Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 649 tests analysed

Subaru Forester 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

299 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2010 Subaru Forester in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

First-attempt pass rate 53.9% across 649 tests in 2025. On 649 tests that is too small a sample to separate this year from the Foresters either side of it — treat the recorded failures as a checklist, not as a verdict on the year.

First-attempt pass

53.9%

of 649 first tests (2025)

First tests

649

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

299

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

53.9%

of 649 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

63.9%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

649

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 15.0 yrs · median mileage 110,788 mi

vs 2024: -2.2 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 299 failed first attempts in 2025 that the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Electronic stability control — 7.0% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 21 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 7.2× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. 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
Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 21 ×7.2 7.0% Possible
Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 22 ×3.1 7.4% Possible
Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 20 ×3.1 6.7% Possible
Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 38 ×2.6 12.7% Possible
Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 22 ×2.0 7.4% 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
Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Rear 24 ×26 8.0% Elevated
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 23 ×3.2 7.7% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 79 ×2.8 26.4% Elevated
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 20 ×2.5 6.7% Elevated
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 41 ×2.2 13.7% 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.

There are too few 2010 Foresters in the data to call this year good or bad. Judge the individual car, not the year.

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.

On 649 tests that is too small a sample to separate this year from the Foresters either side of it — treat the recorded failures as a checklist, not as a verdict on the year. In 2025, 53.9% of 649 first MOTs on the 2010 Subaru Forester passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 63.9%. Among 299 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test y…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Electronic stability control (7.0% of those tests; 21 observed failures; about 7.2× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Electronic stability control shows up more often than on similar cars (7.0% of those tests; 21 observed failures; about 7.2× 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 Subaru Forester include Electronic stability control, Ball joint dust cover (front), Malfunction indicator lamp. 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 Subaru Forester (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