Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Suzuki Splash 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 53 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2009 Suzuki Splash were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Coil spring (front).

Summary

The 2009 Suzuki Splash follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 2,297 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
53 in every 100
Did not pass first time
47 in every 1001,072 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
16 yearsabout 70,307 miles
First tests counted
2,297

What failed most often

  1. Coil spring (front)16 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)12 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Brake performance (roller test, rear)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 2009 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.

Brakes

Seven faults. The strongest is the electronic stability control: 14 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 1,071 of 1,072 failed first attempts (99.9%) 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.

Electronic stability control

Failed on 63 first tests14 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 38 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsLikely 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 123 first tests, 3.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake imbalance across an axle (roller test, efficiency check, rear)

Failed on 51 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A wheel giving less than a set share of the maximum effort from the other wheel on the same axle is Major. On a steered axle, less than half is graded Dangerous. Testers disregard an imbalance if the lower effort is the result of a locked wheel, or if the higher effort from a wheel is at or below a low set figure.

Brake performance (roller test, rear)

Failed on 122 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 66 first tests, 2.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake performance (plate test, rear)

Failed on 25 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Braking effort that is inadequate at a wheel, a brake grabbing severely and a binding brake are among the Major failures. A wheel with no recorded effort is graded Dangerous. If a vehicle fails any aspect of the plate test, the check should be repeated to confirm the result.

Rigid brake pipes (rear)

Failed on 63 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsLikely 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 200 first tests, 3.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake lever

Failed on 24 first tests2.7 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.

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

Suspension

Three faults. The strongest is the macpherson strut pins and bushes (front): 8.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Macpherson strut pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 30 first tests8.0 times as often as similar carsLikely 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 60 first tests, 5.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Macpherson strut (front)

Failed on 42 first tests5.8 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.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 22 first tests, 2.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Wheel bearings (rear)

Failed on 25 first tests3.3 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 21 first tests, 3.4 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.

Individual direction indicators (rear)

Noted on 49 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Suspension mounting area (rear)

Noted on 53 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Flexible brake hoses (rear)

Noted on 64 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Transmission oil leaks

Noted on 28 first tests2.4 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
53in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
6in 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 53.3% of 2,297 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 59.1%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 6 fixed and the 41 not fixed make the 47 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002008200920102011201220132014Older carsNewer cars
4060801002009Newer cars

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200852 in every 1001,572
2009 This car53 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

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Mileage matters most on a 2009 Splash.

Of 2009 Splash vehicles with under 47,000 miles, 64 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 98,000 miles or more, 46 in every 100 did.

Under 47,000464 tests
64
47,000–63,000451 tests
56
63,000–78,000 Typical car451 tests
52
78,000–98,000472 tests
49
98,000 and over458 tests
46

What to check at your mileage

How often each fault turned up on a failed first test, by the car's mileage. Read it as: what is likely to need looking at on a car like the one in front of you.

Under 47,00063,000–78,00098,000 and over
Coil spring (front)7.85.37.2
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)1.15.87.6
Brake performance (roller test, rear)6.24.43.1
Suspension arm ball joint (front)2.26.06.8
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)0.24.09.2

Faults per 100 first tests, by the car's mileage at the test.

When a car fails

24in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

52in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

9in every 100

of all first tests had a defect the tester marked dangerous (unsafe to drive away).

Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line, for cars of this model year tested in 2025. Each mileage band holds a fifth of the tests. 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.

The 2009 Suzuki Splash follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Coil spring (front), about 16 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 53.3% of 2,297 first MOTs on the 2009 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 59.1%. Among 1,072 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Electronic stability control appears more often than on similar cars (5.9% of those tests; 63 observed failures; about 14× 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 2009 Suzuki Splash at the first attempt were Coil spring (front) (16.1%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (12.2%) and Brake performance (roller test, rear) (11.4%), 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: Electronic stability control (5.9% of those tests; 63 observed failures; about 14× 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 (5.9% of those tests; 63 observed failures; about 14× 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 2009 Suzuki Splash include Electronic stability control, Macpherson strut pins and bushes (front), Macpherson strut (front). 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 2009 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