MOT Results

Honest John Classics MOT Results » Austin » Maestro
Selling your classic car? It's FREE to list your car on Honest John Classics | No thanks

Austin Maestro MOT Results

69.8% pass rate
from 139 tests in 2021
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 pre-1990 cars and highlighted areas where the Austin Maestro is unusually good or bad.

  • 12% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 4.3% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 4.3% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 2.9% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 2.9% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 2.9% fail on Rear fog lamp
    • 2.2% fail on Headlamps
      • 2.2% fail on Headlamp
    • 2.2% fail on Direction indicators
      • 2.2% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.2% fail on Individual direction indicators
    • 1.4% fail on Stop lamp
    • 1.4% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.4% fail on Battery(ies)
    • 0.72% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.72% fail on Switch
    • 0.72% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
  • 10% fail on Suspension
    • 4.3% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas
    • 2.2% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 2.2% fail on Shock absorbers (3 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 1.4% fail on Springs
      • 0.72% fail on Coil springs
        • 0.72% fail on Mounting
      • 0.72% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.72% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.72% fail on Ball joint
    • 0.72% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.72% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.72% fail on Other suspension component
      • 0.72% fail on Ball joint
  • 9.4% fail on Brakes
    • 7.9% fail on Brake performance
      • 4.3% fail on Service brake performance
        • 4.3% fail on Rbt
          • 3.6% fail on Service brake performance
          • 1.4% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 3.6% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp)
        • 2.9% fail on Rbt (sp)
          • 2.9% fail on Service brake imbalance
        • 0.72% fail on Plate brake tester (sp)
          • 0.72% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 2.9% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 2.2% fail on Rbt (sp)
        • 0.72% fail on Plate brake tester (sp)
      • 0.72% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 2.2% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.72% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.72% fail on Pedal
    • 0.72% fail on Load sensing valves
  • 8.6% fail on Body, chassis, structure
    • 2.9% fail on Transmission
      • 2.9% fail on Drive shafts
        • 2.9% fail on Joints
    • 1.4% fail on Integral vehicle structure
      • 1.4% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition
    • 1.4% fail on Chassis
      • 1.4% fail on Chassis condition
    • 1.4% fail on Exhaust system
    • 1.4% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.4% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device (5 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.72% fail on System
    • 1.4% fail on Doors
      • 0.72% fail on Driver's door
        • 0.72% fail on Catch
      • 0.72% fail on Other passenger's door
        • 0.72% fail on Door condition
    • 0.72% fail on Body
      • 0.72% fail on Panel
  • 7.9% fail on Visibility
    • 4.3% fail on Wipers
    • 3.6% fail on Washers
  • 6.5% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 6.5% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 6.5% fail on Spark ignition
        • 5.8% fail on Non catalyst emissions
        • 0.72% fail on Catalyst emissions
  • 3.6% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems
    • 3.6% fail on Seat belts
      • 2.2% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 1.4% fail on Attachment (13 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
  • 2.2% fail on Steering
    • 1.4% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 1.4% fail on Track rod end
    • 0.72% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.72% fail on Steering rack
  • 2.2% fail on Tyres
    • 1.4% fail on Tread depth
    • 0.72% fail on Condition
Read the Honest John Review