000- 2005 models you would see endless electronic and mechanical faults.
|
Seems quite clear to me!
Vehicles that are simply driven daily for high mileages and are simply dropped off for an MOT without the thought of a check to see whether their is a blown bulb or torn wiper are the ones that are most likley to fail their first MOT.
I mean commercial vehicles like Transits (sometimes driven by a multitude of drivers), typical company cars like Mondeos, Vectras, Passats etc, many of which will do 120k by their first MOT is due where as the typical Yaris probably averages well under 30k over the same period.
|
|
The guy from Autocar speaks sense...
|
Thanks PU though I am not from Autocar ;-)
Seriously, agreed 100%.
|
I came across the MOT failure stats last night and spent too long looking at them. There is something else that could be inferred from the stats, which is roughly how many of a model are still in use.
If a car passed its MOT in 2007, then in the majority of cases it wouldn't have gone in for a second. To have gone in for the MOT, it is likely to be getting used.
Some cars that used to be commonplace are relatively rare now:
Citroen Visa: Only 56 left
Lada: Any of them: 558
Less than 18,000 Sierras left, out of something like 1.3 million.
You could feel sorry for the Alfa Romeo Arna. As well as an unfortunate combination of 80's Nissan design and charisma, with 80's Alfa reliability, just one presented itself for MOT in 2007 and it failed. The last one gone.
Maybe surprisingly there are 125 Lancia Betas still going. And only ten body/structure failures.
|
|
Not sure about that, some makes obviously missing despite plenty of them still being on the road, eg Hillman Imp, Sunbeam Stiletto etc. I noticed a 100% failure rate for Wartburg knights (2 of) both brake related. Quite a few Suzuki SC100s which I'm surprised about because I was looking for one a few years ago and couldn't find one for love nor money! Only 8 Opel Senators left on the road? I simply don't believe that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
