Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Nissan Note 2008: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2008 Nissan Note include Pins and bushes (front) (~55.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (6,461 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

6,461 failed first-attempt tests · 13,223 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Pins and bushes (front) — about 55.7× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

Pins and bushes (front): about 55.7× 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 6,461 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Pins and bushes (front)

This failure pattern appears about 55.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 248 failed first-attempt tests; 3.8% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 248 failures · ×55.7 vs similar cars · 3.8% 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 (front) Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes	Front	248	×55.7	3.8%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2	Wheel bearings (rear) Suspension > Wheel bearings	Rear	268	×3.8	4.1%	Likely common fault pattern
3	Component mounting prescribed areas (front) Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas	Front	158	×3.6	2.4%	Likely common fault pattern
4	SRS malfunction indicator lamp Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp	Any	392	×3.1	6.1%	Likely common fault pattern
5	Electrical equipment — Horn Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn	Any	234	×2.7	3.6%	Possible elevated fault
6	Pins and bushes (front) Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes	Front	626	×2.2	9.7%	Possible elevated fault
7	Ball joint (front) Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint	Front	814	×2.2	12.6%	Possible elevated fault
8	Registration plate lamp(s) (rear) Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)	Rear	268	×2.1	4.1%	Possible elevated fault
9	Coil spring (front) Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring	Front	776	×2.0	12.0%	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	Pins and bushes (front) Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes	Front	300	×32.6	4.6%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2	Pins and bushes Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes	Any	28	×16.2	0.4%	Possible elevated fault
3	Side repeaters Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters	Any	74	×6.3	1.1%	Elevated vs peers
4	Side repeaters (front) Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters	Front	24	×4.9	0.4%	Elevated vs peers
5	Component mounting prescribed areas (front) Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas	Front	116	×3.9	1.8%	Likely common fault pattern
6	Stop lamp Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp	Any	175	×3.6	2.7%	Elevated vs peers
7	SRS malfunction indicator lamp Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp	Any	25	×3.2	0.4%	Likely common fault pattern
8	Stop lamp (rear) Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp	Rear	71	×2.9	1.1%	Elevated vs peers

FAQs

Is the 2008 Nissan Note reliable?

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2008 Nissan Note on this page. Among 6,461 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (front) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 55.7× more often than peers; 248 observed failures; 3.8% 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 Nissan Note 2008?

Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (front) (about 55.7× more often than peers; 248 observed failures; 3.8% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.

Why does Pins and bushes (front) stand out?

Pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 55.7× more often than peers; 248 observed failures; 3.8% 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 2008 Nissan Note?

Common MOT problem areas for the 2008 Nissan Note include Pins and bushes (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.

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 Nissan Note 2008 MOT report cover?

This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2008 Nissan Note (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 Nissan models

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