Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Isuzu TF 2011: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 52 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2011 Isuzu TF were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

With 750 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2011 Isuzu TF differs from the model years either side.

At a glance

How 750 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
52 in every 100
Did not pass first time
48 in every 100363 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
14 yearsabout 115,489 miles
First tests counted
750

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)19 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 2011 Isuzu TF vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Suspension

Five faults. The strongest is the leaf spring (rear): 32 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 362 of 363 failed first attempts (99.7%) 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.

Leaf spring (rear)

Failed on 32 first tests32 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Modified spring anchor or shackle brackets with more mounting holes than the chassis are not a reason to reject leaf spring suspension, and neither is a missing bump stop rubber. A fractured main leaf is graded Dangerous. A spring that is fractured or seriously weakened is graded Major.

Wheel bearings (front)

Failed on 30 first tests6.2 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Excessive play in a wheel bearing, or a bearing that is excessively rough, is Major. Play so excessive that the bearing is likely to break up or directional control is impaired is Dangerous, and so is a bearing so rough that it is likely to overheat or break up.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 95 first tests, 26 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Failed on 26 first tests5.2 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.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 27 first tests4.4 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.

Shock absorbers (rear)

Failed on 37 first tests3.5 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Slight seepage that leaves a film of fluid on a shock absorber does not fail it. Severe leakage, or damage so that it does not function, is Major. A shock absorber missing or likely to become detached is graded Dangerous, though a missing one is only rejected if shock absorbers were fitted as standard.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 37 first tests, 3.1 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

Three faults. The strongest is the rear fog light: 6.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Rear fog light

Failed on 29 first tests6.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A missing obligatory rear fog lamp, one that is not working, or one that does not emit a steady red light is graded Major. A rear fog lamp adversely affected by the operation of any other lamp is Major too. The manual allows it to go out when main beam is switched on or when dipped beam headlamps are switched off.

Side repeater indicators

Failed on 26 first tests4.4 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Sequential or dynamic direction indicators are not a reason to fail. Where a side repeater is required, it is allowed to be part of the front direction indicator if it has a marked wraparound lens, or an amber light coming through the front lens when viewed from a set distance to the side of the rear bumper. A lens defect with no effect on the emitted light is Minor, and one that adversely affects the light is Major.

Individual sidelight or tail light (rear)

Failed on 20 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A position lamp showing red light to the front or white light to the rear is Major. Rear lamps must show a steady red light, and front ones can show white, predominantly white with a blue tinge, or yellow if combined in a yellow headlamp. With a multiple light source, up to half not working is Minor and more than half is Major.

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

Seat belts and restraints

One fault: airbag warning light, 4.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Airbag warning light

Failed on 26 first tests4.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

The airbag warning lamp (SRS MIL in DVSA's wording) is failed only if it indicates a system malfunction, which is Major. A lamp lit to show the passenger airbag is disabled is not to be regarded as a defect. Dashboard messages are not a defect in their own right, though they can help the tester confirm a malfunction.

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

Brakes

One fault: rigid brake pipes (rear), 3.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Rigid brake pipes (rear)

Failed on 22 first tests3.9 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Chafing, corrosion or damage to a rigid brake pipe justifies rejection once its wall thickness is reduced by a set amount, although DVSA accepts this is not easy to determine. If a tester is not sure, the benefit of the doubt applies. A leaking pipe or connection is graded Dangerous on a hydraulic system and Major on an air system.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 50 first tests, 3.4 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.

Chassis condition (rear)

Noted on 26 first tests13 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm ball joint (front)

Noted on 34 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Noted on 34 first tests3.7 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
52in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
7in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
41in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 51.6% of 750 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 59.1%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 7 fixed and the 41 not fixed make the 48 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
201053 in every 100340
2011 This car52 in every 100750
201251 in every 100311

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 53 in every 100 passed first time.

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

With 750 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2011 Isuzu TF differs from the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Individual sidelight or tail light (front), about 19 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 51.6% of 750 first MOTs on the 2011 Isuzu TF passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 59.1%. Among 363 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Leaf spring (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (8.8% of those tests; 32 observed failures; about 32× 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 2011 Isuzu TF at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (19.3%), 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: Leaf spring (rear) (8.8% of those tests; 32 observed failures; about 32× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Leaf spring (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (8.8% of those tests; 32 observed failures; about 32× 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 2011 Isuzu TF include Leaf spring (rear), Wheel bearings (front), Rear fog light. 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 2011 Isuzu TF (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