Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 13,052 tests analysed

Hyundai i30 2015: reliability & common MOT faults

4,249 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2015 Hyundai i30 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.

2015 i30 break the i30's own run — at 67.4% they land 2.2 pp above the midpoint of the 2014 and 2016 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

67.4%

of 13,052 first tests (2025)

First tests

13,052

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

4,249

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

21.7%

Rbt (sp)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

67.4%

of 13,052 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

74.7%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

13,052

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 10.0 yrs · median mileage 76,502 mi

vs 2024: -1.4 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 4,248 of 4,249 failed first attempts that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Individual direction indicators (rear) — 6.2% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 265 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 10.0× 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
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 265 ×10.0 6.2% Strong
Parking brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Rear 209 ×6.3 4.9% Strong
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 922 ×6.0 21.7% Strong
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 408 ×3.1 9.6% Likely
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 301 ×2.2 7.1% Possible
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 399 ×2.1 9.4% Possible
Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Front 107 ×2.1 2.5% 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
Headlamp aim not tested (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
 Front 33 ×2.1 0.8% 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 73 ×16 1.7% Elevated
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 209 ×7.8 4.9% Strong
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 243 ×5.0 5.7% Likely
Brake fluid
Brakes > Hydraulic systems > Brake fluid
 Any 25 ×3.5 0.6% Elevated
Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Front 20 ×3.3 0.5% Elevated
Registration plates (front)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
 Front 157 ×2.7 3.7% Elevated
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 111 ×2.6 2.6% Elevated
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 133 ×2.4 3.1% 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 outperforms the i30's own age curve — it holds up better than its place in the model's run would predict.

Other i30 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 i30 +4.4 pp better 80.2% 6,501
2016 i30 -5.0 pp worse 68.8% 9,105

What to check on a 2015 i30

The items that failed 2015 i30 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 21.7% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 9.6% of failed first attempts
  • Pins and bushes (front) — recorded on 9.4% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 9.2% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp (front) — recorded on 7.1% 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.

2015 i30 break the i30's own run — at 67.4% they land 2.2 pp above the midpoint of the 2014 and 2016 cars either side. In 2025, 67.4% of 13,052 first MOTs on the 2015 Hyundai i30 passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 74.7%. Among 4,249 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Individual direction indicators (rear) appea…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2015 Hyundai i30s most often at the first attempt were Rbt (sp) (21.7%), Stop lamp (9.6%) and Pins and bushes (front) (9.4%) — 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: Individual direction indicators (rear) (6.2% of those tests; 265 observed failures; about 10.0× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Individual direction indicators (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (6.2% of those tests; 265 observed failures; about 10.0× 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 check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2015 Hyundai i30 include Individual direction indicators (rear), Parking brake performance (rear), 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 2015 Hyundai i30 (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