Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 5,719 tests analysed

Nissan Micra 2002: reliability & common MOT faults

2,659 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2002 Nissan Micra in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) was the most common reason a 2002 Micra failed its MOT — 19.6% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

53.5%

of 5,719 first tests (2025)

First tests

5,719

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

2,659

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

53.5%

of 5,719 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

62.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

5,719

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 23.0 yrs · median mileage 63,992 mi

vs 2024: +0.3 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 2,570 of 2,659 failed first attempts (96.7%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on. 3.3% of failures are excluded for want of a mileage reading, so treat these shares as indicative for this model year.

Standout: Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) — 19.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 504 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 3.7× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. On this year it is also the commonest failure, so it answers both questions at once. 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
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 504 ×3.7 19.6% Likely
Prescribed areas (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Rear 81 ×3.6 3.2% Likely
Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 472 ×3.2 18.4% Likely
Integral vehicle structure condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Rear 77 ×3.0 3.0% Possible
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 226 ×2.8 8.8% Possible
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 107 ×2.8 4.2% Possible
Registration plates (rear)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
 Rear 53 ×2.2 2.1% 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 (front)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Front 106 ×2.2 4.1% 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
Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Spring mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 25 ×4.5 1.0% Elevated
Other components
Steering > Power steering > Other components
 Any 54 ×3.9 2.1% Elevated
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 133 ×2.6 5.2% Elevated
Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Front 32 ×2.5 1.2% Possible
Integral vehicle structure condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Rear 63 ×2.4 2.5% Possible
Road Wheels — Condition (front)
Road Wheels > Condition
 Front 47 ×2.2 1.8% Elevated
Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 39 ×2.1 1.5% Elevated
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 172 ×2.1 6.7% Likely
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 Micras either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2002 Micras, commonest first.

Other Micra 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
2005 Micra -2.3 pp worse 49.9% 12,239

What to check on a 2002 Micra

The items that failed 2002 Micras 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.

  • Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) — recorded on 19.6% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 18.4% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 11.6% of failed first attempts
  • Service brake imbalance (rear) — recorded on 8.8% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 8.7% 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.

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) was the most common reason a 2002 Micra failed its MOT — 19.6% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 53.5% of 5,719 first MOTs on the 2002 Nissan Micra passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 62.0%. Among 2,659 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Component mounting prescrib…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2002 Nissan Micras most often at the first attempt were Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (19.6%), Drive shafts — Joints (front) (18.4%) and Position lamp (front) (11.6%) — 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, whi…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (19.6% of those tests; 504 observed failures; about 3.7× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (19.6% of those tests; 504 observed failures; about 3.7× 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 2002 Nissan Micra include Component mounting prescribed areas (rear), Prescribed areas (rear), Drive shafts — Joints (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 2002 Nissan Micra (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