Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 5,608 tests analysed

Land Rover Discovery 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

1,677 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2010 Land Rover Discovery in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Pins and bushes (rear) was the most common reason a 2010 Discovery failed its MOT — 14.9% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

70.1%

of 5,608 first tests (2025)

First tests

5,608

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,677

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

70.1%

of 5,608 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

74.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

5,608

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 15.0 yrs · median mileage 139,221 mi

vs 2024: +0.9 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 1,675 of 1,677 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Pins and bushes (rear) — 14.9% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 250 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 11× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. On this year it is also the commonest failure, so it answers both questions at once. The full ranked list is in the table below.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 66 ×86 3.9% Likely
Electronic parking brake
Brakes > Parking brake control > Electronic parking brake
 Any 62 ×31 3.7% Likely
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 250 ×11 14.9% Strong
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 79 ×8.4 4.7% Likely
Flexible brake hoses (front)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Front 50 ×8.0 3.0% Likely
Visibility — Bonnet
Visibility > Bonnet
 Any 40 ×6.8 2.4% Likely
Decelerometer (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Decelerometer (sp)
 Any 42 ×6.6 2.5% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 142 ×5.1 8.5% Strong
Brake performance not tested
Brakes > Brake performance > Brake performance not tested
 Any 53 ×4.7 3.2% Likely
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 37 ×3.5 2.2% Likely

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.

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 rods > Ball joint
 Rear 23 ×120 1.4% Elevated
Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 21 ×23 1.3% Likely
Ball joint (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Rear 20 ×16 1.2% Elevated
Flexible brake hoses (front)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Front 105 ×11 6.3% Likely
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 65 ×5.2 3.9% Elevated
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 57 ×4.9 3.4% Elevated
Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 61 ×4.0 3.6% Likely
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 180 ×3.6 10.7% Strong
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 Discoverys either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2010 Discoverys, commonest first.

Other Discovery 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
2006 Discovery -2.3 pp worse 61.1% 6,150

What to check on a 2010 Discovery

The items that failed 2010 Discoverys 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.

  • Pins and bushes (rear) — recorded on 14.9% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 13.0% of failed first attempts
  • Rigid brake pipes (rear) — recorded on 8.5% of failed first attempts
  • Tyres — Condition (rear) — recorded on 7.1% of failed first attempts
  • Brake pads (rear) — recorded on 5.3% 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.

Pins and bushes (rear) was the most common reason a 2010 Discovery failed its MOT — 14.9% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 70.1% of 5,608 first MOTs on the 2010 Land Rover Discovery passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 74.0%. Among 1,677 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (rear) appears more…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2010 Land Rover Discoverys most often at the first attempt were Pins and bushes (rear) (14.9%), Drive shafts — Joints (front) (13.0%) and Rigid brake pipes (rear) (8.5%) — 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 com…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (rear) (14.9% of those tests; 250 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (14.9% of those tests; 250 observed failures; about 11× 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 2010 Land Rover Discovery include Pins and bushes (rear), Rigid brake pipes (rear), Prop shaft. 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 2010 Land Rover Discovery (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