Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 6,398 tests analysed

Peugeot 3008 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

3,449 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2010 Peugeot 3008 in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Coil spring (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Diesel 3008 passed first time 2.5 pp more often than petrol ones (46.4% of 5,619 vs 43.9% of 779).

First-attempt pass

46.1%

of 6,398 first tests (2025)

First tests

6,398

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

3,449

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

19.2%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

46.1%

of 6,398 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

56.2%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

6,398

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 15.0 yrs · median mileage 107,419 mi

vs 2024: -0.9 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 3,448 of 3,449 failed first attempts that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Ball joint (front) — 2.1% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 74 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 6.2× 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.

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
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Other suspension component > Ball joint
 Front 74 ×6.2 2.1% Likely
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 96 ×3.3 2.8% Likely
Diesel emissions test (compression-ignition rules for vehicles from 01/07/2008) Any 194 ×3.0 5.6% Possible
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 127 ×2.9 3.7% Possible
Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 427 ×2.3 12.4% Possible
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 536 ×2.3 15.5% Possible
Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 71 ×2.3 2.1% Possible
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 368 ×2.2 10.7% Possible
Track rod end
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Any 131 ×2.1 3.8% 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
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Other suspension component > Ball joint
 Front 26 ×6.6 0.8% Likely
Headlamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Front 121 ×3.0 3.5% Elevated
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 29 ×2.6 0.8% Possible
Side repeaters
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Any 20 ×2.5 0.6% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 679 ×2.1 19.7% 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 diesel. The petrol cars passed first time 2.5 pp less often, on 779 tests.

Other 3008 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 3008 +2.8 pp better 53.0% 9,117
2013 3008 -5.2 pp worse 50.4% 9,687

What to check on a 2010 3008

The items that failed 2010 3008 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 19.2% of failed first attempts
  • Coil spring (front) — recorded on 15.5% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 12.4% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 10.7% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 9.8% 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.

Diesel 3008 passed first time 2.5 pp more often than petrol ones (46.4% of 5,619 vs 43.9% of 779). In 2025, 46.1% of 6,398 first MOTs on the 2010 Peugeot 3008 passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 56.2%. Among 3,449 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Ball joint (front) appears more often than on similar cars (2.1%…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2010 Peugeot 3008s most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (19.2%), Coil spring (front) (15.5%) and Drive shafts — Joints (front) (12.4%) — 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 ta…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Ball joint (front) (2.1% of those tests; 74 observed failures; about 6.2× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Ball joint (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.1% of those tests; 74 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 2010 Peugeot 3008 include Ball joint (front), Seat belts — Condition (rear), Wheel bearings (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 2010 Peugeot 3008 (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