Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 17,619 tests analysed

Ford Transit 2013: reliability & common MOT faults

7,940 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2013 Ford Transit in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Drive shafts — Joints (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2013 Transits break the Transit's own run — at 54.9% they land 1.9 pp below the midpoint of the 2012 and 2014 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

54.9%

of 17,619 first tests (2025)

First tests

17,619

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

7,940

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

21.6%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

54.9%

of 17,619 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

63.5%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

17,619

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 12.0 yrs · median mileage 127,835 mi

vs 2024: +0.4 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 7,917 of 7,940 failed first attempts (99.7%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Leaf spring (rear) — 4.0% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 318 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 35× 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 318 ×35 4.0% Strong
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 545 ×12 6.9% Strong
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 198 ×5.5 2.5% Strong
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 412 ×4.7 5.2% Likely
Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 1,694 ×4.4 21.4% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 373 ×4.1 4.7% Likely
Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Rear 1,230 ×3.9 15.5% Likely
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 170 ×3.5 2.1% Likely
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 479 ×3.1 6.1% Likely
Diesel emissions test (compression-ignition rules for vehicles from 01/07/2008) Any 419 ×2.9 5.3% 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
Valve stem (rear)
Tyres > Valve stem
 Rear 20 ×6.8 0.3% Wear
Brake pads
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Any 24 ×2.9 0.3% 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
Anchor pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Anchor pins and bushes
 Rear 24 ×29 0.3% Elevated
Pipes and hoses (front)
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Front 220 ×26 2.8% Likely
Prescribed areas (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Front 39 ×18 0.5% Strong
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 62 ×12 0.8% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 1,486 ×9.4 18.8% Strong
Engine mounting condition
Body, chassis, structure > Engine mounting > Engine mounting condition
 Any 32 ×7.7 0.4% Likely
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 352 ×7.6 4.4% Possible
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 151 ×7.4 1.9% Likely
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 Transit's own age curve. If the years listed below are in budget, they are the stronger buy on this evidence.

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
2014 Transit +3.6 pp better 63.7% 26,599
2012 Transit -2.5 pp worse 50.0% 12,952
2017 Transit -1.7 pp worse 67.2% 41,381

What to check on a 2013 Transit

The items that failed 2013 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.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 21.6% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 21.4% of failed first attempts
  • Registration plate lamp(s) — recorded on 15.5% of failed first attempts
  • Pins and bushes (front) — recorded on 10.1% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 9.8% 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.

2013 Transits break the Transit's own run — at 54.9% they land 1.9 pp below the midpoint of the 2012 and 2014 cars either side. In 2025, 54.9% of 17,619 first MOTs on the 2013 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 63.5%. Among 7,940 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Leaf spring (rear) appears more of…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2013 Ford Transits most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (21.6%), Drive shafts — Joints (front) (21.4%) and Registration plate lamp(s) (15.5%) — 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-fa…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Leaf spring (rear) (4.0% of those tests; 318 observed failures; about 35× 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 (4.0% of those tests; 318 observed failures; about 35× 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 2013 Ford Transit include Leaf spring (rear), Rigid brake pipes (front), Component mounting prescribed areas (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 2013 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