Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 947 tests analysed

Renault Kangoo 2003: reliability & common MOT faults

490 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2003 Renault Kangoo in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Drive shafts — Joints (front) and SRS malfunction indicator lamp. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol Kangoos passed first time 2.7 pp more often than diesel ones (49.9% of 391 vs 47.1% of 556).

First-attempt pass

48.3%

of 947 first tests (2025)

First tests

947

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

490

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

14.4%

Drive shafts — Joints (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

48.3%

of 947 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

54.5%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

947

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 22.0 yrs · median mileage 95,912 mi

vs 2024: -1.0 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 486 of 490 failed first attempts (99.2%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Hazard warning — Switch — 5.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 27 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 18× 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 27 ×18 5.6% Possible
Steering rack (front)
Steering > Steering gear > Steering rack
 Front 34 ×8.2 7.0% Likely
Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 26 ×6.3 5.3% Possible
SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 66 ×4.6 13.6% Likely
Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 42 ×3.4 8.6% Likely
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 39 ×2.7 8.0% Possible
Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 70 ×2.4 14.4% Possible
Service brake performance
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake performance
 Any 20 ×2.2 4.1% Possible
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 30 ×2.2 6.2% Possible
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 48 ×2.1 9.9% 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 47 ×6.4 9.7% Possible
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Pins and bushes
 Front 20 ×3.9 4.1% Elevated
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 23 ×2.8 4.7% Elevated
Non-component advisories (front)
Non-component advisories
 Front 53 ×2.1 10.9% 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 2.8 pp less often, on 556 tests.

What to check on a 2003 Kangoo

The items that failed 2003 Kangoos 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.

  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 14.4% of failed first attempts
  • SRS malfunction indicator lamp — recorded on 13.6% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Washers — recorded on 12.1% 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 Kangoos passed first time 2.7 pp more often than diesel ones (49.9% of 391 vs 47.1% of 556). In 2025, 48.3% of 947 first MOTs on the 2003 Renault Kangoo passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 54.5%. Among 490 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Hazard warning — Switch appears more often than on similar cars (…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2003 Renault Kangoos most often at the first attempt were Drive shafts — Joints (front) (14.4%), SRS malfunction indicator lamp (13.6%) and Visibility — Washers (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 comm…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Hazard warning — Switch (5.6% of those tests; 27 observed failures; about 18× 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 (5.6% of those tests; 27 observed failures; about 18× 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 2003 Renault Kangoo include Hazard warning — Switch, Steering rack (front), Linkage pins and bushes (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 2003 Renault Kangoo (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