Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 1,901 tests analysed

Ford Ranger 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

846 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2009 Ford Ranger in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2009 Ranger failed its MOT — 20.1% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

55.5%

of 1,901 first tests (2025)

First tests

1,901

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

846

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

55.5%

of 1,901 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

64.3%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

1,901

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 16.0 yrs · median mileage 127,128 mi

vs 2024: +0.3 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 845 of 846 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Ball joint (front) — 2.4% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 20 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 11× 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.

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Ball joint (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Ball joint
 Front 20 ×11 2.4% Possible
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 22 ×9.5 2.6% Possible
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 63 ×9.2 7.5% Likely
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Front 23 ×9.0 2.7% Possible
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 24 ×7.2 2.8% Possible
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 47 ×6.1 5.6% Likely
Rear fog lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Rear 79 ×6.0 9.3% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 76 ×5.1 9.0% Likely
Brake performance not tested
Brakes > Brake performance > Brake performance not tested
 Any 23 ×4.1 2.7% Possible
Registration plates (front)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
 Front 24 ×3.7 2.8% 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 59 ×300 7.0% Elevated
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 109 ×19 12.9% Elevated
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 55 ×15 6.5% Possible
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 91 ×13 10.8% Elevated
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 28 ×11 3.3% Possible
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 141 ×6.0 16.7% Likely
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 31 ×4.2 3.7% Elevated
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 29 ×2.9 3.4% Possible
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 2009 Rangers, commonest first.

Other Ranger 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
2013 Ranger +4.1 pp better 65.1% 2,633

What to check on a 2009 Ranger

The items that failed 2009 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.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 20.1% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp — recorded on 9.5% of failed first attempts
  • Rear fog lamp — recorded on 9.3% of failed first attempts
  • Rigid brake pipes (rear) — recorded on 9.0% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 8.9% 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.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2009 Ranger failed its MOT — 20.1% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 55.5% of 1,901 first MOTs on the 2009 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 64.3%. Among 846 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Ball joint (front) appears more often than on simi…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2009 Ford Rangers most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (20.1%), Headlamp (9.5%) and Rear fog lamp (9.3%) — 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: Ball joint (front) (2.4% of those tests; 20 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Ball joint (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.4% of those tests; 20 observed failures; about 11× 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 Ranger include Ball joint (front), Linkage pins and bushes (front), Chassis condition (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 2009 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