Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Toyota RAV4 2002: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 60 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2002 Toyota RAV4 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

The 2002 Toyota RAV4 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,544 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
60 in every 100
Did not pass first time
40 in every 100622 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
23 yearsabout 119,265 miles
First tests counted
1,544

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)13 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Petrol emissions (with catalyst)11 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Coil spring (rear)9 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 2002 Toyota RAV4 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

Three faults. The strongest is the anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear): 5.5 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 622 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 ball joints (rear)

Failed on 21 first tests5.5 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.

Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (front)

Failed on 54 first tests4.0 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 37 first tests, 3.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Coil spring (rear)

Failed on 59 first tests3.5 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.

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

Two wear patterns. The strongest is the brake pads (front): 2.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Brake pads (front)

Failed on 33 first tests2.8 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.

Brake pads (rear)

Failed on 27 first tests2.2 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.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 58 first tests, 3.3 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.

Body and structure

One fault: exhaust system (rear), 2.7 times as often as on similar cars.

Exhaust system (rear)

Failed on 42 first tests2.7 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Exhaust fumes causing a danger to health of persons on board are graded Dangerous, and so is a silencer likely to become detached. Fumes entering the cabin are Major. One or more missing or defective mountings does not necessarily make the exhaust insecure, since testers assess the overall security of the system.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 58 first tests, 3.0 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.

Suspension arm (rear)

Noted on 35 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Non-component advisories (rear)

Noted on 40 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Flexible brake hoses (rear)

Noted on 50 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
7in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
33in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 59.7% of 1,544 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 66.9%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 7 fixed and the 33 not fixed make the 40 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

40608010020022005201020152020Older carsNewer cars
406080100200220102020Newer cars

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
199856 in every 100459
199963 in every 100373
200060 in every 100389
200162 in every 100808
2002 This car60 in every 1001,544
200361 in every 1002,179
200461 in every 1002,857
200563 in every 1002,942
200657 in every 1001,936
200759 in every 1002,836
200859 in every 1002,869
200961 in every 1001,429
201069 in every 100427
201168 in every 100458
201271 in every 1001,489
201376 in every 1004,288
201479 in every 1004,492
201581 in every 1005,189
201682 in every 1007,354
201782 in every 1007,501
201883 in every 1007,041
201991 in every 1008,590
202091 in every 10011,168
202191 in every 10011,743
202294 in every 1009,602

FAQs

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

The 2002 Toyota RAV4 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, 59.7% of 1,544 first MOTs on the 2002 Toyota RAV4 passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 66.9%. Among 622 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (3.4% of those tests; 21 observed failures; about 5.5× 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 2002 Toyota RAV4 at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (12.5%), Petrol emissions (with catalyst) (10.9%) and Coil spring (rear) (9.5%), 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 ball joints (rear) (3.4% of those tests; 21 observed failures; about 5.5× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (3.4% of those tests; 21 observed failures; about 5.5× 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 2002 Toyota RAV4 include Anti-roll bar linkage ball joints (rear), Coil spring (rear), Exhaust system (rear). 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 2002 Toyota RAV4 (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