Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Mitsubishi Colt 2007: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2007 Mitsubishi Colt include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front) (~14.0× peers) and Linkage pins and bushes (front) (~11.8× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,364 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

1,364 failed first-attempt tests · 2,691 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front) — about 14.0× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front): about 14.0× more often than similar cars
  • Linkage pins and bushes (front): about 11.8× more often than similar cars
  • Ball joint dust cover (front): about 2.9× 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 1,364 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front)

This failure pattern appears about 14.0× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 63 failed first-attempt tests; 4.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 63 failures · ×14.0 vs similar cars · 4.6% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

Linkage pins and bushes (front)

This failure pattern appears about 11.8× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 62 failed first-attempt tests; 4.5% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 62 failures · ×11.8 vs similar cars · 4.5% 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 Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Front 63 ×14.0 4.6% Likely common fault pattern
2 Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 62 ×11.8 4.5% Likely common fault pattern
3 Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 85 ×2.9 6.2% Possible elevated fault
4 Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 123 ×2.4 9.0% Possible elevated fault
5 Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 120 ×2.3 8.8% Possible elevated fault
6 Track rod end
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Any 41 ×2.2 3.0% Possible elevated fault
7 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 37 ×2.1 2.7% Possible elevated fault
8 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 29 ×2.1 2.1% Possible elevated fault

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 Side repeaters
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Any 24 ×7.5 1.8% Elevated vs peers
2 Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 59 ×5.4 4.3% Likely common fault pattern
3 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 28 ×4.2 2.1% Possible elevated fault
4 Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 98 ×2.7 7.2% Possible elevated fault
5 Swivel pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Axles > Swivel pins and bushes
 Rear 42 ×2.4 3.1% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2007 Mitsubishi Colt on this page. Among 1,364 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 14.0× more often than peers; 63 observed failures; 4.6% 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: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front) (about 14.0× more often than peers; 63 observed failures; 4.6% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 14.0× more often than peers; 63 observed failures; 4.6% 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 2007 Mitsubishi Colt include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front), Linkage pins and bushes (front), Ball joint dust cover (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 2007 Mitsubishi Colt (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 Mitsubishi models

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