Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 3,613 tests analysed

Ford Galaxy 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

1,628 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2010 Ford Galaxy in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Stop lamp. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol Galaxys passed first time 3.3 pp more often than diesel ones (57.8% of 509 vs 54.5% of 3,104).

First-attempt pass

54.9%

of 3,613 first tests (2025)

First tests

3,613

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,628

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

24.1%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

54.9%

of 3,613 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

64.5%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

3,613

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 15.0 yrs · median mileage 131,363 mi

vs 2024: -0.7 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 1,603 of 1,628 failed first attempts (98.5%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Pins and bushes (rear) — 8.9% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 143 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 6.9× 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
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 143 ×6.9 8.9% Strong
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 53 ×3.6 3.3% Likely
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 64 ×3.2 4.0% Likely
Diesel emissions test (compression-ignition rules for vehicles from 01/07/2008) Any 122 ×3.1 7.6% Likely
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 79 ×2.0 4.9% 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
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 216 ×4.8 13.5% Strong
Anti-roll bar (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
 Rear 27 ×3.6 1.7% Elevated
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 206 ×3.6 12.9% Likely
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 41 ×3.3 2.6% Elevated
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 45 ×3.2 2.8% Possible
Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 325 ×2.8 20.3% Elevated
Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 69 ×2.8 4.3% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 33 ×2.7 2.1% Likely
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.

On this year, prefer the petrol. The diesel cars passed first time 3.3 pp less often, on 3,104 tests.

Other Galaxy 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
2014 Galaxy -2.9 pp worse 56.4% 3,931

What to check on a 2010 Galaxy

The items that failed 2010 Galaxys 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.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 24.1% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 9.4% of failed first attempts
  • Pins and bushes (rear) — recorded on 8.9% of failed first attempts
  • Tyres — Condition (rear) — recorded on 8.0% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 6.4% 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.

Petrol Galaxys passed first time 3.3 pp more often than diesel ones (57.8% of 509 vs 54.5% of 3,104). In 2025, 54.9% of 3,613 first MOTs on the 2010 Ford Galaxy passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 64.5%. Among 1,628 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar cars…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2010 Ford Galaxys most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (24.1%), Stop lamp (9.4%) and Pins and bushes (rear) (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: Pins and bushes (rear) (8.9% of those tests; 143 observed failures; about 6.9× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (8.9% of those tests; 143 observed failures; about 6.9× 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 2010 Ford Galaxy include Pins and bushes (rear), Seat belts — Condition (rear), Suspension arm (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 Ford Galaxy (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