Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Nissan Elgrand 2004: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 63 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2004 Nissan Elgrand were passes.

Summary

With 800 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2004 Nissan Elgrand differs from the model years either side. Treat the faults below as a checklist.

At a glance

How 800 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
63 in every 100
Did not pass first time
37 in every 100295 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
21 yearsabout 91,640 miles
First tests counted
800

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 2004 Nissan Elgrand 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.

Lamps and electrical

One fault: rear fog light, 5.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 294 of 295 failed first attempts (99.7%) 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.

Rear fog light

Failed on 38 first tests5.8 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A missing obligatory rear fog lamp, one that is not working, or one that does not emit a steady red light is graded Major. A rear fog lamp adversely affected by the operation of any other lamp is Major too. The manual allows it to go out when main beam is switched on or when dipped beam headlamps are switched off.

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

Brakes

One wear pattern: brake pads (rear), 4.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake pads (rear)

Failed on 23 first tests4.1 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 37 first tests, 4.4 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

Two faults. The strongest is the anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (front): 3.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (front)

Failed on 27 first tests3.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Excessive wear on an anti-roll bar linkage ball joint is Major. A joint likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 26 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A suspension joint dust cover that is severely deteriorated is Minor. It becomes Major once it is missing or no longer prevents the ingress of dirt, so what matters is whether it still keeps dirt out. DVSA words this for any suspension joint dust cover, and files it here under anti-roll bars.

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

Tyres

One wear pattern: tyre condition (rear), 2.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Tyre condition (rear)

Failed on 29 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

Exposed or damaged ply or cords are graded Dangerous. A cut in excess of the requirements and deep enough to reach the ply or cords is Major, and testers may open the cut with a blunt instrument to check its depth. A tyre contacting the vehicle through flexing or suspension movement is not a defect; fouling fails only at the time of test.

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.

Tyre tread depth (rear)

Noted on 64 first tests2.6 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

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
63in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
5in 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 63.1% of 800 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 67.6%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 5 fixed and the 32 not fixed make the 37 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

40608010020042010Older carsNewer cars
40608010020042010Newer 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, 62 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200259 in every 100396
200360 in every 100502
2004 This car63 in every 100800
200564 in every 1001,342
200667 in every 1001,151
200769 in every 1001,519
200871 in every 1001,576
200972 in every 100760
201073 in every 100800
201176 in every 100466
201279 in every 100360

FAQs

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

With 800 first tests, there are too few to say whether the 2004 Nissan Elgrand differs from the model years either side. Treat the faults below as a checklist. In 2025, 63.1% of 800 first MOTs on the 2004 Nissan Elgrand passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 67.6%. Among 295 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Rear fog light appears more often than on similar cars (12.9% of those tests; 38 observed failures; about 5.8× 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.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Rear fog light (12.9% of those tests; 38 observed failures; about 5.8× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Rear fog light shows up more often than on similar cars (12.9% of those tests; 38 observed failures; about 5.8× 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 2004 Nissan Elgrand include Rear fog light, Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (front), Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover (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 2004 Nissan Elgrand (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