Selling your classic car? It's FREE to list your car on Honest John Classics | No thanks

Citroen AX MOT Results

58.1% pass rate
from 86 tests in 2017
(43% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
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 Citroen AX is unusually good or bad.

  • 26% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 10% fail on Headlamps (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 10% fail on Headlamp (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 9.3% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 8.1% fail on Direction indicators
      • 8.1% fail on Flashing type
        • 3.5% fail on All direction indicators
        • 3.5% fail on Individual lamps
        • 1.2% fail on Side repeaters
    • 5.8% fail on Position lamps
      • 4.7% fail on Rear lamps
      • 1.2% fail on Front lamps
    • 4.7% fail on Horn
    • 3.5% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 3.5% fail on Stop lamp
    • 1.2% fail on Battery
    • 1.2% fail on Hazard warning
      • 1.2% fail on Switch
  • 17% fail on Brakes
    • 10% fail on Hydraulic systems (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 8.1% fail on Components (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
        • 7.0% fail on Pipes (4 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
        • 1.2% fail on Hoses
        • 1.2% fail on Reservoirs
      • 3.5% fail on Leaks (5 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Brake fluid warning lamp
    • 10% fail on Brake performance
      • 5.8% fail on Front wheels
      • 5.8% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 4.7% fail on Rear wheels
      • 4.7% fail on Service brake performance
      • 1.2% fail on Brake performance not tested
    • 1.2% fail on Parking brake
      • 1.2% fail on Condition
    • 1.2% fail on Restricted movement
  • 16% fail on Suspension
    • 10% fail on Prescribed areas (160% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 8.1% fail on Component mounting (190% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 2.3% fail on Subframe mounting
    • 3.5% fail on Suspension arms
      • 3.5% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 3.5% fail on Drive shafts
      • 3.5% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 3.5% fail on Constant velocity joints
    • 1.2% fail on Trailing arms
      • 1.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.2% fail on Tie bars/rods
      • 1.2% fail on Condition
    • 1.2% fail on Torque/reaction arms
      • 1.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.2% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 1.2% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 1.2% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 1.2% fail on Front
    • 1.2% fail on Shock absorbers
      • 1.2% fail on Condition
  • 14% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 12% fail on Washers (150% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 4.7% fail on Wipers
    • 1.2% fail on Mirrors
  • 8.1% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 8.1% fail on Seat belts (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 8.1% fail on Prescribed areas (4 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
  • 5.8% fail on Steering
    • 5.8% fail on Steering system
      • 4.7% fail on Track rod end
      • 1.2% fail on Steering rack
  • 5.8% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions
    • 2.3% fail on Emissions
    • 1.2% fail on Exhaust system
    • 1.2% fail on Fuel system
      • 1.2% fail on Cap
    • 1.2% fail on Emissions not tested
  • 4.7% fail on Tyres
    • 2.3% fail on Tread depth
    • 1.2% fail on Size/type
    • 1.2% fail on Condition
  • 4.7% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 2.3% fail on Body security (44 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 2.3% fail on Body condition
    • 2.3% fail on Seats
      • 2.3% fail on Drivers
  • 1.2% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 1.2% fail on Vehicle Identification Number
Read the Honest John Review