Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 25,627 tests analysed

Peugeot 208 2015: reliability & common MOT faults

8,176 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2015 Peugeot 208 in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Catalyst emissions and Ball joint (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol 208 passed first time 6.8 pp more often than diesel ones (69.5% of 20,357 vs 62.7% of 5,270).

First-attempt pass

68.1%

of 25,627 first tests (2025)

First tests

25,627

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

8,176

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

13.9%

Catalyst emissions

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

68.1%

of 25,627 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

75.3%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

25,627

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 10.0 yrs · median mileage 62,155 mi

vs 2024: -1.5 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 8,172 of 8,176 failed first attempts that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Catalyst emissions — 13.9% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 1,135 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 6.2× 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.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 1,135 ×6.2 13.9% Strong
Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 293 ×5.6 3.6% Strong
Emissions not tested
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Emissions not tested
 Any 247 ×4.7 3.0% Likely
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 414 ×4.0 5.1% Likely
Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Rear 578 ×3.4 7.1% Likely
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 593 ×2.5 7.3% Possible
Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 594 ×2.1 7.3% 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
Headlamp aim not tested (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
 Front 110 ×2.9 1.3% 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
Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 22 ×16 0.3% Strong
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 613 ×8.4 7.5% Likely
Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 453 ×5.3 5.5% Strong
Anti-roll bar (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
 Front 20 ×4.6 0.2% Likely
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 77 ×4.5 0.9% Likely
Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 22 ×3.5 0.3% Elevated
Transmission oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Front 141 ×3.3 1.7% Elevated
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 34 ×3.0 0.4% Elevated
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 6.8 pp less often, on 5,270 tests.

This year also sits 2.0 pp above the midpoint of the 2014 and 2016 cars either side of it — a real break in the model's own run, not the usual year-on-year drift.

Other 208 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
2012 208 -1.6 pp worse 57.6% 12,691
2014 208 -1.6 pp worse 62.1% 26,463
2017 208 -1.2 pp worse 70.3% 16,718

What to check on a 2015 208

The items that failed 2015 208 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.

  • Catalyst emissions — recorded on 13.9% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint (front) — recorded on 7.8% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 7.3% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp (front) — recorded on 7.3% of failed first attempts
  • Registration plate lamp(s) — recorded on 7.1% 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 208 passed first time 6.8 pp more often than diesel ones (69.5% of 20,357 vs 62.7% of 5,270). In 2025, 68.1% of 25,627 first MOTs on the 2015 Peugeot 208 passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 75.3%. Among 8,176 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Catalyst emissions appears more often than on similar cars (13…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2015 Peugeot 208s most often at the first attempt were Catalyst emissions (13.9%), Ball joint (front) (7.8%) and Drive shafts — Joints (front) (7.3%) — 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 ans…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Catalyst emissions (13.9% of those tests; 1,135 observed failures; about 6.2× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Catalyst emissions shows up more often than on similar cars (13.9% of those tests; 1,135 observed failures; about 6.2× 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 2015 Peugeot 208 include Catalyst emissions, Exhaust system (front), Emissions not tested. 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 2015 Peugeot 208 (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