Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Volvo S40 2011: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 57 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2011 Volvo S40 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Drive shaft joints and boots (front).

Summary

The 2011 Volvo S40 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,289 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
57 in every 100
Did not pass first time
43 in every 100559 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
14 yearsabout 108,576 miles
First tests counted
1,289

What failed most often

  1. Drive shaft joints and boots (front)19 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Coil spring (front)15 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)13 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 2011 Volvo S40 vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. 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 (rear): 20 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 559 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 (rear)

Failed on 55 first tests20 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

An anti-roll bar linkage is graded Dangerous when a suspension component is missing, likely to become detached, fractured or likely to fail. Insecure attachment that impairs directional stability is graded Dangerous too. Excessive damage or corrosion that seriously weakens the part is Major, and so is plain insecure attachment to the chassis or axle.

Suspension arm pins and bushes (front)

Failed on 70 first tests2.4 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Pins and bushes on suspension arms fail as Major when they are excessively worn. They are graded Dangerous when likely to become detached. DVSA uses the same wording for a suspension joint.

Coil spring (front)

Failed on 84 first tests2.2 times as often as similar carsPossible 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.

Body and structure

One fault: drive shaft joints and boots (front), 3.5 times as often as on similar cars.

Drive shaft joints and boots (front)

Failed on 109 first tests3.5 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A constant velocity boot that is only severely deteriorated is Minor. It is Major once it is missing, split or insecure so that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt. A transmission joint excessively worn is Major, and graded Dangerous when it is so worn it is likely to fail.

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

Lamps and electrical

One fault: individual direction indicators (rear), 2.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Individual direction indicators (rear)

Failed on 28 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Direction indicators must be amber, though vehicles first used before a set date may have white at the front and red at the rear when the indicators are combined with stop or position lamps, and sequential or dynamic ones are not a reason to fail. A lamp that is missing, inoperative or has more than half of a multiple light source not functioning is graded Major. A flashing rate outside the permitted range is graded Minor.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 42 first tests, 4.2 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.

MOT pass rates

How first tests ended, and how the pass rates are counted.

Passed first time
57in 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
39in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 56.6% of 1,289 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 61.2%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 4 fixed and the 39 not fixed make the 43 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

40608010020052011Older cars
4060801002011Older cars

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

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200252 in every 100327
200352 in every 100501
200454 in every 100861
200557 in every 1001,084
200660 in every 1001,279
200758 in every 1001,449
200858 in every 1002,347
200957 in every 1002,017
201058 in every 1001,630
2011 This car57 in every 1001,289
201259 in every 1001,176

FAQs

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

The 2011 Volvo S40 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Drive shaft joints and boots (front), about 19 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 56.6% of 1,289 first MOTs on the 2011 Volvo S40 passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.2%. Among 559 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar linkage (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (9.8% of those tests; 55 observed failures; about 20× 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 2011 Volvo S40 at the first attempt were Drive shaft joints and boots (front) (19.5%), Coil spring (front) (15.0%) and Suspension arm pins and bushes (front) (12.5%), 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 (rear) (9.8% of those tests; 55 observed failures; about 20× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bar linkage (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (9.8% of those tests; 55 observed failures; about 20× 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 2011 Volvo S40 include Anti-roll bar linkage (rear), Drive shaft joints and boots (front), Suspension arm pins and bushes (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.
This page highlights MOT failure patterns for the 2011 Volvo S40 (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