Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 5,675 tests analysed

Ford Ranger 2015: reliability & common MOT faults

2,021 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2015 Ford Ranger in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Coil spring (front) and Headlamp. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2015 Rangers break the Ranger's own run — at 64.4% they land 2.7 pp below the midpoint of the 2014 and 2016 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

64.4%

of 5,675 first tests (2025)

First tests

5,675

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

2,021

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

14.7%

Coil spring (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

64.4%

of 5,675 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

71.4%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

5,675

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 10.0 yrs · median mileage 93,065 mi

vs 2024: -1.9 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 2,018 of 2,021 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Leaf spring (rear) — 7.3% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 147 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 117× 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
Leaf spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Leaf spring
 Rear 147 ×117 7.3% Strong
Anti-lock braking system
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Anti-lock braking system
 Any 202 ×7.9 10.0% Strong
Diesel emissions test (compression-ignition rules for vehicles from 01/01/2014) Any 148 ×5.0 7.3% Likely
Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 97 ×4.4 4.8% Likely
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 269 ×3.9 13.3% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 41 ×3.8 2.0% Likely
Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 216 ×3.2 10.7% Likely
Rear fog lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Any 63 ×2.9 3.1% Possible
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 296 ×2.8 14.7% Possible
Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 73 ×2.6 3.6% 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.

Wear patterns

Usage and mileage effects that often track road use rather than model design.

These patterns look like wear or usage effects rather than model-specific design faults. Tyres, brake friction material, and alignment-related defects often track mileage and road use.

Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Headlamp aim not tested (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
 Front 59 ×5.2 2.9% Wear
Note: These patterns are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

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
Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Any 60 ×23 3.0% Elevated
Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 39 ×4.1 1.9% Elevated
Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 52 ×3.9 2.6% Elevated
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 124 ×3.8 6.1% Likely
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 56 ×3.6 2.8% Possible
Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 28 ×3.1 1.4% Elevated
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 52 ×2.3 2.6% 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 underperforms the Ranger's own age curve. If the years listed below are in budget, they are the stronger buy on this evidence.

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
2016 Ranger +3.4 pp better 71.8% 9,695

What to check on a 2015 Ranger

The items that failed 2015 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.

  • Coil spring (front) — recorded on 14.7% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp — recorded on 13.3% of failed first attempts
  • Malfunction indicator lamp — recorded on 10.7% of failed first attempts
  • Anti-lock braking system — recorded on 10.0% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 9.3% 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.

2015 Rangers break the Ranger's own run — at 64.4% they land 2.7 pp below the midpoint of the 2014 and 2016 cars either side. In 2025, 64.4% of 5,675 first MOTs on the 2015 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 71.4%. Among 2,021 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Leaf spring (rear) appears more often…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2015 Ford Rangers most often at the first attempt were Coil spring (front) (14.7%), Headlamp (13.3%) and Malfunction indicator lamp (10.7%) — 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 answers.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Leaf spring (rear) (7.3% of those tests; 147 observed failures; about 117× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Leaf spring (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (7.3% of those tests; 147 observed failures; about 117× 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 2015 Ford Ranger include Leaf spring (rear), Anti-lock braking system, Electronic stability control. 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 2015 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