Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 13,411 tests analysed

Ford Ecosport 2016: reliability & common MOT faults

4,254 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2016 Ford Ecosport in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Stop lamp was the most common reason a 2016 Ecosport failed its MOT — 16.8% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

68.3%

of 13,411 first tests (2025)

First tests

13,411

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

4,254

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

68.3%

of 13,411 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

77.5%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

13,411

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 9.0 yrs · median mileage 56,875 mi

vs 2024: -1.9 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 4,232 of 4,254 failed first attempts (99.5%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Exhaust system (rear) — 4.1% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 172 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 7.9× 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
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 172 ×7.9 4.1% Strong
Swivel pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Axles > Swivel pins and bushes
 Rear 121 ×7.7 2.9% Strong
Hand lever
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Hand lever
 Any 95 ×6.5 2.2% Likely
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 713 ×6.0 16.8% Strong
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 112 ×5.3 2.6% Strong
Parking brake control — Lever
Brakes > Parking brake control > Lever
 Any 134 ×5.0 3.2% Likely
Emissions not tested
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Emissions not tested
 Any 113 ×4.9 2.7% Likely
Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 377 ×4.2 8.9% Likely
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 360 ×3.3 8.5% Likely
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 95 ×2.1 2.2% 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
Tyre pressure monitoring system
Tyres > Tyre pressure monitoring system
 Any 435 ×2.2 10.3% 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
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 119 ×26 2.8% Likely
Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 1,012 ×11 23.9% Elevated
Swivel pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Axles > Swivel pins and bushes
 Rear 285 ×11 6.7% Strong
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
 Rear 59 ×9.6 1.4% Possible
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 218 ×9.4 5.2% Elevated
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Other suspension component > Pins and bushes
 Rear 30 ×7.4 0.7% Elevated
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 111 ×6.1 2.6% Strong
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 149 ×5.9 3.5% 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 Ecosports either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2016 Ecosports, commonest first.

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
2014 Ecosport -3.1 pp worse 60.7% 2,366
2020 Ecosport -1.7 pp worse 82.4% 8,494

What to check on a 2016 Ecosport

The items that failed 2016 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 — recorded on 16.8% of failed first attempts
  • Tyre pressure monitoring system — recorded on 10.3% of failed first attempts
  • Catalyst emissions — recorded on 8.9% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 8.5% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 6.0% 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.

Stop lamp was the most common reason a 2016 Ecosport failed its MOT — 16.8% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 68.3% of 13,411 first MOTs on the 2016 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 77.5%. Among 4,254 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Exhaust system (rear) appears more often than on simila…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2016 Ford Ecosports most often at the first attempt were Stop lamp (16.8%), Tyre pressure monitoring system (10.3%) and Catalyst emissions (8.9%) — 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: Exhaust system (rear) (4.1% of those tests; 172 observed failures; about 7.9× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Exhaust system (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (4.1% of those tests; 172 observed failures; about 7.9× 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 2016 Ford Ecosport include Exhaust system (rear), Swivel pins and bushes (rear), Stop lamp (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 2016 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