Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 5,297 tests analysed

Jaguar Xf 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

1,971 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2009 Jaguar Xf in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Tyres — Condition (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol Xfs passed first time 8.6 pp more often than diesel ones (70.8% of 370 vs 62.2% of 4,927).

First-attempt pass

62.8%

of 5,297 first tests (2025)

First tests

5,297

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,971

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

16.3%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

62.8%

of 5,297 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

68.4%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

5,297

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 16.0 yrs · median mileage 111,719 mi

vs 2024: +0.2 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 1,968 of 1,971 failed first attempts (99.8%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear) — 7.7% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 152 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 95× 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 (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint dust cover
 Rear 71 ×111 3.6% Likely
Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joint dust cover
 Rear 152 ×95 7.7% Strong
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 119 ×14 6.0% Strong
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 126 ×6.2 6.4% Strong
Rear fog lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Any 76 ×2.6 3.9% 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 133 ×2.4 6.8% Wear
Tread depth (rear)
Tyres > Tread depth
 Rear 124 ×2.1 6.3% 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 > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Rear 45 ×47 2.3% Elevated
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
 Rear 36 ×5.4 1.8% Elevated
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 227 ×4.8 11.5% Strong
Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 69 ×4.6 3.5% Possible
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 470 ×3.6 23.9% Strong
Sub-frame condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Sub-frame > Sub-frame condition
 Rear 23 ×3.1 1.2% Elevated
Flexible brake hoses (front)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Front 61 ×2.7 3.1% Possible
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 35 ×2.5 1.8% 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.

On this year, prefer the petrol. The diesel cars passed first time 8.6 pp less often, on 4,927 tests.

What to check on a 2009 Xf

The items that failed 2009 Xfs 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 16.3% of failed first attempts
  • Tyres — Condition (front) — recorded on 10.4% of failed first attempts
  • Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear) — recorded on 7.7% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Washers — recorded on 7.2% of failed first attempts
  • Brake pads (rear) — recorded on 6.8% 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 Xfs passed first time 8.6 pp more often than diesel ones (70.8% of 370 vs 62.2% of 4,927). In 2025, 62.8% of 5,297 first MOTs on the 2009 Jaguar Xf passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 68.4%. Among 1,971 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear) appears more often than on simi…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2009 Jaguar Xfs most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (16.3%), Tyres — Condition (front) (10.4%) and Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear) (7.7%) — 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-…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear) (7.7% of those tests; 152 observed failures; about 95× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (7.7% of those tests; 152 observed failures; about 95× 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 2009 Jaguar Xf include Linkage ball joint dust cover (rear), Sub-frame (rear), Pins and bushes (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 2009 Jaguar Xf (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