Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Suzuki Splash 2008: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 52 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2008 Suzuki Splash were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Suspension arm ball joint (front).

Summary

The 2008 Suzuki Splash follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,572 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
52 in every 100
Did not pass first time
48 in every 100750 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
17 yearsabout 75,430 miles
First tests counted
1,572

What failed most often

  1. Suspension arm ball joint (front)15 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)14 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Coil spring (front)11 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 2008 Suzuki Splash 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

Five faults. The strongest is the macpherson strut (front): 9.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 750 failed first attempts in 2025 that had a mileage recorded, which allows a like-for-like comparison.

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.

Macpherson strut (front)

Failed on 43 first tests9.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Many MacPherson strut top bushes are designed to have significant lateral play when the suspension hangs free, so a top bush is rejected only when the play comes from wear or maladjustment. A top bush or bearing with excessive wear or free play is Major. Rubber or synthetic bushes are rejected only for serious deterioration of the bonding or flexible material.

Macpherson strut pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 21 first tests8.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A suspension pin or bush that is excessively worn is graded Major. One likely to become detached is graded Dangerous. DVSA uses its general suspension pin, bush or joint wording here, not anything specific to a strut.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 55 first tests, 7.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Wheel bearings (rear)

Failed on 26 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Excessive play in a wheel bearing, or a bearing that is excessively rough, is Major. Play so excessive that the bearing is likely to break up or directional control is impaired is Dangerous, and so is a bearing so rough that it is likely to overheat or break up.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 20 first tests, 3.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm ball joint (front)

Failed on 115 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A suspension arm ball joint is failed under the general suspension pin, bush or joint wording. Excessively worn is Major, and likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Shock absorbers (rear)

Failed on 47 first tests2.6 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Slight seepage that leaves a film of fluid on a shock absorber does not fail it. Severe leakage, or damage so that it does not function, is Major. A shock absorber missing or likely to become detached is graded Dangerous, though a missing one is only rejected if shock absorbers were fitted as standard.

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

Brakes

Five faults. The strongest is the electronic stability control: 6.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Electronic stability control

Failed on 25 first tests6.8 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

An ESC warning lamp is failed only when the tester is certain it indicates an ESC malfunction, because the lamp takes various forms and the owner's handbook may need checking. The system is also called ESP, VDC or DSC, among many other names. Every failure row is Major, covering the lamp, wheel speed sensors, wiring, other components and the switch.

Handbrake lever

Failed on 28 first tests4.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake lever pivot or ratchet mechanism that is obviously worn is graded Minor. It is Major when worn to the extent that the brake may inadvertently release, and also when the ratchet is not holding correctly. A lever must have obvious excessive travel before being rejected.

Handbrake performance (roller test)

Failed on 21 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake that is inoperative on one side is Major. When tested on the road, the failure is the vehicle deviating excessively from a straight line. Vehicles whose parking brake was already tested as the secondary brake are not tested again for this.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 26 first tests2.9 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 91 first tests, 3.5 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake performance (roller test, rear)

Failed on 56 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A wheel with no recorded braking effort on the roller test is graded Dangerous. Inadequate effort, a brake grabbing severely, abnormal lag and excessive fluctuation in effort are each Major. So is significant brake effort recorded with no brake applied, which indicates a binding brake.

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.

Rigid brake pipes (rear)

Noted on 138 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Noted on 45 first tests2.6 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Transmission oil leaks

Noted on 22 first tests2.4 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Flexible brake hoses (rear)

Noted on 43 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Individual direction indicators (rear)

Noted on 26 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

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
52in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
7in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
41in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 52.3% of 1,572 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 58.6%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 7 fixed and the 41 not fixed make the 48 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002008200920102011201220132014Newer cars
4060801002008Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
2008 This car52 in every 1001,572
200953 in every 1002,297
201055 in every 1001,332
201157 in every 1001,414
201263 in every 1003,467
201365 in every 1003,278
201470 in every 1002,952

FAQs

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

The 2008 Suzuki Splash follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Suspension arm ball joint (front), about 15 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 52.3% of 1,572 first MOTs on the 2008 Suzuki Splash passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 58.6%. Among 750 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Macpherson strut (front) appears more often than on similar cars (5.7% of those tests; 43 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 2008 Suzuki Splash at the first attempt were Suspension arm ball joint (front) (15.3%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (14.3%) and Coil spring (front) (11.3%), 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: Macpherson strut (front) (5.7% of those tests; 43 observed failures; about 9.1× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Macpherson strut (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (5.7% of those tests; 43 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 2008 Suzuki Splash include Macpherson strut (front), Macpherson strut pins and bushes (front), Electronic stability control. 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 2008 Suzuki Splash (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