Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 3,915 tests analysed

Volvo Xc90 2011: reliability & common MOT faults

1,421 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2011 Volvo Xc90 in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Decelerometer (sp). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2011 Xc90 break the Xc90's own run — at 63.7% they land 2.4 pp below the midpoint of the 2010 and 2012 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

63.7%

of 3,915 first tests (2025)

First tests

3,915

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,421

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

23.2%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

63.7%

of 3,915 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

71.3%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

3,915

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 14.0 yrs · median mileage 128,636 mi

vs 2024: +2.5 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 1,421 failed first attempts in 2025 that the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Decelerometer (sp) — 17.7% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 251 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 76× 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
Decelerometer (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Decelerometer (sp)
 Any 251 ×76 17.7% Strong
Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 66 ×4.0 4.6% Likely
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 56 ×3.8 3.9% Likely
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 117 ×3.4 8.2% Likely
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 67 ×2.2 4.7% Possible
Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 214 ×2.1 15.1% 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
Flexible brake hoses (front)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Front 24 ×3.2 1.7% Elevated
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 74 ×2.9 5.2% Possible
Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 20 ×2.8 1.4% Elevated
Non-component advisories (front)
Non-component advisories
 Front 100 ×2.3 7.0% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 22 ×2.3 1.5% Elevated
Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 169 ×2.1 11.9% 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.

This year underperforms the Xc90's own age curve. If the years listed below are in budget, they are the stronger buy on this evidence.

Other Xc90 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
2015 Xc90 +5.2 pp better 79.7% 2,620
2014 Xc90 -5.9 pp worse 69.2% 2,176

What to check on a 2011 Xc90

The items that failed 2011 Xc90 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 23.2% of failed first attempts
  • Decelerometer (sp) — recorded on 17.7% of failed first attempts
  • Rbt (sp) — recorded on 15.1% of failed first attempts
  • Headlamp aim — recorded on 6.6% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 6.5% 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.

2011 Xc90 break the Xc90's own run — at 63.7% they land 2.4 pp below the midpoint of the 2010 and 2012 cars either side. 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), Decelerometer (sp) appears more often than o…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2011 Volvo Xc90s most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (23.2%), Decelerometer (sp) (17.7%) and Rbt (sp) (15.1%) — 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: Decelerometer (sp) (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.
Decelerometer (sp) 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 check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2011 Volvo Xc90 include Decelerometer (sp), Electronic stability control, Individual direction indicators (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 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.
  • 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