Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Ford S-Max 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2009 Ford S-Max include Pins and bushes (rear) (~7.2× peers) and Suspension arm (rear) (~5.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (2,079 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

2,079 failed first-attempt tests · 4,649 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Pins and bushes (rear) — about 7.2× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

Pins and bushes (rear): about 7.2× more often than similar cars
Suspension arm (rear): about 5.7× 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 2,079 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 7.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 193 failed first-attempt tests; 9.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 193 failures · ×7.2 vs similar cars · 9.3% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Suspension arm (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 5.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 117 failed first-attempt tests; 5.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 117 failures · ×5.7 vs similar cars · 5.6% 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	Pins and bushes (rear) Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes	Rear	193	×7.2	9.3%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2	Suspension arm (rear) Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm	Rear	117	×5.7	5.6%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3	Seat belts — Condition (rear) Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition	Rear	58	×3.2	2.8%	Likely common fault pattern
4	On or after 01/07/2008 Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > On or after 01/07/2008	Any	178	×3.1	8.6%	Likely common fault pattern
5	Emissions not tested Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Emissions not tested	Any	46	×2.9	2.2%	Possible elevated fault
6	Exhaust system (rear) Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system	Rear	102	×2.7	4.9%	Possible elevated fault
7	Ball joint dust cover (front) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint dust cover	Front	85	×2.4	4.1%	Possible elevated fault
8	Road Wheels — Attachment (front) Road Wheels > Attachment	Front	44	×2.4	2.1%	Possible elevated fault
9	Side repeaters Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters	Any	82	×2.2	3.9%	Possible elevated fault
10	Linkage ball joint dust cover (front) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joint dust cover	Front	191	×2.1	9.2%	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	Brake pads (rear) Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads	Rear	157	×2.3	7.6%	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	Suspension arm Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm	Any	35	×4.7	1.7%	Elevated vs peers
2	Stop lamp Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp	Any	66	×4.2	3.2%	Elevated vs peers
3	Pins and bushes (rear) Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes	Rear	246	×4.0	11.8%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4	Suspension arm (rear) Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm	Rear	249	×3.8	12.0%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5	Linkage ball joints (rear) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints	Rear	72	×3.3	3.5%	Elevated vs peers
6	Stop lamp (rear) Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp	Rear	25	×3.2	1.2%	Elevated vs peers
7	Sub-frame Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame	Any	24	×3.2	1.2%	Elevated vs peers
8	Anti-roll bar (rear) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar	Rear	34	×3.0	1.6%	Elevated vs peers

FAQs

Is the 2009 Ford S-Max reliable?

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2009 Ford S-Max on this page. Among 2,079 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 7.2× more often than peers; 193 observed failures; 9.3% of failed tests). Treat this as a pre-purchase checklist from DVSA open data — not a guarantee for any individual car.

What common MOT faults stand out on the Ford S-Max 2009?

Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (rear) (about 7.2× more often than peers; 193 observed failures; 9.3% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.

Why does Pins and bushes (rear) stand out?

Pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 7.2× more often than peers; 193 observed failures; 9.3% 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.

What are common problems with the 2009 Ford S-Max?

Common MOT problem areas for the 2009 Ford S-Max include Pins and bushes (rear), Suspension arm (rear). These are elevated versus similar peer cars where lift clears our floors — not a full list of every possible fault on an individual car.

How should I read advisories vs fails?

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.

What does this Ford S-Max 2009 MOT report cover?

This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2009 Ford S-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.

Does this include engine and gearbox problems?

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.

What is PRS, and why does it count as a fail?

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).