Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Ford Ranger 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 53 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2006 Ford Ranger were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Drive shaft joints and boots (front).

Summary

The 2006 Ford Ranger follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,862 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
53 in every 100
Did not pass first time
47 in every 100884 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
19 yearsabout 128,140 miles
First tests counted
1,862

What failed most often

  1. Drive shaft joints and boots (front)19 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)15 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Rear fog light14 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 2006 Ford Ranger 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 brake load-sensing valve: 43 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 868 of 884 failed first attempts (98.2%) 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.

Brake load-sensing valve

Failed on 26 first tests43 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A load sensing valve that is seized or inoperative is Major when ABS is functioning, and graded Dangerous when ABS is not fitted or inoperative. A valve missing where fitted as standard is graded Dangerous too. A linkage that is obviously incorrectly adjusted is Major.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 48 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Chafing, corrosion or damage to a rigid brake pipe justifies rejection once its wall thickness is reduced by a set amount, although DVSA accepts this is not easy to determine. If a tester is not sure, the benefit of the doubt applies. A leaking pipe or connection is graded Dangerous on a hydraulic system and Major on an air system.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 156 first tests, 3.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 49 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A wheel with no recorded braking effort on the roller test is graded Dangerous. Inadequate effort, a brake grabbing severely, abnormal lag and excessive fluctuation in effort are each Major. So is significant brake effort recorded with no brake applied, which indicates a binding brake.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 58 first tests, 3.2 times as often as on similar cars.

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

Suspension

Three faults. The strongest is the leaf spring (rear): 18 times as often as on similar cars.

Leaf spring (rear)

Failed on 25 first tests18 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Modified spring anchor or shackle brackets with more mounting holes than the chassis are not a reason to reject leaf spring suspension, and neither is a missing bump stop rubber. A fractured main leaf is graded Dangerous. A spring that is fractured or seriously weakened is graded Major.

Anti-roll bar linkage (front)

Failed on 32 first tests8.6 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

An anti-roll bar linkage is graded Dangerous when a suspension component is missing, likely to become detached, fractured or likely to fail. Insecure attachment that impairs directional stability is graded Dangerous too. Excessive damage or corrosion that seriously weakens the part is Major, and so is plain insecure attachment to the chassis or axle.

Anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 21 first tests5.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Excessive wear in an anti-roll bar linkage pin or bush is Major. If the pin or bush is likely to become detached, it is graded Dangerous. The wording is DVSA's general one for a suspension pin, bush or joint.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 52 first tests, 8.0 times as often as on similar cars.

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

Body and structure

Three faults. The strongest is the chassis condition (front): 11 times as often as on similar cars.

Chassis condition (front)

Failed on 72 first tests11 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A main load-bearing structural member that is fractured, deformed, modified or inadequately repaired is Major when structural rigidity is significantly reduced, and Dangerous where steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected. Corrosion of the body, cab or chassis at a mounting point is Dangerous where overall security or stability is impaired.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 68 first tests, 14 times as often as on similar cars.

Chassis condition (rear)

Failed on 55 first tests4.3 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A main load-bearing structural member that is fractured, deformed, modified or inadequately repaired is Major when structural rigidity is significantly reduced, and Dangerous where steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected. Corrosion of the body, cab or chassis at a mounting point is Dangerous where overall security or stability is impaired.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 55 first tests, 4.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Vehicle structure condition (front)

Failed on 22 first tests3.6 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Structure that is fractured, deformed, corroded, modified or inadequately repaired is failed on rigidity only if the overall structural rigidity of the vehicle is significantly reduced. Structure that is likely to affect steering or braking adversely is graded Dangerous. Prescribed areas are not covered here, as they are checked under other sections, including brakes and steering.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 43 first tests, 9.0 times as often as on similar cars.

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

Lamps and electrical

One fault: rear fog light, 7.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Rear fog light

Failed on 119 first tests7.8 times as often as similar carsStrong evidence

What it means

A missing obligatory rear fog lamp, one that is not working, or one that does not emit a steady red light is graded Major. A rear fog lamp adversely affected by the operation of any other lamp is Major too. The manual allows it to go out when main beam is switched on or when dipped beam headlamps are switched off.

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

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.

Steering box play

Noted on 68 first tests215 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Leaf spring shackle pins and bushes (rear)

Noted on 26 first tests37 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Wheel bearings (rear)

Noted on 54 first tests5.8 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Anti-roll bar pins and bushes (front)

Noted on 25 first tests3.6 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
53in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
8in 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 52.5% of 1,862 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 61.0%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 8 fixed and the 39 not fixed make the 47 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

40608010020002006201020152020Older carsNewer cars
4060801002000200620102020Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 51 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200062 in every 100378
200160 in every 100433
200256 in every 100571
200355 in every 100797
200452 in every 1001,330
200556 in every 1001,555
2006 This car53 in every 1001,862
200755 in every 1002,238
200856 in every 1001,686
200955 in every 1001,901
201055 in every 1001,205
201158 in every 1001,328
201259 in every 1001,683
201365 in every 1002,633
201462 in every 1003,685
201564 in every 1005,675
201672 in every 1009,695
201773 in every 1009,941
201873 in every 10013,090
201975 in every 10013,484
202077 in every 10010,846
202180 in every 10015,077
202282 in every 10014,365

FAQs

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

The 2006 Ford Ranger follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Drive shaft joints and boots (front), about 19 in every 100 failed tests. 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 light appears more often than on similar cars (13.7% of those tests; 119 observed failures; about 7.8× 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 2006 Ford Ranger at the first attempt were Drive shaft joints and boots (front) (18.7%), Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (15.4%) and Rear fog light (13.7%), 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: Rear fog light (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 light 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 checkpoint, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2006 Ford Ranger include Rear fog light, Brake load-sensing valve, Leaf spring (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 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.
  • 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