Model Reports 5 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Mazda 6 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 58 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2010 Mazda 6 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

The 2010 Mazda 6 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 4,007 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
58 in every 100
Did not pass first time
42 in every 1001,682 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
15 yearsabout 119,903 miles
First tests counted
4,007

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)23 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)22 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)13 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 2010 Mazda 6 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

Two faults. The strongest is the suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front): 5.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 1,681 of 1,682 failed first attempts (99.9%) 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.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 213 first tests5.3 times as often as similar carsStrong 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 48 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.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 40 first tests, 2.2 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.

Brakes

Six faults. The strongest is the brake efficiency below minimum (roller test): 4.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 46 first tests4.3 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Service brake efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and efficiency less than half of the required value is graded Dangerous. On a roller brake tester, if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock, the efficiency requirement for that system counts as met.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 83 first tests3.0 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 87 first tests, 2.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 362 first tests3.0 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.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 43 first tests2.9 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 113 first tests, 2.5 times as often as on similar cars.

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

Failed on 42 first tests2.6 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.

Handbrake performance (roller test)

Failed on 49 first tests2.3 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.

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.

Brake performance (plate test, front)

Noted on 25 first tests5.4 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame mounting area (rear)

Noted on 50 first tests4.7 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm (rear)

Noted on 228 first tests4.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Structural sub-frame condition (rear)

Noted on 22 first tests3.8 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (rear)

Noted on 394 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Noted on 86 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Headlight (front)

Noted on 69 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm (front)

Noted on 92 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 4,007 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 65.1%: 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
Petrol2,114106,140 miles6058
Diesel1,891135,639 miles5657

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.

4060801002005201020152020Older carsNewer cars
40608010020102020Newer 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
200958 in every 1002,875
2010 This car58 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 2010 Mazda 6.

Of 2010 Mazda 6 vehicles with under 89,000 miles, 64 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 155,000 miles or more, 53 in every 100 did.

Under 89,000794 tests
64
89,000–109,000789 tests
58
109,000–130,000 Typical car833 tests
59
130,000–155,000803 tests
56
155,000 and over787 tests
53

Petrol or diesel?

Typical mileagePassed first time,
as tested		Passed first time,
same mileage
Petrol106,140 miles6058
Diesel135,639 miles5657

Figures are in every 100 first tests. Petrol cars look better on the raw figures only because diesel cars have done more miles (typically 135,639 against 106,140). 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 89,000109,000–130,000155,000 and over
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)3.810.210.5
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)6.210.010.3
Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)5.75.45.1
Headlight aim2.43.84.6
Tyre condition (front)1.52.32.8

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

When a car fails

25in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

50in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

12in 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 2010 Mazda 6 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Individual sidelight or tail light (front), about 23 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 58.0% of 4,007 first MOTs on the 2010 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 65.1%. Among 1,682 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front) appears more often than on similar cars (12.7% of those tests; 213 observed failures; about 5.3× 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 2010 Mazda 6 at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (22.6%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (21.5%) and Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front) (12.7%), 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: Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front) (12.7% of those tests; 213 observed failures; about 5.3× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (12.7% of those tests; 213 observed failures; about 5.3× 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 2010 Mazda 6 include Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front), Brake efficiency below minimum (roller test), Brake performance (roller test, 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 2010 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