Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Chrysler 300 2007: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 65 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2007 Chrysler 300 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test).

Summary

The 2007 Chrysler 300 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,096 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
65 in every 100
Did not pass first time
35 in every 100384 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
18 yearsabout 112,408 miles
First tests counted
1,096

What failed most often

  1. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)32 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Track rod end (front)15 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Anti-lock braking system (ABS)14 in every 100 failed tests

How we count this. Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Only Class 4 cars on their first MOT of the year are counted. A car that fails and is fixed at the test station still counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate. These are raw results, not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix. The MOT does not test engine or gearbox internals.

Note:

These are patterns across 2007 Chrysler 300 vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Brakes

Three faults. The strongest is the electronic stability control: 11 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 384 failed first attempts in 2025 that had a mileage recorded, which allows a like-for-like comparison.

We only list faults with at least 20 failures and a rate of about 2.0 times that of similar cars, which keeps one-off results out of the list.

Electronic stability control

Failed on 30 first tests11 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

An ESC warning lamp is failed only when the tester is certain it indicates an ESC malfunction, because the lamp takes various forms and the owner's handbook may need checking. The system is also called ESP, VDC or DSC, among many other names. Every failure row is Major, covering the lamp, wheel speed sensors, wiring, other components and the switch.

Anti-lock braking system (ABS)

Failed on 52 first tests5.3 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

ABS is failed as removed only where it has obviously been removed, because not every vehicle in the age range where removal is not permitted has ABS. A warning lamp that does not light or shows an ABS fault is Major, as is a missing or excessively damaged wheel speed sensor. Every failure row for this component is Major.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 124 first tests4.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and graded Dangerous where efficiency is less than half of the required value. On a roller brake tester, the requirement counts as met if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock. The check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake was not already tested as the secondary brake.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Suspension

Four faults. The strongest is the suspension arm pins and bushes (rear): 5.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm pins and bushes (rear)

Failed on 20 first tests5.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Pins and bushes on suspension arms fail as Major when they are excessively worn. They are graded Dangerous when likely to become detached. DVSA uses the same wording for a suspension joint.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 21 first tests, 2.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 30 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Whether a suspension arm ball joint dust cover still keeps dirt out decides its grade. Severely deteriorated is Minor, while missing, or no longer preventing the ingress of dirt, is Major.

Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 37 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Pins and bushes on suspension arms fail as Major when they are excessively worn. They are graded Dangerous when likely to become detached. DVSA uses the same wording for a suspension joint.

Suspension arm ball joint (front)

Failed on 45 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A suspension arm ball joint is failed under the general suspension pin, bush or joint wording. Excessively worn is Major, and likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 21 first tests, 2.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Steering

One fault: track rod end (front), 3.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Track rod end (front)

Failed on 56 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A steering ball joint with excessive wear or free play is Major, and one worn to the extent there is a serious risk of detachment is graded Dangerous. A dust cover that is damaged but still keeps dirt out is Minor, and one missing or no longer keeping dirt out is Major. Testers must tell wear from a joint's built-in clearance or spring loading.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Advisories

Other things testers noted as worn or close to failing, more often than on similar cars.

An advisory is a note from the tester about something that has not failed yet. It is an early warning, not a fail. Advisories for the faults above are shown with those faults.

Wheel bearings (rear)

Noted on 20 first tests5.3 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Noted on 60 first tests3.9 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Counts cover advisories recorded on failed first tests only, compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

MOT pass rates

How first tests ended, and how the pass rates are counted.

Passed first time
65in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
5in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
30in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 65.0% of 1,096 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 70.4%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 5 fixed and the 30 not fixed make the 35 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

Passed first time in every 100, all tested in 2025.

40608010020062007200820092010Older carsNewer cars
40608010020062007200820092010Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 64 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200665 in every 100850
2007 This car65 in every 1001,096
200862 in every 100716
200965 in every 100447
201065 in every 100508

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

The 2007 Chrysler 300 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test), about 32 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 65.0% of 1,096 first MOTs on the 2007 Chrysler 300 passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 70.4%. Among 384 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Electronic stability control appears more often than on similar cars (7.8% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). There is no single reliability score here; this is a pre-purchase checklist built from DVSA open data, not a guarantee for any individual car.
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that most often failed a 2007 Chrysler 300 at the first attempt were Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (32.3%), Track rod end (front) (14.6%) and Anti-lock braking system (ABS) (13.5%), each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong most often on the car. The common faults table shows a different measure: faults that are unusual compared with similar cars.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Electronic stability control (7.8% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Electronic stability control shows up more often than on similar cars (7.8% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). That does not prove a design fault. Age, mileage, and how the car was used still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase checkpoint, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2007 Chrysler 300 include Electronic stability control, Suspension arm pins and bushes (rear), Anti-lock braking system (ABS). These are the faults that stand out compared with similar cars, not a complete list of what can go wrong on any individual car.
Advisories flag issues noted at the test and are not a fail rate. We show advisory patterns that appear more often than on similar cars 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 MOT failure patterns for the 2007 Chrysler 300 (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are compared with cars of a similar age and mileage. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics, not a full service history or manufacturer service-bulletin 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.

About this data

How this page is built and what it can (and can't) say.

These figures come from UK MOT open data for this model year. We surface common failure patterns against similar cars, not a full reliability score, and not a pass/fail verdict on any individual vehicle.

2024 2025

What we include

UK Class 4 cars only. Normal MOT tests (not retests); first test per vehicle per calendar year; results pass, PRS, or fail.

Same-day repairs

PRS means the car 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.

How we compare

We compare this model year with other Class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year. This model family is left out of the peer group so the car is not measured against itself.

What this does not cover

  • MOTs do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronics; this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults come from MOT defect stats, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Age and mileage matching reduces, but does not remove, differences in how cars were used and maintained.
  • If the data for a car is too thin to say anything useful, we say so rather than guess.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Check any vehicle’s MOT history

Full MOT history, mileage records, and reliability insights for any UK vehicle.

Run a free check