Model Reports 5 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Honda Civic 2004: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 56 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2004 Honda Civic were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

A 2004 Honda Civic passed first time about 2 in every 100 more often than the average of the 2003 and 2005 model years.

At a glance

How 8,557 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
56 in every 100
Did not pass first time
44 in every 1003,731 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
21 yearsabout 109,958 miles
First tests counted
8,557

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)18 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)13 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Suspension mounting area (rear)12 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 2004 Honda Civic vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. A wear pattern follows age and use more than the way the car was built. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Suspension

Four faults. The strongest is the anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear): 6.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 3,714 of 3,731 failed first attempts (99.5%) 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.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear)

Failed on 114 first tests6.0 times as often as similar carsStrong evidence

What it means

Excessive wear on an anti-roll bar linkage ball joint is Major. A joint likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 194 first tests, 7.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 370 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Pins and bushes on suspension arms fail as Major when they are excessively worn. They are graded Dangerous when likely to become detached. DVSA uses the same wording for a suspension joint.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 576 first tests, 2.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 217 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Whether a suspension arm ball joint dust cover still keeps dirt out decides its grade. Severely deteriorated is Minor, while missing, or no longer preventing the ingress of dirt, is Major.

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Failed on 451 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

The load bearing structure within a set distance of a sub-frame, spring or suspension component mounting is a prescribed area. Major applies when its strength or continuity is significantly reduced or it is inadequately repaired. Dangerous applies when it is so weakened that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 332 first tests, 2.1 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 wear pattern: headlight aim not tested (front), 2.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Headlight aim not tested (front)

Failed on 33 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

Headlamp aim recorded as not tested, or unable to be tested, is a Major failure. These results must only be used where it becomes apparent during the test that the item cannot be tested, and this could not have been identified before starting. The reason must be included in the additional information box.

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

Brakes

One fault: brake performance (roller test, front), 2.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 157 first tests2.0 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 207 first tests, 2.4 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.

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.

Anti-roll bar ball joint (rear)

Noted on 60 first tests12 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

Macpherson strut (rear)

Noted on 20 first tests5.6 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Brake performance (plate test, front)

Noted on 54 first tests3.5 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Brake pedal

Noted on 38 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Anti-roll bar (rear)

Noted on 45 first tests2.1 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
56in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
9in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
35in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 56.4% of 8,557 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 65.2%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 9 fixed and the 35 not fixed make the 44 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

406080100199520002004201020152020Older carsNewer cars
4060801002000200420102020Older carsNewer 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, 55 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
199578 in every 100325
199663 in every 100482
199759 in every 100755
199861 in every 100857
199962 in every 1001,141
200064 in every 1001,362
200155 in every 1003,589
200254 in every 1005,292
200353 in every 1006,068
2004 This car56 in every 1008,557
200556 in every 10010,433
200653 in every 10011,109
200753 in every 10018,127
200853 in every 10017,412
200954 in every 10016,721
201054 in every 10015,256
201157 in every 10010,444
201269 in every 10012,469
201371 in every 10014,653
201476 in every 10013,892
201579 in every 10014,533
201681 in every 10015,631
201783 in every 10013,989
201885 in every 10012,976
201986 in every 10012,034
202087 in every 1005,301
202188 in every 1004,738
202294 in every 1001,381

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Mileage matters most on a 2004 Civic.

Of 2004 Civic vehicles with under 78,000 miles, 66 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 143,000 miles or more, 52 in every 100 did.

Under 78,0001,694 tests
66
78,000–100,0001,699 tests
56
100,000–120,000 Typical car1,723 tests
55
120,000–143,0001,689 tests
54
143,000 and over1,721 tests
52

What to check at your mileage

How often each fault turned up on a failed first test, by the car's mileage. Read it as: what is likely to need looking at on a car like the one in front of you.

Under 78,000100,000–120,000143,000 and over
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)3.09.610.0
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)2.85.67.8
Suspension mounting area (rear)2.75.57.7
Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)4.45.04.5
Headlight aim3.74.44.9

Faults per 100 first tests, by the car's mileage at the test.

When a car fails

17in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

63in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

10in every 100

of all first tests had a defect the tester marked dangerous (unsafe to drive away).

Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line, for cars of this model year tested in 2025. Each mileage band holds a fifth of the tests. 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.

A 2004 Honda Civic passed first time about 2 in every 100 more often than the average of the 2003 and 2005 model years. In 2025, 56.4% of 8,557 first MOTs on the 2004 Honda Civic passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 65.2%. Among 3,731 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (3.1% of those tests; 114 observed failures; about 6.0× 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 2004 Honda Civic at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (17.9%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (12.7%) and Suspension mounting area (rear) (12.1%), 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: Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear) (3.1% of those tests; 114 observed failures; about 6.0× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (3.1% of those tests; 114 observed failures; about 6.0× 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 2004 Honda Civic include Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear), Suspension arm pins and bushes (front), Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front). 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 2004 Honda Civic (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