Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Toyota Aygo 2016: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2016 Toyota Aygo include Linkage pins and bushes (front) (~30.5× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (3,826 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

3,826 failed first-attempt tests · 21,503 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Linkage pins and bushes (front) — about 30.5× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Linkage pins and bushes (front): about 30.5× 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 3,826 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Linkage pins and bushes (front)

This failure pattern appears about 30.5× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 144 failed first-attempt tests; 3.8% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 144 failures · ×30.5 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 Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 144 ×30.5 3.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Parking brake control — Lever
Brakes > Parking brake control > Lever
 Any 83 ×3.6 2.2% Likely common fault pattern
3 Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 221 ×3.4 5.8% Likely common fault pattern
4 Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 83 ×2.7 2.2% Possible elevated fault
5 Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 251 ×2.7 6.6% 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 Brake discs (front)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
 Front 240 ×3.3 6.3% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault
2 Brake pads (front)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Front 351 ×2.1 9.2% 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 Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 460 ×51.0 12.0% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 95 ×20.8 2.5% Possible elevated fault
3 Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 37 ×11.4 1.0% Elevated vs peers
4 Headlamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Any 23 ×11.1 0.6% Elevated vs peers
5 Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 24 ×8.4 0.6% Elevated vs peers
6 Sub-frame (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Front 230 ×7.7 6.0% Likely common fault pattern
7 Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 55 ×7.4 1.4% Elevated vs peers
8 Rigid brake pipes
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Any 89 ×4.7 2.3% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2016 Toyota Aygo on this page. Among 3,826 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Linkage pins and bushes (front) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 30.5× more often than peers; 144 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.
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 30.5× more often than peers; 144 observed failures; 3.8% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Linkage pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 30.5× more often than peers; 144 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.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2016 Toyota Aygo include Linkage 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.
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 2016 Toyota Aygo (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 Toyota models

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