Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Ford Transit 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2009 Ford Transit include Leaf spring (rear) (~163.1× peers) and Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear) (~16.8× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (4,089 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

4,089 failed first-attempt tests · 8,514 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Leaf spring (rear) — about 163.1× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Leaf spring (rear): about 163.1× more often than similar cars
  • Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear): about 16.8× more often than similar cars
  • Chassis condition: about 16.7× 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 4,089 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Leaf spring (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 163.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 376 failed first-attempt tests; 9.2% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 376 failures · ×163.1 vs similar cars · 9.2% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 16.8× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 102 failed first-attempt tests; 2.5% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 102 failures · ×16.8 vs similar cars · 2.5% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Chassis condition

This failure pattern appears about 16.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 147 failed first-attempt tests; 3.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 147 failures · ×16.7 vs similar cars · 3.6% 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 Leaf spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Leaf spring
 Rear 376 ×163.1 9.2% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Spring mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 102 ×16.8 2.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Any 147 ×16.7 3.6% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Prescribed areas (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Front 218 ×16.5 5.3% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Integral vehicle structure condition
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Any 211 ×16.2 5.2% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 232 ×15.8 5.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
7 Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 223 ×14.5 5.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
8 Component mounting prescribed areas
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Any 159 ×11.6 3.9% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
9 Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 259 ×11.6 6.3% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
10 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 318 ×10.5 7.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

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

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 Anchor pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Anchor pins and bushes
 Rear 32 ×70.4 0.8% Elevated vs peers
2 Shackle pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Shackle pins and bushes
 Rear 35 ×21.7 0.9% Elevated vs peers
3 Pipes and hoses (front)
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Front 64 ×17.4 1.6% Elevated vs peers
4 Seat belts — Condition
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Any 66 ×16.5 1.6% Elevated vs peers
5 Prescribed areas (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Front 42 ×14.8 1.0% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 169 ×12.9 4.1% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
7 Pipes and hoses
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Any 126 ×12.3 3.1% Likely common fault pattern
8 Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 127 ×10.2 3.1% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2009 Ford Transit on this page. Among 4,089 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Leaf spring (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 163.1× more often than peers; 376 observed failures; 9.2% 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: Leaf spring (rear) (about 163.1× more often than peers; 376 observed failures; 9.2% 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 163.1× more often than peers; 376 observed failures; 9.2% 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 2009 Ford Transit include Leaf spring (rear), Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear), Chassis condition. 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 2009 Ford Transit (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).