Model Reports 4 min read Updated 18 Oct 2026

Volvo S40 2012: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 59 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2012 Volvo S40 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Drive shaft joints and boots (front).

Summary

The 2012 Volvo S40 follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 1,176 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
59 in every 100
Did not pass first time
41 in every 100482 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
13 yearsabout 102,384 miles
First tests counted
1,176

What failed most often

  1. Drive shaft joints and boots (front)16 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 2012 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): 18 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 482 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 34 first tests18 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 61 first tests2.5 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 71 first tests2.1 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), 2.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Drive shaft joints and boots (front)

Failed on 77 first tests2.8 times as often as similar carsPossible 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.

MOT pass rates

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

Passed first time
59in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
5in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
36in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 59.0% of 1,176 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 63.9%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 5 fixed and the 36 not fixed make the 41 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

40608010020052012Older cars
4060801002012Older cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 63 in every 100 passed first time.

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
201157 in every 1001,289
2012 This car59 in every 1001,176

FAQs

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

The 2012 Volvo S40 follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Drive shaft joints and boots (front), about 16 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 59.0% of 1,176 first MOTs on the 2012 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 63.9%. Among 482 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bar linkage (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (7.1% of those tests; 34 observed failures; about 18× 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 2012 Volvo S40 at the first attempt were Drive shaft joints and boots (front) (16.0%), Coil spring (front) (14.7%) and Suspension arm pins and bushes (front) (12.7%), 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) (7.1% of those tests; 34 observed failures; about 18× 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 (7.1% of those tests; 34 observed failures; about 18× 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 2012 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 2012 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