Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 2,508 tests analysed

Honda CR-V 2002: reliability & common MOT faults

1,279 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2002 Honda CR-V in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Component mounting prescribed areas (rear). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2002 CR-Vs break the CR-V's own run — at 49.0% they land 3.4 pp below the midpoint of the 2001 and 2003 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

49.0%

of 2,508 first tests (2025)

First tests

2,508

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,279

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

16.4%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

49.0%

of 2,508 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

58.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

2,508

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 23.0 yrs · median mileage 138,568 mi

vs 2024: -1.0 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 1,276 of 1,279 failed first attempts (99.8%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Drive shafts — Joints (rear) — 2.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 33 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 31× 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
Drive shafts — Joints (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Rear 33 ×31 2.6% Likely
Ball joint (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint
 Rear 27 ×14 2.1% Possible
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 75 ×9.6 5.9% Likely
Decelerometer (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Decelerometer (sp)
 Any 27 ×4.7 2.1% Possible
Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 35 ×4.6 2.7% Likely
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Other suspension component > Ball joint
 Front 28 ×3.7 2.2% Possible
Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 151 ×3.0 11.8% Possible
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 26 ×2.9 2.0% Possible
Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 79 ×2.3 6.2% Possible
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 70 ×2.2 5.5% 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
Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 69 ×2.6 5.4% 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
Ball joint (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint
 Rear 20 ×12 1.6% Possible
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 113 ×12 8.9% Likely
Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 40 ×5.9 3.1% Likely
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Rear 38 ×4.8 3.0% Possible
Anti-roll bar (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
 Rear 33 ×4.5 2.6% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 313 ×3.4 24.5% Elevated
Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 93 ×2.4 7.3% Wear
Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 26 ×2.4 2.0% 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 CR-V's own age curve. If the years listed below are in budget, they are the stronger buy on this evidence.

What to check on a 2002 CR-V

The items that failed 2002 CR-Vs 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 16.4% of failed first attempts
  • Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) — recorded on 16.2% of failed first attempts
  • Malfunction indicator lamp — recorded on 11.8% of failed first attempts
  • Catalyst emissions — recorded on 9.3% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — 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.

2002 CR-Vs break the CR-V's own run — at 49.0% they land 3.4 pp below the midpoint of the 2001 and 2003 cars either side. In 2025, 49.0% of 2,508 first MOTs on the 2002 Honda CR-V passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 58.0%. Among 1,279 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Drive shafts — Joints (rear) appears more o…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2002 Honda CR-Vs most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (16.4%), Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (16.2%) and Malfunction indicator lamp (11.8%) — 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: Drive shafts — Joints (rear) (2.6% of those tests; 33 observed failures; about 31× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Drive shafts — Joints (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.6% of those tests; 33 observed failures; about 31× 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 2002 Honda CR-V include Drive shafts — Joints (rear), Ball joint (rear), Linkage ball joints (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 2002 Honda CR-V (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