Ford Puma — MOT statistics 2024

The Ford Puma failed 9.13% of 59,379 first MOT attempts in 2024 ("first-time", excluding retests). Adjusted for the age of the fleet, its initial-failure ratio is 67.3 (100 = expected for its age profile). This car fails its MOT about 33% less often than expected for its age.

Age-adjusted peer: MINI Countryman (index 69.3) — the two published results are 2.0 index points apart.

Ford Puma common problems: what actually fails the MOT

Suspension stands out at 10.6 per 100 tests, against 6.7 per 100 tests across UK vehicles of the same ages.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

family vs national — matched to UK vehicles of the same ages — top component groups, per 100 tests. Legend: This family · National avg. Combined labels: family / national average. A gap here reflects how these vehicles are driven, used and maintained as well as how they were built — an MOT defect is a test outcome, not a breakdown.

Named defects ranked by how much more often they appear than the national average — not by raw rate.

Ford Puma MOT advisories: what gets flagged

Tyres are highest at 26.2 per 100 tests; Body & structure are lowest at 3.3 per 100 tests — the gap is 22.9 per 100 tests.

higher bar = flagged more oftenadvisory items per 100 initial tests

Advisories are wear the tester noted but didn't fail — what will need money soon.

Tyres, brakes and suspension: Ford Puma against cars of the same age

Failing items per 100 initial tests, 2019-2024. The comparison group is every petrol or diesel car tested at the same age, so weight and drivetrain show up rather than fleet age.

If a car like this fails, does it fail again?

A failure rate does not say whether a failure is a one-off or the start of something. This follows the same vehicles into their next ordinary MOT a year later — retests after a repair are excluded, because they follow a failure by definition. 2019-2024.

A failed test raises next year's chance of failing again by 10.9 percentage points. The failure most likely to come back is lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment — 31.3% of those vehicles fail again next year. Some of this is the vehicle and some is the owner: a car that was let go once tends to be let go again. One caveat: a car that fails may be sold or scrapped rather than tested again, so these figures describe the vehicles that came back.

Adjusted for how much these are actually driven

The headline index adjusts for the fleet's age. Wear, though, follows mileage: a three-year-old taxi and a three-year-old garage queen sit in the same age band. These two rows compare every car with vehicles of the same age, and then with vehicles of the same age and the same annual mileage, 2019-2024, on 105,723 tests. Both stand on the six-year corpus so they are measured on identical data — compare them with each other, not with the headline index above, which is measured on 2024 alone.

Mileage matters here: matching on how much these are driven moves the figure by 5.8 points — this fleet is driven less than the vehicles it is measured against, so the age-only view flatters it — but it does not change which side of normal the car sits on. One limit to keep in mind: mileage is partly a result of how often a car breaks down — one that spends weeks in the workshop covers fewer miles — so the mileage-matched figure can understate a real weakness. Tests with no usable odometer reading are left out of it.

How the Ford Puma compares with cars of its own age and size

Not against the whole fleet — against cars of the same size class tested at the same age, 2019-2024.

Raw first-time failure rates within each age, so fleet age cannot flatter either side. A positive difference means this model fails more often than its own class at that age.

How does the Ford Puma perform as it gets older?

The Puma at age 5 is well below the reference at 7.6%, against 15.1% for all vehicles of the same age.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Chart axes: car age, years · failure-rate scale 0–47%.

Takeaway: solid line: this family; dashed: all cars.

How dangerous are Ford Puma MOT failures?

Major defects are well below the reference at 32.2 per 100 tests, against 52.8 per 100 tests nationally.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

Chart values: Minor 5.9 · Major 32.2 · Dangerous 5.4.

Per 100 tests on this family. National average: Minor 14.2 · Major 52.8 · Dangerous 11.2 per 100.

Does the month of a Ford Puma MOT matter?

Jan is highest at 17.7%; Sep is lowest at 12.9% — the gap is 4.8 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Chart scale: 11%–33%.

bars: Ford Puma · dashed: all class-4 cars

Takeaway: the spread between best and worst month is 4.8 percentage points — noticeable seasonality. Seasonality partly reflects registration-date clustering, not weather.

Before reading the shape: most of it is not about cars. Britain changes its registration plates twice a year, and 18.9% of these cars were first registered in March with another17.1% in September — 36% in two months against the 17% an even spread would give. An MOT falls due three years after first registration, so the buying calendar becomes the testing calendar. That shapes how many cars are tested each month — not how often they fail: the busiest months here are not the worst ones, so read the failure line on its own and the volume behind it separately.

Ford Puma average mileage by age

At age 5, the middle half of Pumas runs from 23,118 miles to 37,873 miles, against 30,158 miles as the median.

further right = more milesmedian is the typical car; band is p25–p75

Chart axes: car age, years · odometer scale 0–106k mi.

Does high mileage mean more Ford Puma MOT failures at the same age?

Within the same age group, split by odometer (2024 MOTs), so this separates wear from age: at ages 3–5, 7.2% of those with under 40,000 miles failed first time versus 16.9% of those with 70,000–100,000 miles.Inside this age group, higher mileage goes with more failures.

line: median · band: middle half of the fleet (p25–p75)

A typical 5-year-old Puma has ~30,158 miles on the clock. Much more — ask why; much less — check for gaps in the MOT history.

Where in Britain the Ford Puma fails its MOT most

Truro area is highest at 29.0%; Oldham area is lowest at 7.7% — the gap is 21.3 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Toughest areas	% failing	vs model overall
Truro (TR)	28.99%	+14.1 pp
Torquay (TQ)	27.9%	+13.0 pp
Plymouth (PL)	25.07%	+10.2 pp
Uxbridge (UB)	24.69%	+9.8 pp
Bournemouth (BH)	24.18%	+9.3 pp

Easiest areas	% failing	vs model overall
Oldham (OL)	7.72%	-7.2 pp
Dumfries (DG)	9.09%	-5.8 pp
Halifax (HX)	9.18%	-5.7 pp
Durham (DH)	9.27%	-5.7 pp
Newcastle (NE)	9.49%	-5.4 pp

Why do areas differ?

For each external factor we correlate the area fail rate with the factor across postcode areas that have ≥800 tests of this family, then compare the bottom vs top fifth (quintile) of the factor. Correlation, not causation — factors travel together (the north is colder and often poorer; urban areas are denser and less salted). Road surface condition is joined now, for the 91 English areas the DfT publishes, and it explains nothing: the correlation with suspension failures is −0.01 and with body and structure failures 0.07. Potholes wreck wheels and tyres between tests, but by the time a car reaches the bay the road it drives on leaves no measurable trace.

In areas with the highest road-salt proxy this model fails 5.5 pp less often than in the lowest fifth (r=-0.50, n=58 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest frost days this model fails 5.6 pp less often than in the lowest fifth (r=-0.48, n=58 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest income deprivation this model fails 4.0 pp less often than in the lowest fifth (r=-0.44, n=49 areas with ≥800 tests).

Values shown in the quintile chart

Factor	Low Q	High Q	Gap	Correlation
Road-salt proxy	17.7%	12.2%	-5.5 pp	r=-0.50
Frost days	18.1%	12.5%	-5.6 pp	r=-0.48
Income deprivation	16.9%	12.9%	-4.0 pp	r=-0.44

Factors that only mean something combined

Some conditions are useless on their own and informative multiplied together. Frost days alone say little — Britain barely freezes. Salt tonnage alone says little — it tracks frost. Distance to the sea alone says little. Multiply the first two and divide by the third and you get an index of how hard an area attacks a car's underside, and it lines up with the corrosion defects we actually record. We built five such combinations and tested each against our own data. Three survived; two did not, and the failures are listed here on purpose — a proxy that was never checked is decoration. One survivor only survived on the second attempt: built from a crude stand-in for street parking it failed outright, and rebuilt from the census — terraced streets carrying more cars than they have driveways — it works, and carries information the salt index does not.

Composite area indicators, each tested against a defect rate we measure

Composite	Built from	Tested against	r	Verdict
Underbody corrosion	frost days × salt load ÷ (distance to coast + 1)	share of tests with a corrosion defect	+0.42	holds (116 areas)
Tyre wear	rain days × annual miles ÷ age at first tyre advisory	share of tests failing on tyres	+0.45	holds (116 areas)
Overnight corrosion	terraced housing × cars per household × frost days	share with a corrosion defect	+0.41	holds (102 areas) — and adds signal beyond the first index
Deferred maintenance	deprivation × advisory-to-failure conversion ÷ labour rate	cars repeating the same advisory	−0.26	fails (118 areas)
Powertrain stress	engine capacity ÷ kerb weight	suspension, brake and emissions failures	−0.16	fails (22 models)

The deprivation result is the one worth dwelling on. The intuition that poorer areas defer repairs is strong enough that most people treat it as established. We tested it twice — once on raw failure rates (r = 0.04) and again, more fairly, on whether an advisory turns into a failure — and it did not hold any of the three times we tried it — on raw failure rates, on advisory-to-failure conversion, and again with deprivation measured properly inside each nation rather than England alone. We are closing it. What does predict local failure rates is the density of test centres, which is a statement about testing, not about cars.

All external-factor correlations (machine-readable)

Factor	r	n areas	Low-Q fail %	High-Q fail %	Gap pp	Low-Q factor	High-Q factor
Road-salt proxy (g/m²-yr)	-0.496	58	17.7	12.2	-5.5	218.9	611.6
Frost days (days/year)	-0.476	58	18.1	12.5	-5.6	10.6	34.7
Income deprivation (score)	-0.444	49	16.9	12.9	-4.0	0.1	0.2
MOT centre density (per 10k vehicles)	-0.307	58	15.8	12.9	-3.0	5.5	7.9
Terrain gradient (% grade)	0.221	37	12.8	16.2	+3.4	0.5	3.2
Distance to coast (km)	-0.146	58	16.7	14.8	-1.9	6.5	85.1
Urban share (0–1)	-0.092	58	15.4	13.4	-2.0	0.5	0.9

Deprivation uses England IMD 2019 income score only (Scotland SIMD is a different scale). Salt proxy is a simplified NWSRG-style dry-salt sum from air Tmin; coastalness is distance from the area centroid to the nearest coastline.

Every dot is a postcode area — size = how many were tested there, colour = share failing. These figures are not age-adjusted: coastal and rural areas often run older fleets and salted roads, so higher raw fail rates do not automatically mean a worse local stock of this model.

Map labels: Scotland · N. England · Wales · London · S. West. Colour scale: 10%–24% failing.

Ford Puma survival: which cars are still on the road

By age 19 is well below the reference at 13.0%, against 100.0% at the ages 4–6 reference level.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Chart axes: car age, years · survival vs ages 4–6 · scale 0–105%.

By age 19, only about 13% as many cars of this family present for MOT as at ages 4–6 (reference n≈25,989); survivors still fail at 46.3% vs 8.2% at age 4. Older cars that still appear are a selected subset — weaker ones have already left.

How many miles does a Ford Puma last?

100,000+ miles is highest at 5.3%; 150,000+ miles is lowest at 0.6% — the gap is 4.8 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Of 106,124 tests of this family with a usable odometer in 2024, 5.3% had reached 100k miles, 0.6% had reached 150k miles. This is a cross-section of cars still presenting for MOT, not a full birth cohort.

How many years is a Ford Puma likely to last?

estimateObserved only until age 19. The curve does not run five years past the stated age with the share still tested under 50%, so no 'years left' number is given.

Ford Puma faults that come together

Emissions & leaks + Steering stand out at 12.13×, against 1.00× if the faults were independent.

above 1.0× = more than expectedbelow 1.0× = less

Defects in «Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems» and «Suspension» appear together 12.03× more often than chance (1,055 co-occurrences in the same test; lift≥1.3, n≥500).

Lift = how many times more often both groups appear on the same test than if independent. A pair is listed from 5 tests with both faults; the lift is shown from 20, and called above chance only when its 95% interval excludes 1 (see rough estimates).

Is low mileage better for a Ford Puma?

Cars driven under 5,000 miles a year is well below the reference at 3.7%, against 14.7% for cars driven 8,000–12,000 miles a year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

At matched ages 5–14, cars averaging under 5k miles/year fail at 3.7% vs 14.7% for 8–12k miles/year — 11.0 pp, interval includes no difference (n_low=54, n_normal=34). The gap interval includes no difference, so no higher/lower claim is made.

Best year for a Ford Puma, and the years to avoid

Build year 1998 is highest at 118.1; Build year 2019 is lowest at 54.7 — the gap is 63.4 points.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

build year vs the same model at the same age · 100 = as expected

The best build year here is 2002 and the weakest is 2002. Comparing build years sounds simple and is not: within a single year of testing, a car's build year and its age are the same number, so a naive comparison of years is a comparison of ages wearing a disguise. Each year below is measured against the same model at the same age in other cohorts, across six years of testing — 1 of 7 years come out distinguishable from their own model's age norm.

Two limits worth knowing before you act on this. Age, test year and build year are locked together by arithmetic, so the test-year effect is taken from the observed national failure level of each year rather than estimated — it is an adjustment, not a solution.

Ford Puma MOT repair costs

The MOT-failure repair budget per test runs from £43.89 to £83.39, against £54.85 for the test itself.

bigger number = costs morepounds per test, MOT-failing faults only

Multiply how often each component fails on this model by what that repair usually costs, and you get the amount an owner should expect to budget per test for MOT-failing faults only — roughly £44 to £83, on top of the test fee itself. It is a budgeting figure, not a quote: the spread between a set of pads and a set of discs is most of the range.

Prices are modal quotes from a hand-kept catalogue of published UK garage guides — we do not scrape the booking sites, their terms forbid it, so this list is short and updated by hand with a source and date against each line. Each line prices one typical repair in that group, not a full remedy, and only groups our catalogue actually covers are counted. The contrast worth noticing is the second card: the legal maximum for the test has been £54.85 since 2010, while the repairs it uncovers have followed inflation the whole time.

For scale from a different direction: Warrantywise, which sees used-car warranty claims rather than test failures, puts the average claim at £2,052 across the ten highest-claim models it ranks and £539 for Honda, the lowest-claim make in its index (Warrantywise index 2026, 1.6 million claims, cars aged 3–15). Those sit an order of magnitude above the figures in this table, and the gap is the point: a warranty claim is a gearbox or an engine, which almost never fails an MOT, while the faults that do fail one are corrosion, lamps and tyres, which no warranty pays for. The two numbers answer different questions and neither replaces the other.

Ford Puma running costs for a fleet

No single year stands out as the point where this model starts costing more: the year-to-year steps in its failure rate are too small or rest on too few tests to name one (D1 rule: a step is named only with at least 2,000 tests on both sides and a jump above 3 percentage points).

Repair spend uses the same modal prices as the section above, so it inherits the same limits: one typical repair per component group, not a full remedy. Downtime is the gap between the failed test and the passed re-test, which is the window a vehicle is legally off the road.

Ford Puma rust problems: where they corrode

Age-standardised corrosion susceptibility is well below the reference at 0.7×, against 1.00× for the national age-standardised rate.

above 1.0× = rusts more than averagebelow 1.0× = rusts less

This Ford Puma fails on corrosion at about the average rate once age is held constant, and its owners live in areas that are saltier than most for the models we publish. Both point the same way and reinforce each other: it resists corrosion even though its owners live in saltier areas than most.

Corrosion is the one failure mode that is as much about geography as about the car. We keep the two apart on purpose: a model can look rusty simply because it is popular in Scotland, and a model can look clean simply because it is bought in Surrey. Blending them into a single score would hide which of the two is doing the work.

Exposure is this model's tests weighted by an area corrosion index built from frost days, salt load and distance to the coast — the composite validated at r = 0.42 against corrosion defects we actually record. It is published as a rank, not a raw score, because every mainstream model skews towards low-corrosion areas for the simple reason that most of Britain's cars are in the south. Susceptibility is standardised to the national age profile, so an old fleet does not get labelled a rusty model.

Does a Ford Puma advisory become a failure?

Suspension is highest at 31.0%; Non-component advisories are lowest at 0.0% — the gap is 31.0 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

chance the same component fails at the next MOT, given an advisory now

This is the question an advisory note actually raises, and it needs six years of test history to answer. We followed the same vehicles from one MOT to the next across 2019–2024 and measured how often a component that was merely advised came back as a genuine failure at the next test.

Read it as a budgeting horizon, not a prophecy: the most likely component above turns into a failure for about 31 in 100 cars, and the median gap is 12.1 months and roughly 2,175 miles. The rest were repaired, sold, scrapped, or simply held. Rows with fewer than 500 tracked advisories are not shown.

What will fail next on a Ford Puma?

Suspension after a failure at age 15-19 is highest at 30.4%; Brakes after a passed at age <3 are lowest at 0.9% — the gap is 29.5 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

The same chains, cut differently: given a car's age and how its last test went, which component most often causes trouble at the following one.

The pattern that repeats across every family: a failure at one test roughly doubles the chance of a failure on the same component at the next one, and an advisory sits about half-way between a clean pass and a failure. Age bands in years; probabilities are per car, not per defect item.

Ford Puma ownership: what six years of MOTs show

The ten-day re-test pass rate is highest at 61.5%; The later re-test pass rate is lowest at 6.0% — the gap is 55.5 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Failing is usually a same-week event, not a disaster. Of 10,469 failures followed through to their re-test, 32.48% were repaired and passed the same day and 61.49% within ten days; the median gap is 1 day. 25,734 defect items were cleared in the process.

Per mile driven, not per year. Dividing failures by the miles that actually went onto the odometers between consecutive tests gives 0.364 failures per 10,000 miles, on a median of 4,835 miles a year across 32,226 chains. This is the number to compare between models — an annual rate quietly rewards cars that barely leave the drive.

Two populations hide inside one model. 31.34% of these cars strung together three or more tests with nothing recorded at all, while 28.68% carried the same advisory three times or more — the same fault, noted, ignored, noted again. When you buy used you are buying one of those two histories, and the MOT record shows which.

Odometer anomalies: 0.248% of 32,298 chains show a reading lower than the previous test, with a median drop of 11,726 miles. We call this an anomaly and not fraud on purpose — instrument swaps, imports, unit mix-ups and keying errors all land in the same bucket. Obvious typos (drops under 100 miles or over 90% of the reading) are already excluded.

Ford Puma safety recalls and how to check yours

DVSA recall campaigns stand out at 29.

bigger number = more recorded casescompare like-for-like scope, not sample size alone

recall campaigns launched per year

DVSA lists 29 safety recall campaigns for the Ford Puma, covering roughly 202,202 vehicles in total. A recall is the manufacturer fixing a fault for free, so an open recall on your car costs nothing to clear.

Counter-intuitive, and measured on our own data: across the 25 families published here, more recalls go with a lower MOT Risk Index (r = −0.52). Heavily recalled models are not worse cars in the test bay — an active manufacturer removes the fault before it becomes an MOT failure.

Check whether a specific car has an outstanding recall — free, by registration — at DVSA's recall service. Source: DVSA vehicle safety recalls (check-vehicle-recalls.service.gov.uk), OGL.

Ford Puma inspection results in other countries

Netherlands APK is well below the reference at 21.1%, against 50.8% nationally.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

The verdict is consistent across every regime where the difference is clear, which is the strongest form this comparison takes: independent inspectorates, different rulebooks, same direction of travel.

Useful as a cross-check on the UK defect table above: the categories are named differently, but a component that dominates in both regimes is a genuine weak point of the model rather than an artefact of one country's testing style.

Worth dwelling on how mundane the top of that list is: tyre pressure, tread depth, headlight aim. The Dutch APK records 0.491 defects per inspection against a much higher national failure rate than Britain's, and the reason is not that Dutch cars are worse — it is that the two regimes draw the line between "note it" and "fail it" in different places. Codes are the RDW's own; the English wording here is our translation of the Dutch original.

Britain is not the only country that inspects every car every year, and the Ford Puma is on the road in all of them. Each national regime writes its own rules, so the pass rates below are not comparable to each other — what does travel across a border is whether a model sits above or below its own country's average.

Rows with fewer than 500 inspections are not published. Sources: RDW open data — Meldingen Keuringsinstantie + Geconstateerde Gebreken + Gekentekende voertuigen (2024), CC0. Not an RDW endorsement.; Traficom — Periodic inspections of cars by model / by model and fault object 2024, CC BY 4.0. Adapted; licences and full notice.

Ford Puma MOT: quick answers

Ford Puma MOT Risk Index is well below the reference at 67.3, against 100 for a car with the same age profile.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

What is the Ford Puma first-time MOT pass rate?

90.87% of first attempts passed in 2024 (59,379 tests). This is the first-time figure: retests after repair are excluded. Basis: first-time, excluding retests.

Why does this number differ from other sites?

Other sites often report a pass rate that includes retests or counts all attempts. Our 9.13% figure is the first-time initial failure rate, using 59,379 primary tests as the denominator (first-time, excluding retests). The age-adjusted MOT initial-failure ratio 67.3 is shown separately because raw rates compare fleet age as well as cars.

Compare the Ford Puma with other cars

Audi Q5 is highest at 69.9; Ford Puma is lowest at 67.3 — the gap is 2.6 points.

below 100 is betterabove 100 is worse100 = normal for this model at that age

Same brand

All Ford MOT statisticsFord Kuga MOT statsFord C-MAX MOT stats

Similar risk

MINI Countryman (index 69.3)Audi Q7 (index 69.8)Audi Q5 (index 69.9)

Same size class

how Vauxhall Adam compareshow Ford Galaxy compareshow Fiat Punto compares

By build year

Ford Puma 1998Ford Puma 1999Ford Puma 2000Ford Puma 2001Ford Puma 2002Ford Puma 2019Ford Puma 2020

By area

Ford Puma MOT failure rate by postcode area

By failure group

Ford Puma body, chassis and structure failuresFord Puma brakes failuresFord Puma vehicle identification failuresFord Puma lamps, reflectors and electrics failuresFord Puma noise, emissions and leaks failuresFord Puma road wheels failuresFord Puma seat belts and airbags failuresFord Puma steering failuresFord Puma suspension failuresFord Puma tyres failuresFord Puma visibility failures

Inspections abroad

Ford Puma in FinlandFord Puma in the Netherlands