Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Chrysler Grand Voyager 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 55 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test).

Summary

With 675 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager differs from the model years either side.

At a glance

How 675 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
55 in every 100
Did not pass first time
45 in every 100303 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
19 yearsabout 118,885 miles
First tests counted
675

What failed most often

  1. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)27 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 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager 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

Two faults. The strongest is the anti-lock braking system (ABS): 4.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 303 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.

Anti-lock braking system (ABS)

Failed on 38 first tests4.8 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 83 first tests3.2 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.

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.

Leaf spring anchor pins and bushes (rear)

Noted on 25 first tests338 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Leaf spring shackle pins and bushes (rear)

Noted on 28 first tests133 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Non-component advisories (front)

Noted on 38 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Brake pads (rear)

Noted on 21 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

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
55in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
10in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
35in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 55.1% of 675 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 65.0%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 10 fixed and the 35 not fixed make the 45 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200557 in every 100457
2006 This car55 in every 100675
200754 in every 100392
200851 in every 100483

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 57 in every 100 passed first time.

FAQs

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

With 675 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager differs from the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test), about 27 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 55.1% of 675 first MOTs on the 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 65.0%. Among 303 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-lock braking system (ABS) appears more often than on similar cars (12.5% of those tests; 38 observed failures; about 4.8× 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 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager at the first attempt were Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (27.4%), 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: Anti-lock braking system (ABS) (12.5% of those tests; 38 observed failures; about 4.8× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-lock braking system (ABS) shows up more often than on similar cars (12.5% of those tests; 38 observed failures; about 4.8× 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 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager include Anti-lock braking system (ABS), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test). 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 2006 Chrysler Grand Voyager (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