Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 3,892 tests analysed

Ford Focus 2001: reliability & common MOT faults

1,774 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2001 Ford Focus in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) was the most common reason a 2001 Focus failed its MOT — 14.9% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

54.4%

of 3,892 first tests (2025)

First tests

3,892

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,774

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

54.4%

of 3,892 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

62.9%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

3,892

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 24.0 yrs · median mileage 98,592 mi

vs 2024: +1.6 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 1,768 of 1,774 failed first attempts (99.7%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) — 2.1% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 37 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 11× 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
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Rear 37 ×11 2.1% Likely
Linkage ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joint dust cover
 Front 107 ×3.4 6.1% Likely
Rear fog lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Rear 131 ×2.8 7.4% Possible
Prescribed areas (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Rear 55 ×2.3 3.1% Possible
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 42 ×2.0 2.4% 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
Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Rear 61 ×9.9 3.5% Possible
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 202 ×5.9 11.4% Possible
Sub-frame condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Sub-frame > Sub-frame condition
 Rear 28 ×5.1 1.6% Elevated
Anti-roll bar (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
 Rear 36 ×4.3 2.0% Elevated
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 309 ×4.2 17.5% Elevated
Prescribed areas (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Rear 23 ×3.2 1.3% Possible
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 98 ×2.9 5.5% Possible
Other suspension component (rear)
Suspension > Other suspension component > Other suspension component
 Rear 36 ×2.7 2.0% Elevated
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 Focus either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2001 Focus, commonest first.

Other Focus 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
2003 Focus +2.6 pp better 54.6% 8,641
2004 Focus -2.8 pp worse 51.7% 11,427
2002 Focus -2.2 pp worse 52.4% 6,783

What to check on a 2001 Focus

The items that failed 2001 Focus 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.

  • Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) — recorded on 14.9% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 10.4% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 10.0% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 8.9% of failed first attempts
  • Rear fog lamp — recorded on 7.4% 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.

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) was the most common reason a 2001 Focus failed its MOT — 14.9% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 54.4% of 3,892 first MOTs on the 2001 Ford Focus passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 62.9%. Among 1,774 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rea…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2001 Ford Focuss most often at the first attempt were Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (14.9%), Stop lamp (10.4%) and Rbt (sp) (10.0%) — 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: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) (2.1% of those tests; 37 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.1% of those tests; 37 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 check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2001 Ford Focus include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear), Linkage ball joint dust cover (front), Rear fog 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 2001 Ford Focus (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