Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 1,188 tests analysed

Mitsubishi L200 2003: reliability & common MOT faults

532 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2003 Mitsubishi L200 in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2003 L200 failed its MOT — 19.4% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

55.2%

of 1,188 first tests (2025)

First tests

1,188

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

532

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

55.2%

of 1,188 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

63.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

1,188

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 22.0 yrs · median mileage 122,156 mi

vs 2024: -0.6 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 532 failed first attempts in 2025 that the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Pins and bushes (front) — 8.5% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 45 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 13× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. That is what makes it unusual for its class, which is a different question from what is most likely to fail; the buying checklist ranks by that. The full ranked list is in the table below.

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 45 ×13 8.5% Likely
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 39 ×6.6 7.3% Likely
Emissions not tested
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Emissions not tested
 Any 22 ×5.5 4.1% Possible
Engine oil leaks
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Engine oil leaks
 Any 21 ×4.9 3.9% Possible
Rear fog lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Any 59 ×4.3 11.1% Likely
Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 37 ×4.3 7.0% Likely
Diesel emissions test (pre-reg turbo rules before 01/07/2008) Any 22 ×2.7 4.1% Possible
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 25 ×2.7 4.7% Possible
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 23 ×2.7 4.3% Possible
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 28 ×2.5 5.3% Possible

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
Shackle pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Shackle pins and bushes
 Rear 33 ×84 6.2% Possible
Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 20 ×48 3.8% Possible
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 92 ×8.8 17.3% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 53 ×8.0 10.0% Likely
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 50 ×6.3 9.4% Elevated
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 39 ×4.0 7.3% Possible
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 42 ×2.7 7.9% Elevated
Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 29 ×2.6 5.5% 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 L200 either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2003 L200, commonest first.

What to check on a 2003 L200

The items that failed 2003 L200 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.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 19.4% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 11.5% of failed first attempts
  • Rear fog lamp — recorded on 11.1% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Washers — recorded on 10.0% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — 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.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2003 L200 failed its MOT — 19.4% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 55.2% of 1,188 first MOTs on the 2003 Mitsubishi L200 passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 63.0%. Among 532 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (front) appears more often than…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2003 Mitsubishi L200s most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (19.4%), Drive shafts — Joints (front) (11.5%) and Rear fog lamp (11.1%) — 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 table…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (front) (8.5% of those tests; 45 observed failures; about 13× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (8.5% of those tests; 45 observed failures; about 13× 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 2003 Mitsubishi L200 include Pins and bushes (front), Chassis condition (front), Emissions not tested. 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 2003 Mitsubishi L200 (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