Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 1,599 tests analysed

Ford Transit 2004: reliability & common MOT faults

744 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2004 Ford Transit in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) was the most common reason a 2004 Transit failed its MOT — 20.4% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

53.5%

of 1,599 first tests (2025)

First tests

1,599

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

744

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

53.5%

of 1,599 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

62.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

1,599

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 21.0 yrs · median mileage 106,380 mi

vs 2024: -2.0 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 663 of 744 failed first attempts (89.1%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on. 10.9% of failures are excluded for want of a mileage reading, so treat these shares as indicative for this model year.

Standout: Component mounting prescribed areas (front) — 16.1% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 107 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 10× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. On this year it is also the commonest failure, so it answers both questions at once. The full ranked list is in the table below.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Spring mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 29 ×20 4.4% Possible
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 77 ×10 11.6% Likely
Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 107 ×10 16.1% Strong
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 47 ×8.1 7.1% Likely
Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
 Front 21 ×7.8 3.2% Possible
Prescribed areas (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Front 35 ×7.5 5.3% Likely
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 64 ×5.5 9.7% Likely
Integral vehicle structure condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Rear 36 ×4.6 5.4% Likely
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 43 ×3.7 6.5% Likely
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 135 ×3.5 20.4% Likely

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
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 36 ×6.9 5.4% Likely
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 48 ×5.5 7.2% Possible
Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 29 ×4.3 4.4% Strong
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 47 ×4.2 7.1% Likely
Pipes and hoses
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Any 21 ×3.7 3.2% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 31 ×3.3 4.7% Elevated
Integral vehicle structure condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Rear 27 ×3.1 4.1% Likely
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 32 ×2.4 4.8% 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 Transits either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2004 Transits, commonest first.

Other Transit 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
2006 Transit +2.8 pp better 57.3% 4,061

What to check on a 2004 Transit

The items that failed 2004 Transits 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.

  • Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) — recorded on 20.4% of failed first attempts
  • Chassis condition (front) — recorded on 11.6% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 8.0% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 7.8% 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.

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) was the most common reason a 2004 Transit failed its MOT — 20.4% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 53.5% of 1,599 first MOTs on the 2004 Ford Transit passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 62.0%. Among 744 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Component mounting prescrib…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2004 Ford Transits most often at the first attempt were Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (20.4%), Chassis condition (front) (11.6%) and Position lamp (front) (8.0%) — 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 th…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Component mounting prescribed areas (front) (16.1% of those tests; 107 observed failures; about 10× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Component mounting prescribed areas (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (16.1% of those tests; 107 observed failures; about 10× 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 2004 Ford Transit include Component mounting prescribed areas (front), Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear), Chassis condition (front). 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 2004 Ford Transit (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