Mercedes-Benz Vito 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 56 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test).

Summary

The 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 2,846 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
56 in every 100
Did not pass first time
44 in every 1001,242 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
19 yearsabout 165,602 miles
First tests counted
2,846

What failed most often

  1. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)19 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Suspension mounting area (rear)13 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)11 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 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito 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.

Body and structure

Three faults. The strongest is the drive shaft joints and boots (rear): 20 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 1,204 of 1,242 failed first attempts (96.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025. Mileage is needed to compare like with like. 3.1% of failures are excluded because no mileage was recorded, so treat these shares as indicative for this model year.

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.

Drive shaft joints and boots (rear)

Failed on 31 first tests20 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A constant velocity boot that is only severely deteriorated is Minor. It is Major once it is missing, split or insecure so that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt. A transmission joint excessively worn is Major, and graded Dangerous when it is so worn it is likely to fail.

Vehicle structure condition (front)

Failed on 39 first tests3.9 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Structure that is fractured, deformed, corroded, modified or inadequately repaired is failed on rigidity only if the overall structural rigidity of the vehicle is significantly reduced. Structure that is likely to affect steering or braking adversely is graded Dangerous. Prescribed areas are not covered here, as they are checked under other sections, including brakes and steering.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 39 first tests, 4.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Chassis condition (front)

Failed on 41 first tests3.6 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A main load-bearing structural member that is fractured, deformed, modified or inadequately repaired is Major when structural rigidity is significantly reduced, and Dangerous where steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected. Corrosion of the body, cab or chassis at a mounting point is Dangerous where overall security or stability is impaired.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 29 first tests, 3.5 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.

Suspension

Three faults. The strongest is the suspension sub-frame mounting area (front): 11 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension sub-frame mounting area (front)

Failed on 35 first tests11 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Structure around a sub-frame mounting that is so weakened that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected is graded Dangerous, whether it is damaged, fractured, corroded or inadequately repaired. It is Major when strength is significantly reduced by excessive corrosion, damage or a fracture, or when it is inadequately repaired.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 35 first tests, 7.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension mounting area (front)

Failed on 62 first tests4.0 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

The load bearing structure within a set distance of a sub-frame, spring or suspension component mounting is a prescribed area. Major applies when its strength or continuity is significantly reduced or it is inadequately repaired. Dangerous applies when it is so weakened that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 33 first tests, 3.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Anti-roll bar pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 25 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

An anti-roll bar pin or bush that is excessively worn is Major, and one likely to become detached is graded Dangerous. The wording is DVSA's general rule for a suspension pin, bush or joint.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 31 first tests, 2.7 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

Three faults. The strongest is the handbrake lever: 3.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake lever

Failed on 42 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A parking brake lever pivot or ratchet mechanism that is obviously worn is graded Minor. It is Major when worn to the extent that the brake may inadvertently release, and also when the ratchet is not holding correctly. A lever must have obvious excessive travel before being rejected.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 65 first tests3.1 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 188 first tests, 3.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Electronic stability control

Failed on 37 first tests2.9 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

An ESC warning lamp is failed only when the tester is certain it indicates an ESC malfunction, because the lamp takes various forms and the owner's handbook may need checking. The system is also called ESP, VDC or DSC, among many other names. Every failure row is Major, covering the lamp, wheel speed sensors, wiring, other components and the switch.

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

Steering

One fault: steering rack (front), 2.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Steering rack (front)

Failed on 27 first tests2.9 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Steering gear casing retaining devices dangerously loose, or visible relative movement to the chassis or bodywork, is graded Dangerous. A casing not properly attached, or fractured, is Major, but a fracture that affects the stability or attachment of the casing is Dangerous. A gaiter damaged but still keeping dirt out is Minor, and Major once missing or no longer doing so.

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.

Transmission oil leaks (rear)

Noted on 29 first tests11 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Individual direction indicators (front)

Noted on 32 first tests2.8 times as often as similar carsPossible 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
56in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
9in 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 56.4% of 2,846 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 64.6%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 9 fixed and the 35 not fixed make the 44 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002006201020152020Older carsNewer cars
406080100200620102020Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 55 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200345 in every 100317
200451 in every 100605
200552 in every 1001,462
2006 This car56 in every 1002,846
200755 in every 1003,600
200857 in every 1003,729
200960 in every 1003,499
201060 in every 1003,634
201161 in every 1003,118
201263 in every 1003,765
201363 in every 1004,054
201465 in every 1004,283
201567 in every 1004,515
201668 in every 1005,697
201769 in every 1007,490
201871 in every 1005,693
201973 in every 1007,710
202074 in every 1004,043
202176 in every 1004,432
202283 in every 1001,767

If you are buying one

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

Mileage makes little difference on a 2006 Vito.

Of 2006 Vito vehicles with under 122,000 miles, 58 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 218,000 miles or more, 59 in every 100 did.

Under 122,000553 tests
58
122,000–152,000556 tests
58
152,000–180,000 Typical car552 tests
54
180,000–218,000565 tests
54
218,000 and over548 tests
59

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 122,000152,000–180,000218,000 and over
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)5.210.07.5
Suspension mounting area (rear)3.16.37.1
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)2.56.95.8
Windscreen washers4.52.24.0
Headlight aim4.23.83.3

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


When a car fails

15in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

68in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

10in 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 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test), about 19 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 56.4% of 2,846 first MOTs on the 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 64.6%. Among 1,242 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Drive shaft joints and boots (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (2.6% of those tests; 31 observed failures; about 20× 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 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito at the first attempt were Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (19.4%), Suspension mounting area (rear) (13.0%) and Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (11.4%), 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: Drive shaft joints and boots (rear) (2.6% of those tests; 31 observed failures; about 20× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Drive shaft joints and boots (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.6% of those tests; 31 observed failures; about 20× 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 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito include Drive shaft joints and boots (rear), Suspension sub-frame mounting area (front), Suspension mounting area (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 2006 Mercedes-Benz Vito (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