Renault Trafic 2017: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2017 Renault Trafic include Track rod end (~9.5× peers) and Linkage ball joints (front) (~8.2× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (3,260 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Track rod end: about 9.5× more often than similar cars
  • Linkage ball joints (front): about 8.2× more often than similar cars
  • Ball joint (front): about 8.1× 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 3,260 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Track rod end

This failure pattern appears about 9.5× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 318 failed first-attempt tests; 9.8% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 318 failures · ×9.5 vs similar cars · 9.8% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Linkage ball joints (front)

This failure pattern appears about 8.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 432 failed first-attempt tests; 13.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 432 failures · ×8.2 vs similar cars · 13.3% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Ball joint (front)

This failure pattern appears about 8.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 125 failed first-attempt tests; 3.8% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 125 failures · ×8.1 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 Track rod end
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
Any 318 ×9.5 9.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
Front 432 ×8.2 13.3% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint
Front 125 ×8.1 3.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
Front 750 ×7.2 23.0% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
Front 353 ×5.3 10.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
Rear 433 ×2.9 13.3% Possible elevated fault
7 Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
Any 400 ×2.8 12.3% Possible elevated fault
8 Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
Front 300 ×2.1 9.2% 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 21 ×17.4 0.6% Elevated vs peers
2 Seat belts — Condition
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
Any 28 ×10.2 0.9% Elevated vs peers
3 Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
Rear 52 ×8.5 1.6% Elevated vs peers
4 Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
Any 74 ×8.0 2.3% Elevated vs peers
5 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
Front 60 ×7.4 1.8% Likely common fault pattern
6 Track rod end
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
Any 57 ×7.3 1.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
7 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
Any 81 ×7.1 2.5% Elevated vs peers
8 Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
Front 176 ×5.9 5.4% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2017 Renault Trafic on this page. Among 3,260 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Track rod end appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 9.5× more often than peers; 318 observed failures; 9.8% 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: Track rod end (about 9.5× more often than peers; 318 observed failures; 9.8% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Track rod end shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 9.5× more often than peers; 318 observed failures; 9.8% 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.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2017 Renault Trafic include Track rod end, Linkage ball joints (front), Ball joint (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 2017 Renault Trafic (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.