MOT Results

Honest John Classics MOT Results » Rover » Metro
Do you want the Road Tax system to change? Do you have thoughts on the potential changes to the Road Tax system? | No thanks

Rover Metro MOT Results

65.2% pass rate
from 247 tests in 2017
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 Rover Metro is unusually good or bad.

  • 15% fail on Brakes
    • 12% fail on Brake performance
      • 7.7% fail on Front wheels (98% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 4.9% fail on Rear wheels
      • 4.9% fail on Service brake performance (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 2.8% fail on Parking brake performance
      • 0.40% fail on Parking brake operation
    • 2.4% fail on Hydraulic systems
      • 2.0% fail on Components
        • 1.2% fail on Pipes
        • 0.81% fail on Reservoirs (5 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.40% fail on Operation
      • 0.40% fail on Leaks
    • 1.2% fail on Service brake control components
      • 1.2% fail on Pedal
        • 0.81% fail on Condition
        • 0.40% fail on Anti-slip
    • 1.2% fail on Restricted movement
    • 0.40% fail on Parking brake
      • 0.40% fail on Condition
    • 0.40% fail on Mechanical components
      • 0.40% fail on Cable
    • 0.40% fail on Hub components
      • 0.40% fail on Brake pads
    • 0.40% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.40% fail on Actuating linkage mounting
      • 0.40% fail on Master cylinder/servo mounting
  • 14% fail on Suspension
    • 4.9% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 3.6% fail on Subframe mounting (4 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 1.2% fail on Component mounting
    • 2.8% fail on Suspension arms
      • 2.8% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
    • 2.4% fail on Drive shafts
      • 2.4% fail on Front drive shafts
        • 2.4% fail on Constant velocity joints
    • 2.0% fail on Fluid suspension (36 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 2.0% fail on Operation (308 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 1.6% fail on Front suspension joints
    • 1.2% fail on Anti-roll bars
      • 0.40% fail on Linkage pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.40% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints
      • 0.40% fail on Attachment
    • 0.81% fail on Radius arms (6 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.81% fail on Pins/bushes/ball joints (7 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
      • 0.40% fail on Attachment
    • 0.81% fail on Wheel bearings
      • 0.81% fail on Rear
    • 0.40% fail on Sub-frames
      • 0.40% fail on Condition
  • 13% fail on Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
    • 4.5% fail on Direction indicators
      • 4.5% fail on Flashing type
        • 2.8% fail on Side repeaters (3 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
        • 0.81% fail on All direction indicators
        • 0.40% fail on Individual lamps
        • 0.40% fail on Switch
    • 4.0% fail on Rear fog lamp
      • 3.6% fail on Fog lamp
      • 0.40% fail on Switch
    • 4.0% fail on Headlamp aim
    • 2.8% fail on Stop lamp
    • 2.0% fail on Position lamps
      • 2.0% fail on Rear lamps
      • 0.40% fail on Front lamps
    • 1.2% fail on Headlamps
      • 1.2% fail on Headlamp
      • 0.40% fail on Headlamp defects which don't require an aim check on retest
        • 0.40% fail on Main beam 'tell-tale'
    • 0.81% fail on Battery
    • 0.81% fail on Registration plate lamp
    • 0.40% fail on Hazard warning
      • 0.40% fail on Switch
    • 0.40% fail on Horn
  • 13% fail on Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions (120% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 8.1% fail on Emissions (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 3.6% fail on Exhaust system
    • 1.6% fail on Emissions not tested (4 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Fuel system
      • 0.40% fail on Hose
  • 6.9% fail on Driver's view of the road
    • 4.9% fail on Washers
    • 3.6% fail on Wipers
    • 0.40% fail on Windscreen
    • 0.40% fail on Mirrors
  • 5.7% fail on Tyres (160% worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 2.8% fail on Condition
    • 2.8% fail on Tread depth (2 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Size/type
  • 5.3% fail on Body, Structure and General Items
    • 2.8% fail on Body condition
    • 1.2% fail on Vehicle structure
      • 1.2% fail on Chassis
    • 1.2% fail on Doors
      • 1.2% fail on Passengers front
    • 0.81% fail on Body security (14 times worse than other pre-1990 cars)
    • 0.40% fail on Seats
      • 0.40% fail on Passengers
  • 4.0% fail on Seat Belts and Supplementary Restraint Systems
    • 4.0% fail on Seat belts
      • 3.2% fail on Prescribed areas
      • 0.40% fail on Requirements
      • 0.40% fail on Condition
  • 3.2% fail on Steering
    • 2.4% fail on Steering system
      • 2.0% fail on Steering rack
      • 0.40% fail on Track rod end
    • 0.40% fail on Steering control
      • 0.40% fail on Steering wheel
    • 0.40% fail on Steering operation
  • 2.0% fail on Registration plates and VIN
    • 2.0% fail on Registration plate
  • 0.40% fail on Road Wheels
    • 0.40% fail on Attachment
Read the Honest John Review

  • Rover Metro and 100 1990
    A huge improvement over the original Metro, sweet-spinning K-Series engine, excellent ride quality, comfortable up-front