Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 5,531 tests analysed

Vauxhall Vivaro 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

2,990 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2006 Vauxhall Vivaro in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Rbt (sp) was the most common reason a 2006 Vivaro failed its MOT — 23.1% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

45.9%

of 5,531 first tests (2025)

First tests

5,531

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

2,990

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

45.9%

of 5,531 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

53.3%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

5,531

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 19.0 yrs · median mileage 152,058 mi

vs 2024: +2.0 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 2,984 of 2,990 failed first attempts (99.8%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Hazard warning — Switch — 4.4% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 130 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 21× 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
Hazard warning — Switch
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Hazard warning > Switch
 Any 130 ×21 4.4% Strong
Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 67 ×6.0 2.2% Likely
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 86 ×3.9 2.9% Likely
Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 92 ×3.6 3.1% Likely
Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Front 124 ×3.5 4.2% Likely
Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 649 ×3.3 21.7% Likely
Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 420 ×3.0 14.1% Possible
Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 130 ×2.9 4.4% Possible
Anti-lock braking system
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Anti-lock braking system
 Any 230 ×2.5 7.7% Possible
Parking brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Rear 122 ×2.5 4.1% 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
Coil springs — Mounting (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Mounting
 Rear 47 ×13 1.6% Possible
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 63 ×9.5 2.1% Elevated
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
 Front 55 ×8.4 1.8% Possible
Spring mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Spring mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 77 ×7.1 2.6% Likely
Other towbar components
Body, chassis, structure > Towbar > Other towbar components
 Any 20 ×5.6 0.7% Elevated
Engine mounting condition
Body, chassis, structure > Engine mounting > Engine mounting condition
 Any 22 ×5.3 0.7% Elevated
Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Front 91 ×5.2 3.0% Likely
Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Pins and bushes
 Front 87 ×4.6 2.9% 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.

Nothing separates this year from the Vivaros either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2006 Vivaros, commonest first.

What to check on a 2006 Vivaro

The items that failed 2006 Vivaros 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.

  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 23.1% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint (front) — recorded on 21.7% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 14.5% of failed first attempts
  • Track rod end (front) — recorded on 14.1% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 9.6% 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.

Rbt (sp) was the most common reason a 2006 Vivaro failed its MOT — 23.1% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 45.9% of 5,531 first MOTs on the 2006 Vauxhall Vivaro passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 53.3%. Among 2,990 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Hazard warning — Switch appears more often than on simila…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2006 Vauxhall Vivaros most often at the first attempt were Rbt (sp) (23.1%), Ball joint (front) (21.7%) and Position lamp (front) (14.5%) — 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 table answers.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Hazard warning — Switch (4.4% of those tests; 130 observed failures; about 21× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Hazard warning — Switch shows up more often than on similar cars (4.4% of those tests; 130 observed failures; about 21× 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 Vauxhall Vivaro include Hazard warning — Switch, Macpherson strut (front), Integral vehicle structure condition (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 2006 Vauxhall Vivaro (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