Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 7,318 tests analysed

Nissan Note 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

3,703 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2006 Nissan Note in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2006 Note failed its MOT — 17.7% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

49.4%

of 7,318 first tests (2025)

First tests

7,318

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

3,703

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

49.4%

of 7,318 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

62.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

7,318

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 19.0 yrs · median mileage 103,876 mi

vs 2024: +0.0 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 3,699 of 3,703 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Pins and bushes (front) — 4.2% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 157 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 74× 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
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
 Front 157 ×74 4.2% Strong
Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 155 ×4.3 4.2% Likely
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 150 ×2.8 4.1% Possible
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 442 ×2.7 11.9% Possible
Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 118 ×2.4 3.2% Possible
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 384 ×2.4 10.4% Possible
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 446 ×2.2 12.1% Possible
Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Rear 163 ×2.2 4.4% 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.

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
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
 Front 184 ×36 5.0% Strong
Side repeaters (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Front 62 ×7.7 1.7% Elevated
Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 109 ×4.8 2.9% Likely
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 103 ×2.9 2.8% Elevated
Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 76 ×2.5 2.1% Elevated
Steering rack
Steering > Steering play > Steering rack
 Any 28 ×2.4 0.8% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 679 ×2.2 18.4% Possible
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 179 ×2.0 4.8% Possible
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 Notes either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2006 Notes, commonest first.

What to check on a 2006 Note

The items that failed 2006 Notes 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.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 17.7% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 15.3% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint (front) — recorded on 12.1% of failed first attempts
  • Coil spring (front) — recorded on 11.9% of failed first attempts
  • Pins and bushes (front) — recorded on 10.4% 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.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2006 Note failed its MOT — 17.7% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 49.4% of 7,318 first MOTs on the 2006 Nissan Note 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 3,703 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (front) appears more often than on…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2006 Nissan Notes most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (17.7%), Headlamp aim (15.3%) and Ball joint (front) (12.1%) — 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 answers.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (front) (4.2% of those tests; 157 observed failures; about 74× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (4.2% of those tests; 157 observed failures; about 74× 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 2006 Nissan Note include Pins and bushes (front), Component mounting prescribed areas (front), Wheel bearings (rear). 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 2006 Nissan Note (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