Ford Grand C-Max 2016: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2016 Ford Grand C-Max include Pins and bushes (rear) (~5.0× peers) and On or after 01/01/2014 (~3.6× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (2,014 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Pins and bushes (rear): about 5.0× more often than similar cars
  • On or after 01/01/2014: about 3.6× more often than similar cars
  • Road Wheels — Attachment (front): about 3.1× more often than similar cars

Common faults

These are MOT failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age band, and mileage in the same test year (leave-one-out peer comparison; whole model family excluded).

Statistical patterns from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer TSBs, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Fail and advisory patterns are kept separate.

Based on 2,014 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 5.0× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 44 failed first-attempt tests; 2.2% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 44 failures · ×5.0 vs similar cars · 2.2% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

On or after 01/01/2014

This failure pattern appears about 3.6× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 65 failed first-attempt tests; 3.2% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 65 failures · ×3.6 vs similar cars · 3.2% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
Rear 44 ×5.0 2.2% Likely common fault pattern
2 On or after 01/01/2014
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > On or after 01/01/2014
Any 65 ×3.6 3.2% Likely common fault pattern
3 Road Wheels — Attachment (front)
Road Wheels > Attachment
Front 45 ×3.1 2.2% Likely common fault pattern
4 Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
Rear 146 ×2.7 7.2% Possible elevated fault
5 Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
Front 207 ×2.6 10.3% Possible elevated fault
6 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
Any 141 ×2.4 7.0% Possible elevated fault
7 Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
Rear 53 ×2.2 2.6% Possible elevated fault
8 Position lamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
Front 166 ×2.2 8.2% Possible elevated fault
9 Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
Rear 60 ×2.1 3.0% Possible elevated fault

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and 2.0× peer lift).

Wear patterns

These patterns look like wear or usage effects rather than model-specific design faults. Tyres, brake friction material, and alignment-related defects often track mileage and road use. They are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

# Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Tyre pressure monitoring system
Tyres > Tyre pressure monitoring system
Any 256 ×2.6 12.7% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault

Advisories

Advisory items recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear elevated versus peers. Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
Rear 148 ×7.7 7.3% Likely common fault pattern
2 Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
Rear 23 ×3.1 1.1% Elevated vs peers
3 Registration plates (rear)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
Rear 85 ×2.6 4.2% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2016 Ford Grand C-Max on this page. Among 2,014 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.0× more often than peers; 44 observed failures; 2.2% of failed tests). Treat this as a pre-purchase checklist from DVSA open data — not a guarantee for any individual car.
Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (rear) (about 5.0× more often than peers; 44 observed failures; 2.2% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.0× more often than peers; 44 observed failures; 2.2% of failed tests). That does not prove a causal design fault — age, mileage, and usage still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer TSB.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2016 Ford Grand C-Max include Pins and bushes (rear), On or after 01/01/2014, Road Wheels — Attachment (front). These are elevated versus similar peer cars where lift clears our floors — not a full list of every possible fault on an individual car.
Advisories flag issues noted at the test and are not a fail rate. We show advisory patterns that look elevated versus peers among failed first-attempt tests, separate from common failure rows. Use them as early-warning checks, not as a pass/fail score.
This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2016 Ford Grand C-Max (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are ranked against similar age and mileage peers. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer TSB list.
No. MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules. Patterns here come from MOT defect statistics only and should not be read as engine or gearbox reliability scores.
PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

About this data

Universe. UK class 4 cars only; normal MOT tests (not retests); results pass, PRS, or fail; one first test per vehicle per calendar year.

PRS policy. PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

Peer baseline. We compare this model year with other class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year, excluding the whole model family so the car is not compared with itself (leave-one-out peer baseline).

Data years. Test years covered: 2024, 2025.

Limitations.

  • MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules — so this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults are inferred from MOT defect statistics, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Matching on age and mileage reduces but does not remove every usage or maintenance difference between cars.
  • Pass rates and star scores appear only when those data marts are available; this page never invents them.

Display rules config: 1

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.