Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 2,429 tests analysed

Renault Clio 2002: reliability & common MOT faults

1,111 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2002 Renault Clio in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

SRS malfunction indicator lamp was the most common reason a 2002 Clio failed its MOT — 10.7% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

54.3%

of 2,429 first tests (2025)

First tests

2,429

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,111

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

54.3%

of 2,429 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

61.5%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

2,429

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 23.0 yrs · median mileage 82,088 mi

vs 2024: +1.9 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 1,107 of 1,111 failed first attempts (99.6%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Hazard warning — Switch — 4.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 51 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 15× 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
Hazard warning — Switch
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Hazard warning > Switch
 Any 51 ×15 4.6% Likely
Steering rack (front)
Steering > Steering gear > Steering rack
 Front 69 ×7.2 6.2% Likely
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 45 ×5.8 4.1% Likely
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 49 ×5.6 4.4% Likely
Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 65 ×4.8 5.9% Likely
Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 24 ×4.4 2.2% Possible
Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Rear 116 ×4.1 10.5% Likely
SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 118 ×3.8 10.7% Likely
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 43 ×2.7 3.9% Possible
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 98 ×2.3 8.9% 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
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 133 ×7.0 12.0% Likely
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 29 ×6.5 2.6% Elevated
Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 40 ×5.3 3.6% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Pins and bushes
 Front 58 ×5.2 5.2% Elevated
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 122 ×4.1 11.0% Elevated
Road Wheels — Condition (front)
Road Wheels > Condition
 Front 31 ×3.1 2.8% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 34 ×2.9 3.1% Elevated
Headlamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Any 46 ×2.6 4.2% 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.

Nothing separates this year from the Clios either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2002 Clios, commonest first.

What to check on a 2002 Clio

The items that failed 2002 Clios 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.

  • SRS malfunction indicator lamp — recorded on 10.7% of failed first attempts
  • Registration plate lamp(s) — recorded on 10.5% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp — recorded on 10.2% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 9.8% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 9.4% 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.

SRS malfunction indicator lamp was the most common reason a 2002 Clio failed its MOT — 10.7% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 54.3% of 2,429 first MOTs on the 2002 Renault Clio passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.5%. Among 1,111 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Hazard warning — Switch appears more oft…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2002 Renault Clios most often at the first attempt were SRS malfunction indicator lamp (10.7%), Registration plate lamp(s) (10.5%) and Headlamp (10.2%) — 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 a…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Hazard warning — Switch (4.6% of those tests; 51 observed failures; about 15× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Hazard warning — Switch shows up more often than on similar cars (4.6% of those tests; 51 observed failures; about 15× 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 Renault Clio include Hazard warning — Switch, Steering rack (front), Seat belts — Condition (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 2002 Renault Clio (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