Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Peugeot 107 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2010 Peugeot 107 include Linkage pins and bushes (front) (~12.2× peers) and Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (~6.2× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (5,227 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

5,227 failed first-attempt tests · 12,964 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Linkage pins and bushes (front) — about 12.2× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

Linkage pins and bushes (front): about 12.2× more often than similar cars
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear): about 6.2× more often than similar cars
Chassis condition (rear): about 6.1× 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 5,227 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Linkage pins and bushes (front)

This failure pattern appears about 12.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 128 failed first-attempt tests; 2.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 128 failures · ×12.2 vs similar cars · 2.4% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 6.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 484 failed first-attempt tests; 9.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 484 failures · ×6.2 vs similar cars · 9.3% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Chassis condition (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 6.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 119 failed first-attempt tests; 2.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 119 failures · ×6.1 vs similar cars · 2.3% 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	Linkage pins and bushes (front) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes	Front	128	×12.2	2.4%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2	Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas	Rear	484	×6.2	9.3%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3	Chassis condition (rear) Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition	Rear	119	×6.1	2.3%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4	Rigid brake pipes (rear) Brakes > Rigid brake pipes	Rear	371	×4.5	7.1%	Likely common fault pattern
5	Service brake performance (rear) Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance	Rear	632	×4.3	12.1%	Likely common fault pattern
6	Service brake performance (rear) Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance	Rear	121	×4.2	2.3%	Likely common fault pattern
7	Sub-frame (front) Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame	Front	109	×3.2	2.1%	Likely common fault pattern
8	Wheel bearings (front) Suspension > Wheel bearings	Front	143	×2.7	2.7%	Possible elevated fault
9	Catalyst emissions Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions	Any	507	×2.7	9.7%	Possible elevated fault
10	Emissions not tested Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Emissions not tested	Any	198	×2.7	3.8%	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	Linkage pins and bushes Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes	Any	34	×30.5	0.7%	Elevated vs peers
2	Linkage pins and bushes (front) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes	Front	540	×27.3	10.3%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3	Pins and bushes (front) Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes	Front	115	×8.4	2.2%	Possible elevated fault
4	Rigid brake pipes (rear) Brakes > Rigid brake pipes	Rear	982	×4.5	18.8%	Likely common fault pattern
5	Rigid brake pipes Brakes > Rigid brake pipes	Any	299	×3.9	5.7%	Likely common fault pattern
6	Road Wheels — Condition (front) Road Wheels > Condition	Front	231	×3.2	4.4%	Possible elevated fault
7	Macpherson strut (front) Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut	Front	138	×3.0	2.6%	Likely common fault pattern
8	Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas	Rear	190	×3.0	3.6%	Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

FAQs

Is the 2010 Peugeot 107 reliable?

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2010 Peugeot 107 on this page. Among 5,227 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Linkage pins and bushes (front) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 12.2× more often than peers; 128 observed failures; 2.4% 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 Peugeot 107 2010?

Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Linkage pins and bushes (front) (about 12.2× more often than peers; 128 observed failures; 2.4% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.

Why does Linkage pins and bushes (front) stand out?

Linkage pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 12.2× more often than peers; 128 observed failures; 2.4% 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 2010 Peugeot 107?

Common MOT problem areas for the 2010 Peugeot 107 include Linkage pins and bushes (front), Component mounting prescribed areas (rear), Chassis condition (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 Peugeot 107 2010 MOT report cover?

This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2010 Peugeot 107 (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 Peugeot models

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