Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 2,366 tests analysed

Ford Ecosport 2014: reliability & common MOT faults

931 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2014 Ford Ecosport in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Stop lamp (rear) and Track rod end (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2014 Ecosports break the Ecosport's own run — at 60.7% they land 3.1 pp below the 2015 cars next to them.

First-attempt pass

60.7%

of 2,366 first tests (2025)

First tests

2,366

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

931

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

13.1%

Stop lamp (rear)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

60.7%

of 2,366 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

69.4%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

2,366

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 11.0 yrs · median mileage 72,236 mi

vs 2024: -4.4 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 906 of 931 failed first attempts (97.3%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on. 2.7% of failures are excluded for want of a mileage reading, so treat these shares as indicative for this model year.

Standout: Swivel pins and bushes (rear) — 8.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 78 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 21× 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.

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Swivel pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Axles > Swivel pins and bushes
 Rear 78 ×21 8.6% Likely
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 20 ×7.9 2.2% Possible
Parking brake control — Lever
Brakes > Parking brake control > Lever
 Any 36 ×5.3 4.0% Likely
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 20 ×4.1 2.2% Possible
Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 66 ×4.0 7.3% Likely
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 119 ×3.8 13.1% Likely
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 28 ×3.1 3.1% Possible
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 94 ×2.7 10.4% Possible
Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 62 ×2.5 6.8% Possible
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 118 ×2.5 13.0% 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.

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
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 36 ×31 4.0% Possible
Swivel pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Axles > Swivel pins and bushes
 Rear 73 ×9.3 8.1% Likely
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 89 ×8.0 9.8% Elevated
Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 252 ×6.5 27.8% Elevated
Transmission oil leaks
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Any 30 ×5.4 3.3% Elevated
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 30 ×4.3 3.3% Elevated
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 32 ×2.8 3.5% Possible
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 27 ×2.5 3.0% Possible
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.

This year underperforms the Ecosport's own age curve. If the years listed below are in budget, they are the stronger buy on this evidence.

Other Ecosport 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
2018 Ecosport +3.7 pp better 79.7% 21,629
2017 Ecosport -3.7 pp worse 70.3% 12,633

What to check on a 2014 Ecosport

The items that failed 2014 Ecosports 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.

  • Stop lamp (rear) — recorded on 13.1% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 13.0% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 10.4% of failed first attempts
  • Swivel pins and bushes (rear) — recorded on 8.6% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint dust cover (front) — recorded on 7.3% 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.

2014 Ecosports break the Ecosport's own run — at 60.7% they land 3.1 pp below the 2015 cars next to them. In 2025, 60.7% of 2,366 first MOTs on the 2014 Ford Ecosport passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 69.4%. Among 931 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Swivel pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on s…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2014 Ford Ecosports most often at the first attempt were Stop lamp (rear) (13.1%), Track rod end (front) (13.0%) and Rbt (sp) (10.4%) — 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: Swivel pins and bushes (rear) (8.6% of those tests; 78 observed failures; about 21× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Swivel pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (8.6% of those tests; 78 observed failures; about 21× 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 2014 Ford Ecosport include Swivel pins and bushes (rear), Individual direction indicators (front), Parking brake control — Lever. 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 2014 Ford Ecosport (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