Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 7,823 tests analysed

Fiat Panda 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

3,367 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2010 Fiat Panda in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Pins and bushes (front) was the most common reason a 2010 Panda failed its MOT — 13.6% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

57.0%

of 7,823 first tests (2025)

First tests

7,823

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

3,367

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

First-attempt and official-style rates among class 4 first tests of the year.

First-attempt pass

57.0%

of 7,823 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

63.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

7,823

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 15.0 yrs · median mileage 69,278 mi

vs 2024: +0.1 pp first-attempt

Note:

  • Class 4 cars · first MOT of the year per vehicle · P/PRS/F outcomes (2025 data).
  • PRS (fixed at the station the same day) counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate.
  • Raw outcomes for this cohort — not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix.
  • MOT doesn't test engine or gearbox internals.

Common faults

Failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars.

These MOT failure patterns show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age, and mileage.

Shares below are measured across the 3,364 of 3,367 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Shock absorbers (front) — 12.1% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 406 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 5.7× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. That is what makes it unusual for its class, which is a different question from what is most likely to fail; the buying checklist ranks by that. The full ranked list is in the table below.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 406 ×5.7 12.1% Strong
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 458 ×3.4 13.6% Likely
Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 286 ×3.3 8.5% Likely
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 255 ×3.2 7.6% Likely
Parking brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Rear 96 ×3.0 2.9% Likely
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 96 ×2.8 2.9% Possible
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 212 ×2.8 6.3% Possible
Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 88 ×2.7 2.6% Possible
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 101 ×2.6 3.0% Possible

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and about 2.0× more often than similar cars).

Note: Rates and comparisons are among first-attempt failed tests, not all MOTs. Patterns come from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer service bulletins, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Failures and advisories are listed separately.

Wear patterns

Usage and mileage effects that often track road use rather than model design.

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.

Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Tread depth (rear)
Tyres > Tread depth
 Rear 189 ×2.9 5.6% Wear
Note: These patterns are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

Advisories

Notes recorded at the test that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory notes recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 42 ×14 1.2% Possible
Coil springs — Mounting (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Mounting
 Rear 36 ×7.7 1.1% Elevated
Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Spring mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 27 ×4.4 0.8% Elevated
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 321 ×3.6 9.5% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Pins and bushes
 Front 110 ×3.4 3.3% Likely
Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 746 ×3.1 22.2% Elevated
Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 26 ×3.1 0.8% Elevated
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 348 ×3.1 10.3% Strong
Note: Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Nothing separates this year from the Pandas either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2010 Pandas, commonest first.

Other Panda years worth knowing about

Newer cars always pass more often, so a plain "best year" list would just rank by age. These are the years that beat or miss the trend their own neighbouring years set — the only age-adjusted signal this data supports.

Year vs the years either side First-attempt pass (rises with newer cars) First tests
2012 Panda +2.5 pp better 63.9% 5,966
2011 Panda -2.9 pp worse 57.5% 4,871

What to check on a 2010 Panda

The items that failed 2010 Pandas most often, as a share of the year's failed first attempts. This is what goes wrong, not what is unusual — the table further up the page covers that.

  • Pins and bushes (front) — recorded on 13.6% of failed first attempts
  • Shock absorbers (front) — recorded on 12.1% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 9.5% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 9.2% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 8.1% of failed first attempts

Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line. MOTs do not test engine or gearbox internals, so this is a pre-purchase checklist, not a full reliability score.

FAQs

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

Pins and bushes (front) was the most common reason a 2010 Panda failed its MOT — 13.6% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 57.0% of 7,823 first MOTs on the 2010 Fiat Panda passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 63.0%. Among 3,367 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Shock absorbers (front) appears more often than…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2010 Fiat Pandas most often at the first attempt were Pins and bushes (front) (13.6%), Shock absorbers (front) (12.1%) and Rbt (sp) (9.5%) — each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong on the car. It is a different question from which patterns are unusual for the class, which the common-faults table answers.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Shock absorbers (front) (12.1% of those tests; 406 observed failures; about 5.7× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Shock absorbers (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (12.1% of those tests; 406 observed failures; about 5.7× 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 check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2010 Fiat Panda include Shock absorbers (front), Pins and bushes (front), Individual direction indicators (rear). These patterns show up more often than on similar cars after we filter out sparse noise — 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 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 2010 Fiat Panda (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.
  • We never invent pass rates, star scores, or ranks when those data marts are missing.

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