Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Rover 75 2004: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 57 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2004 Rover 75 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Suspension mounting area (rear).

Summary

The 2004 Rover 75 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,612 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
57 in every 100
Did not pass first time
43 in every 100694 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
21 yearsabout 103,373 miles
First tests counted
1,612

What failed most often

  1. Suspension mounting area (rear)17 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)14 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Suspension arm ball joint (front)10 in every 100 failed tests

How we count this. Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Only Class 4 cars on their first MOT of the year are counted. A car that fails and is fixed at the test station still counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate. These are raw results, not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix. The MOT does not test engine or gearbox internals.

Note:

These are patterns across 2004 Rover 75 vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Suspension

Four faults. The strongest is the suspension arm (rear): 9.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 691 of 694 failed first attempts (99.6%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025. Mileage is needed to compare like with like.

We only list faults with at least 20 failures and a rate of about 2.0 times that of similar cars, which keeps one-off results out of the list.

Suspension arm (rear)

Failed on 30 first tests9.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A missing bump stop rubber is not a reason to fail a suspension arm. A component that is fractured, missing or likely to fail is graded Dangerous, and one excessively damaged or corroded is Major. On some vehicles, some highly stressed parts are thin pressed steel, and many of those have hollow box sections or up-facing areas that can collect road dirt and salt, so they get special attention.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 119 first tests, 6.4 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Failed on 115 first tests2.9 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

The load bearing structure within a set distance of a sub-frame, spring or suspension component mounting is a prescribed area. Major applies when its strength or continuity is significantly reduced or it is inadequately repaired. Dangerous applies when it is so weakened that control of the vehicle is likely to be adversely affected.

Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 66 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Pins and bushes on suspension arms fail as Major when they are excessively worn. They are graded Dangerous when likely to become detached. DVSA uses the same wording for a suspension joint.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (front)

Failed on 44 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Excessive wear on an anti-roll bar linkage ball joint is Major. A joint likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Noise, emissions and leaks

One fault: diesel emissions test (pre-reg turbo rules before 01/07/2008), 3.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Diesel emissions test (pre-reg turbo rules before 01/07/2008)

Failed on 35 first tests3.3 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Seat belts and restraints

One fault: airbag warning light, 3.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Airbag warning light

Failed on 68 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

The airbag warning lamp (SRS MIL in DVSA's wording) is failed only if it indicates a system malfunction, which is Major. A lamp lit to show the passenger airbag is disabled is not to be regarded as a defect. Dashboard messages are not a defect in their own right, though they can help the tester confirm a malfunction.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Brakes

One fault: rigid brake pipes, 2.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Rigid brake pipes

Failed on 20 first tests2.8 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Chafing, corrosion or damage to a rigid brake pipe justifies rejection once its wall thickness is reduced by a set amount, although DVSA accepts this is not easy to determine. If a tester is not sure, the benefit of the doubt applies. A leaking pipe or connection is graded Dangerous on a hydraulic system and Major on an air system.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 65 first tests, 2.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Advisories

Other things testers noted as worn or close to failing, more often than on similar cars.

An advisory is a note from the tester about something that has not failed yet. It is an early warning, not a fail. Advisories for the faults above are shown with those faults.

Suspension sub-frame (front)

Noted on 58 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Noted on 131 first tests2.7 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Brake discs (rear)

Noted on 92 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Counts cover advisories recorded on failed first tests only, compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

MOT pass rates

How first tests ended, and how the pass rates are counted.

Passed first time
57in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
5in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
38in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 56.9% of 1,612 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 62.0%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 5 fixed and the 38 not fixed make the 43 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Petrol and diesel

First testsPassed first time, as tested
Diesel1,12754
Petrol48463

Figures are in every 100 first tests.

Same model, other years

Passed first time in every 100, all tested in 2025.

40608010020012002200320042005Older carsNewer cars
40608010020012002200320042005Older cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 54 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200159 in every 100562
200258 in every 100967
200360 in every 1001,314
2004 This car57 in every 1001,612
200558 in every 100819

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

The 2004 Rover 75 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Suspension mounting area (rear), about 17 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 56.9% of 1,612 first MOTs on the 2004 Rover 75 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 694 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Suspension arm (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (4.3% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 9.1× more often than similar cars). There is no single reliability score here; this is a pre-purchase checklist built from DVSA open data, not a guarantee for any individual car.
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that most often failed a 2004 Rover 75 at the first attempt were Suspension mounting area (rear) (16.6%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (13.7%) and Suspension arm ball joint (front) (10.1%), each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong most often on the car. The common faults table shows a different measure: faults that are unusual compared with similar cars.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Suspension arm (rear) (4.3% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 9.1× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Suspension arm (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (4.3% of those tests; 30 observed failures; about 9.1× 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 checkpoint, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2004 Rover 75 include Suspension arm (rear), Airbag warning light, Suspension mounting area (rear). These are the faults that stand out compared with similar cars, not a complete list of what can go wrong on any 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 2004 Rover 75 (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.
  • If the data for a car is too thin to say anything useful, we say so rather than guess.

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