Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Ford Mondeo 2002: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 55 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2002 Ford Mondeo were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test).

Summary

The 2002 Ford Mondeo follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,230 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
55 in every 100
Did not pass first time
45 in every 100556 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
23 yearsabout 108,025 miles
First tests counted
1,230

What failed most often

  1. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)15 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Suspension mounting area (rear)10 in every 100 failed tests

How we count this. Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Only Class 4 cars on their first MOT of the year are counted. A car that fails and is fixed at the test station still counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate. These are raw results, not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix. The MOT does not test engine or gearbox internals.

Note:

These are patterns across 2002 Ford Mondeo vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Brakes

Three faults. The strongest is the flexible brake hoses (rear): 5.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 555 of 556 failed first attempts (99.8%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025. Mileage is needed to compare like with like.

We only list faults with at least 20 failures and a rate of about 2.0 times that of similar cars, which keeps one-off results out of the list.

Flexible brake hoses (rear)

Failed on 30 first tests5.2 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Testers reject a flexible brake hose for being excessively damaged or chafed only if it is severe enough to expose the reinforcement. Slight damage, chafing or twisting is graded Minor. A leak is graded Dangerous on a hydraulic braking system and Major on an air system, and a hose damaged and likely to fail is also Dangerous.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 42 first tests, 2.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake performance (roller test, rear)

Failed on 25 first tests3.6 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake that is inoperative on one side is Major. When tested on the road, the failure is the vehicle deviating excessively from a straight line. Vehicles whose parking brake was already tested as the secondary brake are not tested again for this.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 86 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and graded Dangerous where efficiency is less than half of the required value. On a roller brake tester, the requirement counts as met if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock. The check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake was not already tested as the secondary brake.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Seat belts and restraints

One fault: seat belt condition (rear), 4.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Seat belt condition (rear)

Failed on 22 first tests4.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Any sign of overstretching is a deficiency, and so is a cut anywhere on a child seat belt. On other belts the size of a cut decides it, with a stricter limit at the webbing edge than away from it. Webbing significantly stretched or weakened has rows in both Major and Dangerous grades.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Suspension

Two faults. The strongest is the wheel bearings (rear): 3.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Wheel bearings (rear)

Failed on 23 first tests3.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Excessive play in a wheel bearing, or a bearing that is excessively rough, is Major. Play so excessive that the bearing is likely to break up or directional control is impaired is Dangerous, and so is a bearing so rough that it is likely to overheat or break up.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 23 first tests, 3.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Coil spring (front)

Failed on 28 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A missing bump stop rubber is not a reason to fail a coil spring. When the vehicle is jacked and lowered, a spring that does not correctly locate as the suspension returns to its normal running position is rejected as insecurely attached. A missing spring is Major, and graded Dangerous where directional control is affected.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Advisories

Other things testers noted as worn or close to failing, more often than on similar cars.

An advisory is a note from the tester about something that has not failed yet. It is an early warning, not a fail. Advisories for the faults above are shown with those faults.

Suspension sub-frame pins and bushes (rear)

Noted on 27 first tests10 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear)

Noted on 24 first tests6.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Seat belt condition (front)

Noted on 34 first tests3.8 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (rear)

Noted on 91 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Rigid brake pipes

Noted on 60 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Counts cover advisories recorded on failed first tests only, compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

MOT pass rates

How first tests ended, and how the pass rates are counted.

Passed first time
55in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
6in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
39in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 54.8% of 1,230 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 61.5%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 6 fixed and the 39 not fixed make the 45 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

Passed first time in every 100, all tested in 2025.

40608010020022005201020152020Older carsNewer cars
406080100200220102020Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
199959 in every 100306
200057 in every 100510
200157 in every 1001,078
2002 This car55 in every 1001,230
200355 in every 1001,585
200455 in every 1002,718
200555 in every 1004,306
200656 in every 1005,209
200754 in every 1008,021
200855 in every 10010,601
200957 in every 10011,969
201058 in every 10012,696
201162 in every 10011,464
201264 in every 10014,056
201365 in every 10011,442
201467 in every 10010,556
201576 in every 10016,373
201680 in every 10015,241
201782 in every 10010,343
201883 in every 1006,594
201984 in every 1004,107
202085 in every 1002,109
202184 in every 1001,063
202286 in every 100456

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

The 2002 Ford Mondeo follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test), about 15 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 54.8% of 1,230 first MOTs on the 2002 Ford Mondeo passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.5%. Among 556 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Flexible brake hoses (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (5.4% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 5.2× more often than similar cars). There is no single reliability score here; this is a pre-purchase checklist built from DVSA open data, not a guarantee for any individual car.
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that most often failed a 2002 Ford Mondeo at the first attempt were Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (15.5%) and Suspension mounting area (rear) (9.5%), each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong most often on the car. The common faults table shows a different measure: faults that are unusual compared with similar cars.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Flexible brake hoses (rear) (5.4% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 5.2× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Flexible brake hoses (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (5.4% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 5.2× 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 checkpoint, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2002 Ford Mondeo include Flexible brake hoses (rear), Seat belt condition (rear), Handbrake performance (roller test, rear). These are the faults that stand out compared with similar cars, not a complete list of what can go wrong on any 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 2002 Ford Mondeo (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.
  • If the data for a car is too thin to say anything useful, we say so rather than guess.

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