Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 3,179 tests analysed

Land Rover Defender 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

1,028 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2009 Land Rover Defender in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Shock absorbers (rear) was the most common reason a 2009 Defender failed its MOT — 10.4% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

67.7%

of 3,179 first tests (2025)

First tests

3,179

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,028

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

67.7%

of 3,179 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

73.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

3,179

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 16.0 yrs · median mileage 87,850 mi

vs 2024: +1.2 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 1,028 failed first attempts in 2025 that the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Drag link end (front) — 3.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 37 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 66× 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.

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Drag link end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Drag link end
 Front 37 ×66 3.6% Likely
Ball joint (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Ball joint
 Front 39 ×23 3.8% Likely
Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 34 ×11 3.3% Likely
Reversing lamps
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Reversing lamps > Reversing lamps
 Any 32 ×9.1 3.1% Likely
Service brake performance
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake performance
 Any 44 ×8.9 4.3% Likely
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 21 ×7.4 2.0% Possible
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 48 ×7.1 4.7% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 65 ×6.5 6.3% Likely
Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 107 ×3.8 10.4% Likely
Registration plates (front)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
 Front 24 ×3.4 2.3% 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 24 ×2.3 2.3% 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
Swivel pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Axles > Swivel pins and bushes
 Front 22 ×159 2.1% Possible
Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 160 ×22 15.6% Likely
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 50 ×7.7 4.9% Elevated
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 68 ×7.2 6.6% Likely
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 40 ×6.2 3.9% Possible
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 168 ×5.6 16.3% Likely
Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 69 ×5.6 6.7% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 20 ×3.2 1.9% 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.

Nothing separates this year from the Defenders either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2009 Defenders, commonest first.

What to check on a 2009 Defender

The items that failed 2009 Defenders 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.

  • Shock absorbers (rear) — recorded on 10.4% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 9.3% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 8.4% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 8.0% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Washers — recorded on 7.9% 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.

Shock absorbers (rear) was the most common reason a 2009 Defender failed its MOT — 10.4% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 67.7% of 3,179 first MOTs on the 2009 Land Rover Defender passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 73.0%. Among 1,028 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Drag link end (front) appears more of…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2009 Land Rover Defenders most often at the first attempt were Shock absorbers (rear) (10.4%), Headlamp aim (9.3%) and Position lamp (front) (8.4%) — 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 answe…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Drag link end (front) (3.6% of those tests; 37 observed failures; about 66× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Drag link end (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (3.6% of those tests; 37 observed failures; about 66× 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 Land Rover Defender include Drag link end (front), Ball joint (front), Seat belts — Condition (front). 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 Land Rover Defender (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