Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 1,936 tests analysed

Toyota RAV4 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

827 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2006 Toyota RAV4 in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Component mounting prescribed areas (rear). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Petrol RAV4 passed first time 5.3 pp more often than diesel ones (58.2% of 1,603 vs 52.9% of 331).

First-attempt pass

57.3%

of 1,936 first tests (2025)

First tests

1,936

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

827

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

18.5%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

57.3%

of 1,936 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

65.9%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

1,936

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 19.0 yrs · median mileage 110,842 mi

vs 2024: -3.3 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 825 of 827 failed first attempts (99.8%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) — 5.5% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 45 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 23× 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.

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Rear 45 ×23 5.5% Likely
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 29 ×3.4 3.5% Possible
Parking brake control — Lever
Brakes > Parking brake control > Lever
 Any 23 ×3.1 2.8% Possible
Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 62 ×2.6 7.5% Possible
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 42 ×2.5 5.1% Possible
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 86 ×2.1 10.4% 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
Coil spring
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Any 22 ×2.7 2.7% Elevated
Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 45 ×2.4 5.5% Elevated
Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 83 ×2.1 10.1% Possible
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 114 ×2.1 13.8% Elevated
Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 35 ×2.1 4.2% Elevated
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 petrol. The diesel cars passed first time 5.3 pp less often, on 331 tests.

This year also sits 3.7 pp below the midpoint of the 2005 and 2007 cars either side of it — a real break in the model's own run, not the usual year-on-year drift.

Other RAV4 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
2005 RAV4 +3.7 pp better 63.1% 2,942

What to check on a 2006 RAV4

The items that failed 2006 RAV4 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.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 18.5% of failed first attempts
  • Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) — recorded on 10.4% of failed first attempts
  • Linkage ball joint dust cover (front) — recorded on 8.0% of failed first attempts
  • Catalyst emissions — recorded on 7.9% of failed first attempts
  • Exhaust system — recorded on 7.5% 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.

Petrol RAV4 passed first time 5.3 pp more often than diesel ones (58.2% of 1,603 vs 52.9% of 331). In 2025, 57.3% of 1,936 first MOTs on the 2006 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 65.9%. Among 827 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) appears more often than on similar…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2006 Toyota RAV4s most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (18.5%), Component mounting prescribed areas (rear) (10.4%) and Linkage ball joint dust cover (front) (8.0%) — 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 clas…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) (5.5% of those tests; 45 observed failures; about 23× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (5.5% of those tests; 45 observed failures; about 23× 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 2006 Toyota RAV4 include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear), Seat belts — Condition (rear), Parking brake control — Lever. 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 2006 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.
  • 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