Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Nissan Cube 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 60 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2010 Nissan Cube were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

No neighbouring model year has enough tests to compare the 2010 Nissan Cube against, so this page reports it on its own.

At a glance

How 879 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
60 in every 100
Did not pass first time
40 in every 100348 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
15 yearsabout 87,796 miles
First tests counted
879

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)22 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Suspension arm ball joint (front)21 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 Nissan Cube vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. A wear pattern follows age and use more than the way the car was built. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Body and structure

One fault: other passenger door condition (rear), 42 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 348 failed first attempts in 2025 that had a mileage recorded, which allows a like-for-like comparison.

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.

Other passenger door condition (rear)

Failed on 23 first tests42 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A lack of door handles is not a defect where it comes from the original design or a specialist modification, provided the door latches securely closed and opens using a control such as a button or a fob. Hinges, catches and pillars are rejected for deterioration only if the doors stop working as intended. A hinged door likely to open inadvertently or not remain closed is graded Dangerous.

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

Suspension

Two faults. The strongest is the suspension arm ball joint (front): 3.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm ball joint (front)

Failed on 73 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A suspension arm ball joint is failed under the general suspension pin, bush or joint wording. Excessively worn is Major, and likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 47 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Pins and bushes on suspension arms fail as Major when they are excessively worn. They are graded Dangerous when likely to become detached. DVSA uses the same wording for a suspension joint.

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

Brakes

One wear pattern: brake pads (rear), 2.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake pads (rear)

Failed on 22 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

A pad worn down to its wear indicator, or contaminated with oil or grease, is Major. A pad worn below the set thickness limit, missing or incorrectly mounted is Dangerous. The manual treats an illuminated brake wear indicator as no reason for failure, although DVSA also lists an illuminated indicator as a Major row.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 35 first tests, 2.8 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.

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.

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Noted on 26 first tests5.6 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
60in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
8in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
32in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 60.4% of 879 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 67.8%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 8 fixed and the 32 not fixed make the 40 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

FAQs

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

No neighbouring model year has enough tests to compare the 2010 Nissan Cube against, so this page reports it on its own. Its main cause of failure was Individual sidelight or tail light (front), about 22 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 60.4% of 879 first MOTs on the 2010 Nissan Cube passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 67.8%. Among 348 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Other passenger door condition (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (6.6% of those tests; 23 observed failures; about 42× 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 Nissan Cube at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (21.8%) and Suspension arm ball joint (front) (21.0%), 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: Other passenger door condition (rear) (6.6% of those tests; 23 observed failures; about 42× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Other passenger door condition (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (6.6% of those tests; 23 observed failures; about 42× 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 Nissan Cube include Other passenger door condition (rear), Suspension arm ball joint (front), Suspension arm pins and bushes (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 Nissan Cube (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