Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 1,862 tests analysed

Ford Ranger 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

884 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2006 Ford Ranger in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Drive shafts — Joints (front) was the most common reason a 2006 Ranger failed its MOT — 18.7% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

52.5%

of 1,862 first tests (2025)

First tests

1,862

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

884

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

52.5%

of 1,862 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

61.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

1,862

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 19.0 yrs · median mileage 128,140 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 868 of 884 failed first attempts (98.2%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Rear fog lamp (rear) — 13.7% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 119 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 7.8× 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
Load sensing valves
Brakes > Load sensing valves
 Any 26 ×43 3.0% Possible
Leaf spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Leaf spring
 Rear 25 ×18 2.9% Possible
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 72 ×11 8.3% Likely
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Front 32 ×8.6 3.7% Likely
Rear fog lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Rear 119 ×7.8 13.7% Strong
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 21 ×5.3 2.4% Possible
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 55 ×4.3 6.3% Likely
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 22 ×3.6 2.5% Possible
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 48 ×3.1 5.5% Likely
Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Front 49 ×3.0 5.6% 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
Steering box
Steering > Steering play > Steering box
 Any 68 ×215 7.8% Elevated
Shackle pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Shackle pins and bushes
 Rear 26 ×37 3.0% Elevated
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 43 ×9.0 5.0% Possible
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 52 ×8.0 6.0% Possible
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 92 ×7.9 10.6% Elevated
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 54 ×5.8 6.2% Elevated
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 55 ×4.2 6.3% Likely
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 25 ×3.6 2.9% 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 Rangers either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2006 Rangers, commonest first.

What to check on a 2006 Ranger

The items that failed 2006 Rangers 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.

  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 18.7% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 15.4% of failed first attempts
  • Rear fog lamp — recorded on 13.7% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 9.4% of failed first attempts
  • Chassis condition (front) — recorded on 8.3% 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.

Drive shafts — Joints (front) was the most common reason a 2006 Ranger failed its MOT — 18.7% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 52.5% of 1,862 first MOTs on the 2006 Ford Ranger passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.0%. Among 884 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Rear fog lamp (rear) appears more often th…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2006 Ford Rangers most often at the first attempt were Drive shafts — Joints (front) (18.7%), Position lamp (front) (15.4%) and Rear fog lamp (13.7%) — 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 ans…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Rear fog lamp (rear) (13.7% of those tests; 119 observed failures; about 7.8× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Rear fog lamp (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (13.7% of those tests; 119 observed failures; about 7.8× 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 2006 Ford Ranger include Rear fog lamp (rear), Load sensing valves, Leaf spring (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 2006 Ford Ranger (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