Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Toyota RAV-4 2004: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 60 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2004 Toyota RAV-4 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

The 2004 Toyota RAV-4 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,983 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
60 in every 100
Did not pass first time
40 in every 100784 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
21 yearsabout 117,749 miles
First tests counted
1,983

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)13 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Petrol engine warning light13 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Headlight aim10 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 2004 Toyota RAV-4 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

Four faults. The strongest is the anti-roll bar ball joint (front): 3.4 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 784 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 ball joint (front)

Failed on 23 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

On an anti-roll bar ball joint, DVSA fails a suspension pin, bush or joint that is excessively worn as Major. One likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Coil spring (rear)

Failed on 64 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A missing bump stop rubber is not a reason to fail a coil spring. When the vehicle is jacked and lowered, a spring that does not correctly locate as the suspension returns to its normal running position is rejected as insecurely attached. A missing spring is Major, and graded Dangerous where directional control is affected.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (front)

Failed on 58 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Excessive wear on an anti-roll bar linkage ball joint is Major. A joint likely to become detached is graded Dangerous.

Shock absorbers (front)

Failed on 33 first tests2.1 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.

Brakes

One fault and two wear patterns. The strongest is the brake discs (rear): 2.6 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake discs (rear)

Failed on 20 first tests2.6 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.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 38 first tests2.3 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 34 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

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.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear)

Noted on 21 first tests3.1 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Brake pads (rear)

Noted on 59 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsWear pattern

Transmission oil leaks

Noted on 31 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Shock absorbers (rear)

Noted on 62 first tests2.1 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
60in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
9in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
31in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 60.5% of 1,983 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 69.1%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 9 fixed and the 31 not fixed make the 40 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Petrol and diesel

First testsPassed first time, as tested
Petrol1,36461
Diesel61959

Figures are in every 100 first tests.

Same model, other years

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

40608010020042010Older carsNewer cars
40608010020042010Newer cars

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200160 in every 100608
200261 in every 1001,039
200360 in every 1001,482
2004 This car60 in every 1001,983
200563 in every 1002,436
200657 in every 1002,414
200757 in every 1002,080
200858 in every 1001,373
200961 in every 1001,368
201065 in every 1003,185
201169 in every 1002,964
201271 in every 1001,660
201377 in every 1001,349
201476 in every 1001,283

FAQs

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

The 2004 Toyota RAV-4 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Individual sidelight or tail light (front), about 13 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 60.5% of 1,983 first MOTs on the 2004 Toyota RAV-4 passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 69.1%. Among 784 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar ball joint (front) appears more often than on similar cars (2.9% of those tests; 23 observed failures; about 3.4× 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 2004 Toyota RAV-4 at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (13.3%), Petrol engine warning light (12.6%) and Headlight aim (10.1%), 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 ball joint (front) (2.9% of those tests; 23 observed failures; about 3.4× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bar ball joint (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (2.9% of those tests; 23 observed failures; about 3.4× 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 2004 Toyota RAV-4 include Anti-roll bar ball joint (front), Coil spring (rear), Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (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 2004 Toyota RAV-4 (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