Volvo XC90 2011: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 64 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2011 Volvo XC90 were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Individual sidelight or tail light (front).

Summary

A 2011 Volvo XC90 passed first time about 2 in every 100 less often than the average of the 2010 and 2012 model years.

At a glance

How 3,915 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
64 in every 100
Did not pass first time
36 in every 1001,421 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
14 yearsabout 128,636 miles
First tests counted
3,915

What failed most often

  1. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)23 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test)18 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)15 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 XC90 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.

Brakes

Three faults. The strongest is the handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test): 76 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 1,421 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.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test)

Failed on 251 first tests76 times as often as similar carsStrong evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is graded Major, and efficiency less than half of the required value is graded Dangerous. This check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake has not already been tested as the secondary brake.

Electronic stability control

Failed on 66 first tests4.0 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

An ESC warning lamp is failed only when the tester is certain it indicates an ESC malfunction, because the lamp takes various forms and the owner's handbook may need checking. The system is also called ESP, VDC or DSC, among many other names. Every failure row is Major, covering the lamp, wheel speed sensors, wiring, other components and the switch.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 214 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and graded Dangerous where efficiency is less than half of the required value. On a roller brake tester, the requirement counts as met if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock. The check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake was not already tested as the secondary brake.

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

Lamps and electrical

Three faults. The strongest is the individual direction indicators (front): 3.8 times as often as on similar cars.

Individual direction indicators (front)

Failed on 56 first tests3.8 times as often as similar carsLikely 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.

Individual sidelight or tail light (rear)

Failed on 117 first tests3.4 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A position lamp showing red light to the front or white light to the rear is Major. Rear lamps must show a steady red light, and front ones can show white, predominantly white with a blue tinge, or yellow if combined in a yellow headlamp. With a multiple light source, up to half not working is Minor and more than half is Major.

Individual direction indicators (rear)

Failed on 67 first tests2.2 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 74 first tests, 2.9 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.

Flexible brake hoses (front)

Noted on 24 first tests3.2 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame mounting area (rear)

Noted on 20 first tests2.8 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Non-component advisories (front)

Noted on 100 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Seat belt condition (rear)

Noted on 22 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Suspension sub-frame (rear)

Noted on 169 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
64in 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
29in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 63.7% of 3,915 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 71.3%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 7 fixed and the 29 not fixed make the 36 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

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

4060801002005201120152020Older carsNewer cars
40608010020112020Older carsNewer 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, 61 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200357 in every 100466
200455 in every 1001,446
200555 in every 1002,213
200656 in every 1001,817
200757 in every 1001,951
200858 in every 1001,313
200961 in every 1002,890
201063 in every 1005,304
2011 This car64 in every 1003,915
201269 in every 1002,736
201371 in every 1002,296
201469 in every 1002,176
201580 in every 1002,620
201680 in every 1004,981
201782 in every 1005,275
201885 in every 1006,004
201986 in every 1006,859
202086 in every 1004,650
202187 in every 1006,508
202287 in every 1006,003

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Mileage matters most on a 2011 Volvo XC90.

Of 2011 Volvo XC90 vehicles with under 100,000 miles, 68 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 160,000 miles or more, 59 in every 100 did.

Under 100,000777 tests
68
100,000–120,000770 tests
68
120,000–138,000 Typical car805 tests
62
138,000–160,000783 tests
62
160,000 and over780 tests
59

What to check at your mileage

How often each fault turned up on a failed first test, by the car's mileage. Read it as: what is likely to need looking at on a car like the one in front of you.

Under 100,000120,000–138,000160,000 and over
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)6.39.18.8
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test)4.97.87.1
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)4.95.26.0
Headlight aim1.42.53.6
Tyre tread depth (front)2.42.63.3

Faults per 100 first tests, by the car's mileage at the test.


When a car fails

33in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

42in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

11in every 100

of all first tests had a defect the tester marked dangerous (unsafe to drive away).


Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line, for cars of this model year tested in 2025. Each mileage band holds a fifth of the tests. 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.

A 2011 Volvo XC90 passed first time about 2 in every 100 less often than the average of the 2010 and 2012 model years. In 2025, 63.7% of 3,915 first MOTs on the 2011 Volvo XC90 passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 71.3%. Among 1,421 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test) appears more often than on similar cars (17.7% of those tests; 251 observed failures; about 76× 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 XC90 at the first attempt were Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (23.2%), Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test) (17.7%) and Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (15.1%), 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: Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test) (17.7% of those tests; 251 observed failures; about 76× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test) shows up more often than on similar cars (17.7% of those tests; 251 observed failures; about 76× 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 XC90 include Handbrake efficiency below minimum (decelerometer test), Electronic stability control, Individual direction indicators (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.
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 2011 Volvo XC90 (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