Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Ford Ranger 2016: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2016 Ford Ranger include Leaf spring (rear) (~95.3× peers) and Anti-lock braking system (~7.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (2,729 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

2,729 failed first-attempt tests · 9,695 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Leaf spring (rear) — about 95.3× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Leaf spring (rear): about 95.3× more often than similar cars
  • Anti-lock braking system: about 7.7× more often than similar cars
  • Coil spring (front): about 5.0× 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 2,729 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Leaf spring (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 95.3× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 164 failed first-attempt tests; 6.0% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 164 failures · ×95.3 vs similar cars · 6.0% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Anti-lock braking system

This failure pattern appears about 7.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 222 failed first-attempt tests; 8.1% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 222 failures · ×7.7 vs similar cars · 8.1% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Coil spring (front)

This failure pattern appears about 5.0× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 635 failed first-attempt tests; 23.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 635 failures · ×5.0 vs similar cars · 23.3% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Leaf spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Leaf spring
 Rear 164 ×95.3 6.0% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Anti-lock braking system
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Anti-lock braking system
 Any 222 ×7.7 8.1% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 57 ×5.1 2.1% Likely common fault pattern
4 Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 635 ×5.0 23.3% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 120 ×4.7 4.4% Likely common fault pattern
6 Rear fog lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Any 91 ×3.7 3.3% Likely common fault pattern
7 Side repeaters
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Any 96 ×2.5 3.5% Possible elevated fault
8 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 63 ×2.2 2.3% Possible elevated fault
9 On or after 01/01/2014
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > On or after 01/01/2014
 Any 68 ×2.1 2.5% 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 341 ×2.5 12.5% 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 Shackle pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Shackle pins and bushes
 Rear 22 ×43.8 0.8% Elevated vs peers
2 Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Any 49 ×17.5 1.8% Elevated vs peers
3 Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 47 ×12.2 1.7% Elevated vs peers
4 Brake fluid
Brakes > Hydraulic systems > Brake fluid
 Any 31 ×6.2 1.1% Elevated vs peers
5 Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 52 ×3.4 1.9% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Transmission oil leaks
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Any 54 ×3.3 2.0% Elevated vs peers
7 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 34 ×3.0 1.2% Elevated vs peers
8 Flexible brake hoses (rear)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Rear 23 ×2.1 0.8% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2016 Ford Ranger on this page. Among 2,729 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Leaf spring (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 95.3× more often than peers; 164 observed failures; 6.0% 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: Leaf spring (rear) (about 95.3× more often than peers; 164 observed failures; 6.0% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Leaf spring (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 95.3× more often than peers; 164 observed failures; 6.0% 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 Ranger include Leaf spring (rear), Anti-lock braking system, Coil spring (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 Ranger (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.

Most reliable Ford models

See brand-wide MOT rankings and year guidance for Ford (separate from this model-year report).