Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 22,080 tests analysed

Hyundai i10 2014: reliability & common MOT faults

6,434 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2014 Hyundai i10 in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Rbt (sp) and Stop lamp. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2014 i10 break the i10's own run — at 70.9% they land 1.3 pp above the midpoint of the 2013 and 2015 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

70.9%

of 22,080 first tests (2025)

First tests

22,080

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

6,434

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

10.0%

Rbt (sp)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

70.9%

of 22,080 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

77.6%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

22,080

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 11.0 yrs · median mileage 52,493 mi

vs 2024: -0.1 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 6,431 of 6,434 failed first attempts that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Ball joint dust cover (front) — 8.9% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 570 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 5.4× 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
Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 570 ×5.4 8.9% Strong
Anti-lock braking system
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Anti-lock braking system
 Any 278 ×4.3 4.3% Likely
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 646 ×3.2 10.0% Likely
Parking brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Rear 135 ×3.2 2.1% Likely
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 131 ×3.1 2.0% Likely
Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 133 ×2.7 2.1% Possible
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 575 ×2.3 8.9% Possible
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 348 ×2.3 5.4% Possible
Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 368 ×2.2 5.7% 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 discs (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
 Rear 324 ×4.5 5.0% Wear
Tyre pressure monitoring system
Tyres > Tyre pressure monitoring system
 Any 379 ×2.0 5.9% 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
Side repeaters (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Front 82 ×11 1.3% Elevated
Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 63 ×4.5 1.0% Elevated
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 46 ×3.1 0.7% Elevated
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 44 ×3.1 0.7% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 51 ×2.6 0.8% Elevated
Brake discs (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
 Rear 987 ×2.6 15.3% Wear
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Rear 65 ×2.5 1.0% Possible
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 299 ×2.4 4.6% 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.

This year outperforms the i10's own age curve — it holds up better than its place in the model's run would predict.

Other i10 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
2017 i10 +1.7 pp better 81.4% 23,091
2013 i10 -3.6 pp worse 63.0% 19,598
2018 i10 -1.7 pp worse 79.9% 20,594

What to check on a 2014 i10

The items that failed 2014 i10 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.

  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 10.0% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 8.9% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint dust cover (front) — recorded on 8.9% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Washers — recorded on 7.9% of failed first attempts
  • Tyre pressure monitoring system — recorded on 5.9% 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.

2014 i10 break the i10's own run — at 70.9% they land 1.3 pp above the midpoint of the 2013 and 2015 cars either side. In 2025, 70.9% of 22,080 first MOTs on the 2014 Hyundai i10 passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 77.6%. Among 6,434 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Ball joint dust cover (front) appears more o…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2014 Hyundai i10s most often at the first attempt were Rbt (sp) (10.0%), Stop lamp (8.9%) and Ball joint dust cover (front) (8.9%) — 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-faults table answers.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Ball joint dust cover (front) (8.9% of those tests; 570 observed failures; about 5.4× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Ball joint dust cover (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (8.9% of those tests; 570 observed failures; about 5.4× 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 2014 Hyundai i10 include Ball joint dust cover (front), Anti-lock braking system, Rbt (sp). 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 2014 Hyundai i10 (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