Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 9,222 tests analysed

Honda CR-V 2011: reliability & common MOT faults

2,658 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2011 Honda CR-V in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Individual direction indicators (rear). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol CR-Vs passed first time 2.5 pp more often than diesel ones (72.9% of 3,073 vs 70.3% of 6,149).

First-attempt pass

71.2%

of 9,222 first tests (2025)

First tests

9,222

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

2,658

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

9.6%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

71.2%

of 9,222 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

77.9%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

9,222

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 14.0 yrs · median mileage 108,477 mi

vs 2024: -0.8 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 2,658 failed first attempts in 2025 that the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Headlamp levelling device (rear) — 3.8% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 100 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 34× 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
Headlamp levelling device (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp levelling device
 Rear 100 ×34 3.8% Strong
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Rear 58 ×13 2.2% Likely
Headlamp levelling device (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp levelling device
 Front 68 ×12 2.6% Likely
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 67 ×5.0 2.5% Likely
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 217 ×3.9 8.2% Likely
Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 202 ×2.1 7.6% 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.

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
Macpherson strut (rear)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Rear 23 ×38 0.9% Elevated
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Rear 113 ×14 4.3% Likely
Other towbar components
Body, chassis, structure > Towbar > Other towbar components
 Any 20 ×14 0.8% Elevated
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 121 ×5.8 4.6% Likely
Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Rear 21 ×5.3 0.8% Elevated
Pipes and hoses
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Any 24 ×4.9 0.9% Elevated
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 202 ×4.2 7.6% Likely
Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 47 ×3.6 1.8% 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.

On this year, prefer the petrol. The diesel cars passed first time 2.5 pp less often, on 6,149 tests.

Other CR-V 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 CR-V +2.1 pp better 79.8% 13,543
2010 CR-V +1.8 pp better 69.4% 9,230
2012 CR-V -1.8 pp worse 73.6% 11,907

What to check on a 2011 CR-V

The items that failed 2011 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 9.6% of failed first attempts
  • Individual direction indicators (rear) — recorded on 8.2% of failed first attempts
  • Linkage ball joints (front) — recorded on 7.6% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 6.5% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 5.7% 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.

Petrol CR-Vs passed first time 2.5 pp more often than diesel ones (72.9% of 3,073 vs 70.3% of 6,149). In 2025, 71.2% of 9,222 first MOTs on the 2011 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 77.9%. Among 2,658 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Headlamp levelling device (rear) appears more often than on sim…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2011 Honda CR-Vs most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (9.6%), Individual direction indicators (rear) (8.2%) and Linkage ball joints (front) (7.6%) — 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 comm…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Headlamp levelling device (rear) (3.8% of those tests; 100 observed failures; about 34× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Headlamp levelling device (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (3.8% of those tests; 100 observed failures; about 34× 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 2011 Honda CR-V include Headlamp levelling device (rear), Pins and bushes (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 2011 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