Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 14,844 tests analysed

Ford Ka 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

6,697 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2009 Ford Ka in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Rbt (sp) and Position lamp (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2009 Kas break the Ka's own run — at 54.9% they land 2.6 pp above the midpoint of the 2008 and 2010 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

54.9%

of 14,844 first tests (2025)

First tests

14,844

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

6,697

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

18.6%

Rbt (sp)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

54.9%

of 14,844 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

61.3%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

14,844

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 16.0 yrs · median mileage 77,583 mi

vs 2024: +0.0 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 6,693 of 6,697 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Sub-frame (rear) — 2.2% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 146 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 6.4× 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
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 146 ×6.4 2.2% Strong
Parking brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Rear 291 ×4.8 4.3% Likely
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 582 ×4.4 8.7% Likely
Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 279 ×4.0 4.2% Likely
Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 600 ×3.6 9.0% Likely
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 1,248 ×3.5 18.6% Likely
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 300 ×3.4 4.5% Likely
Emissions not tested
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Emissions not tested
 Any 232 ×2.2 3.5% Possible
Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 403 ×2.0 6.0% Possible
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 585 ×2.0 8.7% 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
Attachment bracket and mounting (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Attachment bracket and mounting
 Front 124 ×10 1.9% Likely
Cable (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake cables, rods, levers and linkages > Cable
 Rear 57 ×8.3 0.9% Likely
Coil springs — Mounting (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Mounting
 Rear 75 ×7.8 1.1% Likely
Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Spring mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 78 ×6.1 1.2% Likely
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 658 ×3.3 9.8% Likely
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 39 ×3.1 0.6% Elevated
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 543 ×2.6 8.1% Elevated
Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 198 ×2.6 3.0% 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.

This year outperforms the Ka's own age curve — it holds up better than its place in the model's run would predict.

Other Ka 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
2008 Ka -3.2 pp worse 48.6% 3,392
2010 Ka -2.0 pp worse 55.8% 16,047

What to check on a 2009 Ka

The items that failed 2009 Kas 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.

  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 18.6% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 9.0% of failed first attempts
  • Shock absorbers (rear) — recorded on 9.0% of failed first attempts
  • Pins and bushes (front) — recorded on 8.7% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint (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.

2009 Kas break the Ka's own run — at 54.9% they land 2.6 pp above the midpoint of the 2008 and 2010 cars either side. In 2025, 54.9% of 14,844 first MOTs on the 2009 Ford Ka passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.3%. Among 6,697 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Sub-frame (rear) appears more often than on simil…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2009 Ford Kas most often at the first attempt were Rbt (sp) (18.6%), Position lamp (front) (9.0%) and Shock absorbers (rear) (9.0%) — 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: Sub-frame (rear) (2.2% of those tests; 146 observed failures; about 6.4× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Sub-frame (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.2% of those tests; 146 observed failures; about 6.4× 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 2009 Ford Ka include Sub-frame (rear), Parking brake performance (rear), Shock absorbers (front). 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 2009 Ford Ka (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