Mazda 6 2012: reliability & common MOT faults
Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2012 Mazda 6 include Ball joint dust cover (front) (~6.8× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (977 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.
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 977 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.
Ball joint dust cover (front)
This failure pattern appears about 6.8× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 113 failed first-attempt tests; 11.6% of failed tests for this model year.
Front · 113 failures · ×6.8 vs similar cars · 11.6% 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 |
Power steering — Operation
Steering > Power steering > Operation
|
Any | 21 | ×23.1 | 2.1% | Possible elevated fault |
| 2 |
Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
|
Front | 113 | ×6.8 | 11.6% | Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars |
| 3 |
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
|
Rear | 23 | ×5.0 | 2.4% | Possible elevated fault |
| 4 |
Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
|
Front | 55 | ×3.6 | 5.6% | Likely common fault pattern |
| 5 |
Service brake performance
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake performance
|
Any | 26 | ×3.5 | 2.7% | Possible elevated fault |
| 6 |
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
|
Front | 24 | ×3.2 | 2.5% | Possible elevated fault |
| 7 |
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
|
Any | 170 | ×3.1 | 17.4% | Likely common fault pattern |
| 8 |
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
|
Rear | 22 | ×3.0 | 2.3% | Possible elevated fault |
| 9 |
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
|
Front | 28 | ×2.5 | 2.9% | Possible elevated fault |
| 10 |
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
|
Rear | 48 | ×2.2 | 4.9% | 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 discs (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
|
Rear | 28 | ×2.2 | 2.9% | 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 |
Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
|
Rear | 32 | ×9.2 | 3.3% | Elevated vs peers |
| 2 |
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
|
Rear | 155 | ×7.8 | 15.9% | Possible elevated fault |
| 3 |
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
|
Rear | 41 | ×5.7 | 4.2% | Elevated vs peers |
| 4 |
Headlamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
|
Any | 24 | ×5.1 | 2.5% | Elevated vs peers |
| 5 |
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
|
Rear | 213 | ×5.0 | 21.8% | Elevated vs peers |
| 6 |
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
|
Front | 36 | ×5.0 | 3.7% | Elevated vs peers |
| 7 |
Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
|
Front | 56 | ×4.6 | 5.7% | Elevated vs peers |
| 8 |
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
|
Front | 86 | ×3.6 | 8.8% | Possible elevated fault |
FAQs
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.