Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 5,511 tests analysed

Mazda CX-5 2020: reliability & common MOT faults

671 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2020 Mazda CX-5 in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Brake pads (front) was the most common reason a 2020 CX-5 failed its MOT — 16.2% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

87.8%

of 5,511 first tests (2025)

First tests

5,511

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

671

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

87.8%

of 5,511 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

91.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

5,511

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 5.0 yrs · median mileage 37,035 mi

vs 2024: -0.3 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.

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 (front)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Front 109 ×2.6 16.2% 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
Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 33 ×5.3 4.9% 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 CX-5 either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2020 CX-5, commonest first.

Other CX-5 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
2017 CX-5 +2.0 pp better 81.4% 6,942
2016 CX-5 -2.1 pp worse 74.3% 6,669

What to check on a 2020 CX-5

The items that failed 2020 CX-5 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.

  • Brake pads (front) — recorded on 16.2% of failed first attempts
  • Tyres — Condition (front) — recorded on 12.1% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Wipers (front) — recorded on 11.8% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 9.8% 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.

Brake pads (front) was the most common reason a 2020 CX-5 failed its MOT — 16.2% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 87.8% of 5,511 first MOTs on the 2020 Mazda CX-5 passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 91.0%. Among 671 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), we highlight MOT failure patterns that show up more ofte…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2020 Mazda CX-5s most often at the first attempt were Brake pads (front) (16.2%), Tyres — Condition (front) (12.1%) and Visibility — Wipers (front) (11.8%) — 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 tab…
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 2020 Mazda CX-5 (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