Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Mitsubishi Outlander 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 55 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

With 998 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander differs from the model years either side.

At a glance

How 998 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
55 in every 100
Did not pass first time
45 in every 100453 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
16 yearsabout 135,254 miles
First tests counted
998

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)20 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Track rod end (front)17 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Suspension arm ball joint (front)15 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 Mitsubishi Outlander 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

One fault: suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front), 3.6 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 452 of 453 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.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 43 first tests3.6 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.

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

Brakes

One fault: rigid brake pipes (rear), 3.6 times as often as on similar cars.

Rigid brake pipes (rear)

Failed on 28 first tests3.6 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 94 first tests, 4.5 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.

Steering

One fault: track rod end (front), 3.4 times as often as on similar cars.

Track rod end (front)

Failed on 79 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A steering ball joint with excessive wear or free play is Major, and one worn to the extent there is a serious risk of detachment is graded Dangerous. A dust cover that is damaged but still keeps dirt out is Minor, and one missing or no longer keeping dirt out is Major. Testers must tell wear from a joint's built-in clearance or spring loading.

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

Noise, emissions and leaks

One fault: diesel emissions test (compression-ignition rules for vehicles from 01/07/2008), 3.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Diesel emissions test (compression-ignition rules for vehicles from 01/07/2008)

Failed on 41 first tests3.3 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

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.

Headlight (front)

Noted on 30 first tests3.8 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm pins and bushes (rear)

Noted on 47 first tests3.5 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Noted on 32 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm (rear)

Noted on 45 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Noted on 37 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (rear)

Noted on 85 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (front)

Noted on 33 first tests2.2 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
55in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
6in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
39in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 54.6% of 998 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 60.6%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 6 fixed and the 39 not fixed make the 45 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

406080100200920152020Older carsNewer cars
40608010020092020Newer 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, 50 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200753 in every 100747
200852 in every 1001,109
2009 This car55 in every 100998
201054 in every 1001,227
201158 in every 1001,109
201262 in every 100997
201360 in every 1001,855
201465 in every 1006,658
201571 in every 10011,817
201676 in every 1009,951
201780 in every 1008,076
201884 in every 1009,823
201986 in every 1007,928
202086 in every 1004,788
202186 in every 1002,125

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

With 998 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander differs from 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, 54.6% of 998 first MOTs on the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 60.6%. Among 453 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front) appears more often than on similar cars (9.5% of those tests; 43 observed failures; about 3.6× 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 Mitsubishi Outlander at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (19.9%), Track rod end (front) (17.5%) and Suspension arm ball joint (front) (14.6%), 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) (9.5% of those tests; 43 observed failures; about 3.6× 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 (9.5% of those tests; 43 observed failures; about 3.6× 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 Mitsubishi Outlander include Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front), Rigid brake pipes (rear), Track rod end (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 Mitsubishi Outlander (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