Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Peugeot 208 2017: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2017 Peugeot 208 include Drive shafts — Joints (~9.3× peers) and Registration plate lamp(s) (rear) (~7.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (4,955 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

4,955 failed first-attempt tests · 16,718 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Drive shafts — Joints — about 9.3× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Drive shafts — Joints: about 9.3× more often than similar cars
  • Registration plate lamp(s) (rear): about 7.7× more often than similar cars
  • Registration plate lamp(s): about 7.0× 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 4,955 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Drive shafts — Joints

This failure pattern appears about 9.3× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 121 failed first-attempt tests; 2.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 121 failures · ×9.3 vs similar cars · 2.4% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 7.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 352 failed first-attempt tests; 7.1% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 352 failures · ×7.7 vs similar cars · 7.1% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Registration plate lamp(s)

This failure pattern appears about 7.0× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 525 failed first-attempt tests; 10.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 525 failures · ×7.0 vs similar cars · 10.6% 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 Drive shafts — Joints
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Any 121 ×9.3 2.4% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Rear 352 ×7.7 7.1% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Registration plate lamp(s)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Any 525 ×7.0 10.6% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 175 ×6.9 3.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 934 ×6.4 18.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 430 ×4.6 8.7% Likely common fault pattern
7 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 157 ×4.1 3.2% Likely common fault pattern
8 Headlamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Any 447 ×3.9 9.0% Likely common fault pattern
9 Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 397 ×3.4 8.0% Likely common fault pattern
10 Side repeaters
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Any 122 ×2.0 2.5% 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 Headlamp aim not tested (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
 Front 51 ×3.7 1.0% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault
2 Headlamp aim not tested
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
 Any 66 ×3.5 1.3% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault
3 Brake discs (front)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
 Front 196 ×2.1 4.0% 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 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 393 ×9.6 7.9% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 42 ×9.0 0.8% Elevated vs peers
3 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 107 ×4.8 2.2% Likely common fault pattern
4 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 52 ×4.6 1.0% Possible elevated fault
5 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 206 ×4.5 4.2% Likely common fault pattern
6 Transmission oil leaks
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Any 53 ×3.0 1.1% Elevated vs peers
7 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 23 ×2.8 0.5% Elevated vs peers
8 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 541 ×2.0 10.9% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2017 Peugeot 208 on this page. Among 4,955 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Drive shafts — Joints appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 9.3× more often than peers; 121 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.
Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Drive shafts — Joints (about 9.3× more often than peers; 121 observed failures; 2.4% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Drive shafts — Joints shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 9.3× more often than peers; 121 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.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2017 Peugeot 208 include Drive shafts — Joints, Registration plate lamp(s) (rear), Registration plate lamp(s). 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 2017 Peugeot 208 (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 Peugeot models

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