Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 7,827 tests analysed

Suzuki Swift 2017: reliability & common MOT faults

1,583 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2017 Suzuki Swift in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Coil spring (front) and Visibility — Wipers (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Hybrid Swifts passed first time 3.4 pp more often than petrol ones (82.6% of 1,282 vs 79.2% of 6,545).

First-attempt pass

79.8%

of 7,827 first tests (2025)

First tests

7,827

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,583

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

12.4%

Coil spring (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

79.8%

of 7,827 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

85.3%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

7,827

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 8.0 yrs · median mileage 47,394 mi

vs 2024: -3.4 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 1,581 of 1,583 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Rigid brake pipes (rear) — 6.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 105 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 17× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. That is what makes it unusual for its class, which is a different question from what is most likely to fail; the buying checklist ranks by that. The full ranked list is in the table below.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 105 ×17 6.6% Strong
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 39 ×6.6 2.5% Likely
Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 32 ×4.7 2.0% Likely
Linkage ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joint dust cover
 Front 61 ×3.9 3.9% Likely
Position lamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Front 83 ×2.8 5.2% Possible
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 196 ×2.4 12.4% Possible
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 39 ×2.2 2.5% Possible
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 45 ×2.2 2.8% Possible
Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 81 ×2.1 5.1% 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
Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 148 ×9.4 9.4% Strong
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 30 ×6.6 1.9% Likely
Flexible brake hoses (rear)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Rear 31 ×5.6 2.0% Elevated
Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 68 ×4.6 4.3% Likely
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.

On this year, prefer the hybrid. The petrol cars passed first time 3.4 pp less often, on 6,545 tests.

Other Swift years worth knowing about

Newer cars always pass more often, so a plain "best year" list would just rank by age. These are the years that beat or miss the trend their own neighbouring years set — the only age-adjusted signal this data supports.

Year vs the years either side First-attempt pass (rises with newer cars) First tests
2021 Swift -1.3 pp worse 89.5% 7,291

What to check on a 2017 Swift

The items that failed 2017 Swifts most often, as a share of the year's failed first attempts. This is what goes wrong, not what is unusual — the table further up the page covers that.

  • Coil spring (front) — recorded on 12.4% of failed first attempts
  • Visibility — Wipers (front) — recorded on 7.2% of failed first attempts
  • Tyres — Condition (rear) — recorded on 7.0% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 6.8% of failed first attempts
  • Rigid brake pipes (rear) — recorded on 6.6% of failed first attempts

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.

Hybrid Swifts passed first time 3.4 pp more often than petrol ones (82.6% of 1,282 vs 79.2% of 6,545). In 2025, 79.8% of 7,827 first MOTs on the 2017 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 85.3%. Among 1,583 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Rigid brake pipes (rear) appears more often than on similar…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2017 Suzuki Swifts most often at the first attempt were Coil spring (front) (12.4%), Visibility — Wipers (front) (7.2%) and Tyres — Condition (rear) (7.0%) — each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong on the car. It is a different question from which patterns are unusual for the class, which the common-faults tab…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Rigid brake pipes (rear) (6.6% of those tests; 105 observed failures; about 17× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Rigid brake pipes (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (6.6% of those tests; 105 observed failures; about 17× 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 2017 Suzuki Swift include Rigid brake pipes (rear), Ball joint dust cover (front), Linkage ball joint dust cover (front). 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 2017 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.
  • 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