Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Toyota Aygo 2017: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 84 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2017 Toyota Aygo were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Tyre condition (front).

Summary

The 2017 Toyota Aygo follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 20,802 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
84 in every 100
Did not pass first time
16 in every 1003,302 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
8 yearsabout 40,440 miles
First tests counted
20,802

What failed most often

  1. Tyre condition (front)11 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Brake pads (front)10 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Windscreen wipers (front)10 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 2017 Toyota Aygo vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. A wear pattern follows age and use more than the way the car was built. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Suspension

Two faults. The strongest is the anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front): 33 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 3,302 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.

Anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 102 first tests33 times as often as similar carsStrong evidence

What it means

Excessive wear in an anti-roll bar linkage pin or bush is Major. If the pin or bush is likely to become detached, it is graded Dangerous. The wording is DVSA's general one for a suspension pin, bush or joint.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 322 first tests, 63 times as often as on similar cars.

Wheel bearings (front)

Failed on 82 first tests7.0 times as often as similar carsLikely 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 29 first tests, 4.4 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

Four faults and two wear patterns. The strongest is the brake discs (front): 3.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake discs (front)

Failed on 202 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

A brake disc or drum must be significantly worn before it is rejected, and being worn below the manufacturer's recommended limits is not a reason in itself. Significantly and obviously worn is Major, as is contamination with oil or grease. A disc or drum that is fractured, insecure, seriously weakened or missing is graded Dangerous.

Electronic stability control

Failed on 73 first tests2.9 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 efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 151 first tests2.4 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and graded Dangerous where efficiency is less than half of the required value. On a roller brake tester, the requirement counts as met if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock. The check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake was not already tested as the secondary brake.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 78 first tests2.4 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.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 73 first tests, 2.4 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake performance (roller test, rear)

Failed on 92 first tests2.1 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 pads (front)

Failed on 344 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

A pad worn down to its wear indicator, or contaminated with oil or grease, is Major. A pad worn below the set thickness limit, missing or incorrectly mounted is Dangerous. The manual treats an illuminated brake wear indicator as no reason for failure, although DVSA also lists an illuminated indicator as a Major row.

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

Lamps and electrical

One fault and one wear pattern. The strongest is the headlight aim not tested: 2.5 times as often as on similar cars.

Headlight aim not tested

Failed on 28 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

What it means

Headlamp aim recorded as not tested, or unable to be tested, is a Major failure. These results must only be used where it becomes apparent during the test that the item cannot be tested, and this could not have been identified before starting. The reason must be included in the additional information box.

Headlight (front)

Failed on 140 first tests2.0 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

On vehicles first used on or after a set date, a halogen headlamp unit converted to take HID or LED bulbs fails for light source and lamp not compatible, which is Major. A complete unit built with those light sources is not failed for that. The precise position of the lamps is not part of the inspection beyond a visual look to see that they sit at about the same height and distance from each side.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 21 first tests, 11 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.

Visibility

One fault: windscreen wipers (front), 2.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Windscreen wipers (front)

Failed on 325 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Only a clearly damaged or worn windscreen wiper needs to be rejected. A wiper that is missing or not working is graded Major, and so is a blade that is missing or obviously not clearing the windscreen. A defective blade is graded Minor.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

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.

Anti-roll bar pins and bushes (front)

Noted on 69 first tests20 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Macpherson strut (front)

Noted on 48 first tests10 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (front)

Noted on 122 first tests8.9 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Wheel condition (front)

Noted on 97 first tests4.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension arm (front)

Noted on 30 first tests3.6 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
84in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
4in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
12in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 84.1% of 20,802 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 87.9%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 4 fixed and the 12 not fixed make the 16 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002005201020172020Older carsNewer cars
406080100201020172020Older cars

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200548 in every 1001,113
200651 in every 1006,284
200753 in every 1007,852
200853 in every 1009,783
200958 in every 10011,437
201059 in every 10010,781
201160 in every 10012,025
201263 in every 10013,964
201368 in every 10014,506
201474 in every 10018,639
201580 in every 10022,441
201682 in every 10021,503
2017 This car84 in every 10020,802
201885 in every 10021,274
201986 in every 10021,387
202087 in every 10016,051
202189 in every 10016,509
202293 in every 1001,396

If you are buying one

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

Mileage matters most on a 2017 Aygo.

Of 2017 Aygo vehicles with under 25,000 miles, 89 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 60,000 miles or more, 77 in every 100 did.

Under 25,0004,069 tests
89
25,000–36,0004,467 tests
87
36,000–46,000 Typical car3,996 tests
86
46,000–60,0004,165 tests
82
60,000 and over4,105 tests
77

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 25,00036,000–46,00060,000 and over
Tyre condition (front)1.21.82.0
Brake pads (front)0.51.42.5
Windscreen wipers (front)1.91.31.8
Tyre tread depth (front)0.41.52.7
Brake discs (front)0.80.91.4

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

When a car fails

51in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

21in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

5in 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 2017 Toyota Aygo follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Tyre condition (front), about 11 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 84.1% of 20,802 first MOTs on the 2017 Toyota Aygo passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 87.9%. Among 3,302 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front) appears more often than on similar cars (3.1% of those tests; 102 observed failures; about 33× 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 2017 Toyota Aygo at the first attempt were Tyre condition (front) (11.2%), Brake pads (front) (10.4%) and Windscreen wipers (front) (9.8%), 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: Anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front) (3.1% of those tests; 102 observed failures; about 33× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (3.1% of those tests; 102 observed failures; about 33× 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 2017 Toyota Aygo include Anti-roll bar linkage pins and bushes (front), Wheel bearings (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 2017 Toyota Aygo (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