MOT Results

Honest John Classics MOT Results » Nissan » Micra

Nissan Micra MOT Results

59.8% pass rate
from 453 tests in 2021
(48% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
Number of tests by age
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 Nissan Micra is unusually good or bad.

  • 15% fail on Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment
    • 4.6% fail on Headlamps
      • 4.6% fail on Headlamp
    • 4.4% fail on Direction indicators
      • 4.4% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.6% fail on Side repeaters (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
        • 2.0% fail on Individual direction indicators
        • 0.22% fail on Switch
    • 3.5% fail on Headlamp aim
      • 3.5% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 3.5% fail on Front and rear fog lamps
      • 3.5% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 3.3% fail on Rear fog lamp
        • 0.22% fail on Switch
    • 1.5% fail on Electrical equipment
      • 1.3% fail on Battery(ies)
      • 0.22% fail on Horn
    • 0.66% fail on Mandatory tell-tales
      • 0.66% fail on Rear fog lamp tell-tale
      • 0.22% fail on Main beam tell-tale
    • 0.44% fail on Stop lamp (82% better than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.44% fail on Registration plate lamp(s)
    • 0.22% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.22% fail on Switch
  • 14% fail on Suspension (94% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 9.1% fail on Component mounting prescribed areas (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 2.4% fail on Shock absorbers (4 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 1.8% fail on Wheel bearings
    • 1.5% fail on Suspension arms
      • 0.88% fail on Pins and bushes
      • 0.44% fail on Ball joint
      • 0.22% fail on Ball joint dust cover
    • 0.44% fail on Springs
      • 0.44% fail on Spring mounting prescribed areas
    • 0.22% fail on Macpherson strut
      • 0.22% fail on Pins and bushes
  • 13% fail on Brakes (42% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 10% fail on Brake performance (53% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 8.4% fail on Service Brake Efficiency (sp) (180% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
        • 8.4% fail on Rbt (sp) (190% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
          • 5.1% fail on Service brake performance (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
          • 4.4% fail on Service brake imbalance (120% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 2.9% fail on Service brake performance
        • 2.9% fail on Rbt
          • 2.6% fail on Service brake performance
          • 0.44% fail on Service brake imbalance
      • 2.9% fail on Parking brake efficiency (sp)
        • 2.9% fail on Rbt (sp)
      • 0.88% fail on Parking brake performance
        • 0.88% fail on Rbt
          • 0.88% fail on Parking brake performance
    • 2.2% fail on Rigid brake pipes
    • 0.66% fail on Parking brake control
      • 0.66% fail on Lever
    • 0.44% fail on Brake actuators (including spring brakes or hydraulic cylinders)
      • 0.44% fail on Hydraulic brake cylinder
    • 0.22% fail on Service brake pedal or hand lever
      • 0.22% fail on Hand lever
    • 0.22% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 0.22% fail on Master cylinder
    • 0.22% fail on Mechanical brake components
      • 0.22% fail on Brake linings and pads
        • 0.22% fail on Brake pads
  • 12% fail on Body, chassis, structure (89% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 4.4% fail on Exhaust system (150% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Integral vehicle structure (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 3.1% fail on Integral vehicle structure condition (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 3.1% fail on Transmission (130% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 2.9% fail on Drive shafts (170% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
        • 2.9% fail on Joints (180% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Prop shafts
        • 0.22% fail on Joints
    • 1.3% fail on Chassis
      • 1.3% fail on Chassis condition
    • 0.88% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.88% fail on Fuel cap/sealing device (3 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.66% fail on Body
      • 0.44% fail on Panel
      • 0.22% fail on Other body component
    • 0.44% fail on Engine mounting (5 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.44% fail on Engine mounting condition (6 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.22% fail on Bumpers
    • 0.22% fail on Floor
    • 0.22% fail on Seats
      • 0.22% fail on Driver's seat
      • 0.22% fail on Passenger's seat
  • 7.5% fail on Visibility
    • 4.6% fail on Wipers (90% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 2.4% fail on Washers
    • 0.66% fail on View to rear (3 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.66% fail on Mirrors (3 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
  • 4.9% fail on Noise, emissions and leaks
    • 4.9% fail on Exhaust emissions
      • 4.6% fail on Spark ignition
        • 3.5% fail on Non catalyst emissions
        • 1.1% fail on Emissions not tested
        • 0.44% fail on Catalyst emissions
      • 0.44% fail on Compression ignition
        • 0.44% fail on Pre 01/07/2008 Turbo
  • 4.4% fail on Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems (180% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 4.4% fail on Seat belts (180% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 4.0% fail on Prescribed areas (3 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.22% fail on Requirements
      • 0.22% fail on Condition
  • 2.6% fail on Tyres
    • 1.8% fail on Tread depth (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 1.1% fail on Condition
    • 0.22% fail on Size/type
  • 1.3% fail on Steering (63% better than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.88% fail on Steering linkage components
      • 0.66% fail on Track rod end
      • 0.22% fail on Steering arm
    • 0.44% fail on Steering gear
      • 0.22% fail on Operation
      • 0.22% fail on Steering rack
  • 0.88% fail on Identification of the vehicle
    • 0.88% fail on Registration plates
  • 0.66% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.44% fail on Attachment
    • 0.22% fail on Condition
Read the Honest John Review