Model Reports 5 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Suzuki Swift 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 53 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2009 Suzuki Swift were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

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

At a glance

How 6,027 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
53 in every 100
Did not pass first time
47 in every 1002,813 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
16 yearsabout 87,800 miles
First tests counted
6,027

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)17 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Suspension arm ball joint (front)15 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)14 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 Swift 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

Three faults. The strongest is the macpherson strut pins and bushes (front): 7.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 2,806 of 2,813 failed first attempts (99.8%) 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.

Macpherson strut pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 62 first tests7.2 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 158 first tests, 5.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Macpherson strut (front)

Failed on 113 first tests6.9 times as often as similar carsStrong 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.

Wheel bearings (rear)

Failed on 62 first tests2.9 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 41 first tests, 2.4 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.

Brakes

Seven faults. The strongest is the brake hand lever: 3.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake hand lever

Failed on 57 first tests3.9 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A brake lever is failed for insufficient reserve only if it is touching the floor or handlebar. On motorcycle derived systems the lever may touch the handlebar, so the extent of reserve travel is assessed during the brake test. A lever not releasing correctly is Minor, and Major where the functionality of the brakes is affected.

Brake performance (plate test, rear)

Failed on 63 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Handbrake lever

Failed on 75 first tests3.0 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Rigid brake pipes (rear)

Failed on 146 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 585 first tests, 4.4 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake performance (roller test, rear)

Failed on 246 first tests2.8 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.

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

Failed on 101 first tests2.8 times as often as similar carsPossible 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.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 71 first tests2.6 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 276 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.

Macpherson strut bracket and mounting (front)

Noted on 21 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Coil spring (front)

Noted on 236 first tests2.7 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Brake imbalance across an axle (roller test, rear)

Noted on 28 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Flexible brake hoses (rear)

Noted on 140 first tests2.5 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
8in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
39in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 53.3% of 6,027 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 60.6%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 8 fixed and the 39 not fixed make the 47 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Petrol and diesel

First testsTypical mileagePassed first time, as testedPassed first time, same mileage
Petrol5,72286,835 miles5353
Diesel305102,808 miles5051

Figures are in every 100 first tests. Cars with more miles usually fail more often, so the same-mileage figure gives every fuel the mileage mix of all the cars in this year.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002005200920152020Older carsNewer cars
40608010020092020Newer cars

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200548 in every 1001,031
200650 in every 1003,181
200750 in every 1005,719
200851 in every 1006,147
2009 This car53 in every 1006,027
201056 in every 1005,486
201161 in every 1005,872
201264 in every 1008,590
201368 in every 1008,442
201471 in every 1009,785
201574 in every 10012,007
201676 in every 10010,122
201780 in every 1007,827
201884 in every 1009,830
201987 in every 10010,601
202088 in every 1007,762
202189 in every 1007,291
202293 in every 1004,340

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 Swift.

Of 2009 Swift vehicles with under 61,000 miles, 66 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 116,000 miles or more, 46 in every 100 did.

Under 61,0001,187 tests
66
61,000–80,0001,246 tests
56
80,000–97,000 Typical car1,203 tests
52
97,000–116,0001,199 tests
47
116,000 and over1,183 tests
46

Petrol or diesel?

Typical mileagePassed first time,
as tested		Passed first time,
same mileage
Petrol86,835 miles5453
Diesel102,808 miles5051

Figures are in every 100 first tests. Petrol cars look better on the raw figures only because diesel cars have done more miles (typically 102,808 against 86,835). At the same mileage there is no clear difference between the two.

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 61,00080,000–97,000116,000 and over
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)2.09.310.8
Suspension arm ball joint (front)3.58.88.0
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)2.97.09.6
Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)2.84.65.3
Brake performance (roller test, rear)4.43.33.9

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

When a car fails

23in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

54in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

10in 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 Swift follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Individual sidelight or tail light (front), about 17 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 53.3% of 6,027 first MOTs on the 2009 Suzuki Swift passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 60.6%. Among 2,813 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Macpherson strut (front) appears more often than on similar cars (4.0% of those tests; 113 observed failures; about 6.9× 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 Swift at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (16.5%), Suspension arm ball joint (front) (14.7%) and Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (14.3%), 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) (4.0% of those tests; 113 observed failures; about 6.9× 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 (4.0% of those tests; 113 observed failures; about 6.9× 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 Swift include Macpherson strut (front), Macpherson strut pins and bushes (front), Brake hand lever. 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 Swift (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