Model Reports 5 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Mazda 6 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 58 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2009 Mazda 6 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

The 2009 Mazda 6 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 2,875 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
58 in every 100
Did not pass first time
42 in every 1001,208 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
16 yearsabout 121,313 miles
First tests counted
2,875

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)20 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)20 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Headlight aim10 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 2009 Mazda 6 vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. A wear pattern follows age and use more than the way the car was built. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Suspension

Three faults. The strongest is the anti-roll bar linkage (rear): 5.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 1,205 of 1,208 failed first attempts (99.8%) 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.

Anti-roll bar linkage (rear)

Failed on 25 first tests5.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

An anti-roll bar linkage is graded Dangerous when a suspension component is missing, likely to become detached, fractured or likely to fail. Insecure attachment that impairs directional stability is graded Dangerous too. Excessive damage or corrosion that seriously weakens the part is Major, and so is plain insecure attachment to the chassis or axle.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 114 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Wheel bearings (front)

Failed on 34 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsPossible 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.

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

Brakes

Five faults and one wear pattern. The strongest is the rigid brake pipes (front): 3.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 41 first tests3.8 times as often as similar carsLikely 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 96 first tests, 2.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake discs (rear)

Failed on 45 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

A brake disc or drum must be significantly worn before it is rejected, and being worn below the manufacturer's recommended limits is not a reason in itself. Significantly and obviously worn is Major, as is contamination with oil or grease. A disc or drum that is fractured, insecure, seriously weakened or missing is graded Dangerous.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 64 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A wheel with no recorded braking effort on the roller test is graded Dangerous. Inadequate effort, a brake grabbing severely, abnormal lag and excessive fluctuation in effort are each Major. So is significant brake effort recorded with no brake applied, which indicates a binding brake.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 60 first tests, 2.4 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake performance (roller test)

Failed on 42 first tests2.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake that is inoperative on one side is Major. When tested on the road, the failure is the vehicle deviating excessively from a straight line. Vehicles whose parking brake was already tested as the secondary brake are not tested again for this.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 241 first tests2.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and graded Dangerous where efficiency is less than half of the required value. On a roller brake tester, the requirement counts as met if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock. The check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake was not already tested as the secondary brake.

Brake imbalance across an axle (roller test, efficiency check, rear)

Failed on 30 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A wheel giving less than a set share of the maximum effort from the other wheel on the same axle is Major. On a steered axle, less than half is graded Dangerous. Testers disregard an imbalance if the lower effort is the result of a locked wheel, or if the higher effort from a wheel is at or below a low set figure.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Seat belts and restraints

One fault: airbag warning light, 2.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Airbag warning light

Failed on 70 first tests2.9 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.

Body and structure

One fault: exhaust system (rear), 2.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Exhaust system (rear)

Failed on 45 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Exhaust fumes causing a danger to health of persons on board are graded Dangerous, and so is a silencer likely to become detached. Fumes entering the cabin are Major. One or more missing or defective mountings does not necessarily make the exhaust insecure, since testers assess the overall security of the system.

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

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.

Brake performance (plate test, front)

Noted on 20 first tests5.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm (rear)

Noted on 182 first tests5.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame mounting area (rear)

Noted on 43 first tests4.5 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Other suspension component (rear)

Noted on 34 first tests3.8 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm (front)

Noted on 77 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Chassis condition (rear)

Noted on 39 first tests3.5 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (rear)

Noted on 283 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Noted on 84 first tests3.3 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
58in 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
35in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 58.0% of 2,875 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 65.3%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 7 fixed and the 35 not fixed make the 42 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Petrol and diesel

First testsTypical mileagePassed first time, as testedPassed first time, same mileage
Petrol1,895111,978 miles5958
Diesel979141,222 miles5658

Figures are in every 100 first tests. Cars with more miles usually fail more often, so the same-mileage figure gives every fuel the mileage mix of all the cars in this year.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002005200920152020Older carsNewer cars
40608010020092020Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200550 in every 100529
200654 in every 100915
200752 in every 1001,676
200853 in every 1002,381
2009 This car58 in every 1002,875
201058 in every 1004,007
201159 in every 1003,220
201260 in every 1002,450
201366 in every 1003,591
201468 in every 1005,437
201571 in every 1005,966
201674 in every 1006,398
201777 in every 1004,463
201882 in every 1003,120
201987 in every 1004,244
202089 in every 1001,016
202190 in every 100642
202292 in every 100683

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Mileage matters most on a 2009 Mazda 6.

Of 2009 Mazda 6 vehicles with under 89,000 miles, 65 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 154,000 miles or more, 52 in every 100 did.

Under 89,000569 tests
65
89,000–112,000584 tests
60
112,000–131,000 Typical car577 tests
56
131,000–154,000558 tests
57
154,000 and over583 tests
52

Petrol or diesel?

Typical mileagePassed first time,
as tested		Passed first time,
same mileage
Petrol111,978 miles5958
Diesel141,222 miles5658

Figures are in every 100 first tests. Petrol cars look better on the raw figures only because diesel cars have done more miles (typically 141,222 against 111,978). At the same mileage there is no clear difference between the two.

What to check at your mileage

How often each fault turned up on a failed first test, by the car's mileage. Read it as: what is likely to need looking at on a car like the one in front of you.

Under 89,000112,000–131,000154,000 and over
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)5.38.110.3
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)4.68.011.5
Headlight aim3.24.73.8
Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)4.02.94.1
Headlight2.54.04.1

Faults per 100 first tests, by the car's mileage at the test.

When a car fails

23in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

54in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

13in every 100

of all first tests had a defect the tester marked dangerous (unsafe to drive away).

Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line, for cars of this model year tested in 2025. Each mileage band holds a fifth of the tests. 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.

The 2009 Mazda 6 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Individual sidelight or tail light (front), about 20 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 58.0% of 2,875 first MOTs on the 2009 Mazda 6 passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 65.3%. Among 1,208 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar linkage (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (2.1% of those tests; 25 observed failures; about 5.7× 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 2009 Mazda 6 at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (20.2%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (20.0%) and Headlight aim (9.7%), 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: Anti-roll bar linkage (rear) (2.1% of those tests; 25 observed failures; about 5.7× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bar linkage (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.1% of those tests; 25 observed failures; about 5.7× 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 2009 Mazda 6 include Anti-roll bar linkage (rear), Rigid brake pipes (front), Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front). 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 2009 Mazda 6 (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