Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 24,566 tests analysed

Nissan Juke 2012: reliability & common MOT faults

11,149 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2012 Nissan Juke in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Ball joint (front) and Track rod end (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol Jukes passed first time 5.0 pp more often than diesel ones (56.2% of 16,684 vs 51.2% of 7,881).

First-attempt pass

54.6%

of 24,566 first tests (2025)

First tests

24,566

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

11,149

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

22.8%

Ball joint (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

54.6%

of 24,566 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

61.1%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

24,566

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 13.0 yrs · median mileage 90,568 mi

vs 2024: +0.7 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 11,121 of 11,149 failed first attempts (99.7%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Seat belts — Condition (rear) — 3.4% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 379 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 5.1× 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.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 379 ×5.1 3.4% Strong
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 2,284 ×4.4 20.5% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 345 ×4.4 3.1% Likely
Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 361 ×4.0 3.2% Likely
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 2,540 ×3.4 22.8% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 444 ×3.0 4.0% Likely
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 445 ×2.8 4.0% Possible
Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 689 ×2.3 6.2% Possible
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 1,146 ×2.2 10.3% Possible
Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 399 ×2.1 3.6% 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.

Wear patterns

Usage and mileage effects that often track road use rather than model design.

These patterns look like wear or usage effects rather than model-specific design faults. Tyres, brake friction material, and alignment-related defects often track mileage and road use.

Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 749 ×2.1 6.7% Wear
Note: These patterns are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

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
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 330 ×6.5 3.0% Strong
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
 Front 71 ×5.0 0.6% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 394 ×4.7 3.5% Elevated
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 689 ×4.2 6.2% Likely
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 993 ×3.9 8.9% Likely
Flexible brake hoses (rear)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Rear 386 ×3.2 3.5% Possible
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 213 ×2.8 1.9% Elevated
Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 1,300 ×2.8 11.7% Wear
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.

On this year, prefer the petrol. The diesel cars passed first time 5.0 pp less often, on 7,881 tests.

Other Juke years worth knowing about

Newer cars always pass more often, so a plain "best year" list would just rank by age. These are the years that beat or miss the trend their own neighbouring years set — the only age-adjusted signal this data supports.

Year vs the years either side First-attempt pass (rises with newer cars) First tests
2013 Juke -2.2 pp worse 54.4% 32,457

What to check on a 2012 Juke

The items that failed 2012 Jukes 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.

  • Ball joint (front) — recorded on 22.8% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 20.5% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 10.5% of failed first attempts
  • Pins and bushes (front) — recorded on 10.3% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 8.2% 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.

Petrol Jukes passed first time 5.0 pp more often than diesel ones (56.2% of 16,684 vs 51.2% of 7,881). In 2025, 54.6% of 24,566 first MOTs on the 2012 Nissan Juke passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.1%. Among 11,149 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Seat belts — Condition (rear) appears more often than on si…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2012 Nissan Jukes most often at the first attempt were Ball joint (front) (22.8%), Track rod end (front) (20.5%) and Position lamp (front) (10.5%) — 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 answer…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Seat belts — Condition (rear) (3.4% of those tests; 379 observed failures; about 5.1× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Seat belts — Condition (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (3.4% of those tests; 379 observed failures; about 5.1× 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 2012 Nissan Juke include Seat belts — Condition (rear), Track rod end (front), Rigid brake pipes (front). 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 2012 Nissan Juke (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