MOT Risk Index.co.uk

Mazda 2 — MOT statistics 2024

The Mazda 2 failed 30.56% of 127,191 first MOT attempts in 2024 ("first-time", excluding retests). Adjusted for the age of the fleet, its initial-failure ratio is 100.0 (100 = expected for its age profile). This car is too close to call — statistically indistinguishable from normal for its age. But this fleet is driven far less than average: matched on annual mileage as well as age, using 2019-2024 test chains rather than 2024 alone, the figure is 107.4, on the other side of normal. Both numbers below.

MOT risk index 100.0, 95% CI 99.2–100.9 (100 = national average) 100 100.0 0 200
Index
100.0
100 = age-normal
Raw fail rate
30.56%
n = 127,191
Dangerous /100
9
national ≈11
Diesel − petrol
+13.0 pp
fail-rate gap
Rank
458 of 761
lower index = better

Age-adjusted peer: Skoda Fabia (index 99.8) — the two published results are 0.2 index points apart.

Mazda 2 common problems: what actually fails the MOT

Brakes are well below the reference at 7.9 per 100 tests, against 11.0 per 100 tests across UK vehicles of the same ages.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

Mazda 2 common problems: what actually fails the MOT — 2024 UK MOT data

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.

Component-group comparison table

Each ratio carries a 95% interval. With 6 groups compared here, roughly one apparent difference in twenty is chance alone.

GroupThis familyCases behind itUK, same agesFamily / national
Suspension17.5127,35014.91.17×1.17–1.18
Lamps & electrical15.8114,77016.70.95×0.94–0.95
Visibility9.065,3657.71.18×1.17–1.18
Tyres8.461,2319.10.92×0.92–0.93
Brakes7.957,49011.00.72×0.71–0.72
Steering4.129,4732.71.54×1.51–1.54
Named defects — items per 100 initial tests, this family vs UK national average; this model measured on 727,585 tests, 2019-2024, national column 2024
What failedper 100 tests (this family)per 100 tests (UK average)ratio family / UKWhat to check
Suspension pin, bush or joint excessively wornA suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn7.024.871.44×Listen for knocks over bumps — worn joints show up on the test
Headlamp reflector or lens slightly defectiveHeadlamp reflector or lens slightly defective3.231.092.95×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Brake pipe damaged or excessively corrodedBrake pipe damaged or excessively corroded3.271.412.33×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Steering ball joint with excessive wear or free playA steering ball joint with excessive wear or free play3.051.222.49×Ask the seller about: A steering ball joint with excessive wear or free play
Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the…Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the windscreen3.192.221.43×Check wipers, washers and windscreen chips in the driver's view
Spring or spring component fractured or seriously…A spring or spring component fractured or seriously weakened3.622.861.27×Ask the seller about: A spring or spring component fractured or seriously weakened
Tyre seriously damagedA tyre seriously damaged3.242.541.28×Check tyre tread depth across the full width
Lamp missing, inoperative or in the case of a…A lamp missing, inoperative or in the case of a multiple light source more than 1/2 not functioning2.532.091.21×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Rear registration plate lamp or light source…A rear registration plate lamp or light source missing or inoperative in the case of multiple lamps or light sources2.372.830.84×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the…Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the requirements2.713.590.75×Check tyre tread depth across the full width

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

Mazda 2 MOT advisories: what gets flagged

Tyres are highest at 40.6 per 100 tests; Emissions & leaks are lowest at 3.4 per 100 tests — the gap is 37.2 per 100 tests.

higher bar = flagged more oftenadvisory items per 100 initial tests

Mazda 2 MOT advisories: what gets flagged — 2024 UK MOT data
Advisory rates table
GroupAdvisories per 100
Tyres40.6
Brakes34.1
Suspension21.4
Non-component advisories9.3
Steering4.2
Emissions & leaks3.4

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

Tyres, brakes and suspension: Mazda 2 against cars of the same age

AgePartMazda 2Same age, petrol and dieselDifference
3 yearsTyres1.824.17-2.35
3 yearsBrakes1.791.770.02
3 yearsSuspension0.420.63-0.21
4 yearsTyres2.54.54-2.04
4 yearsBrakes2.222.43-0.21
4 yearsSuspension1.211.210.00
5 yearsTyres3.695.06-1.37
5 yearsBrakes2.343.09-0.75
5 yearsSuspension1.992.19-0.20
6 yearsTyres4.475.54-1.07
6 yearsBrakes2.73.81-1.11
6 yearsSuspension3.863.720.14
7 yearsTyres5.25.95-0.75
7 yearsBrakes2.854.55-1.70
7 yearsSuspension6.935.681.25
8 yearsTyres5.926.31-0.39
8 yearsBrakes3.195.38-2.19
8 yearsSuspension10.947.783.16

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.

After this year's testFails next yearVehicles followed
It failed36.7%40,129
It passed25.5%401,186

A failed test raises next year's chance of failing again by 11.2 percentage points. The failure most likely to come back is lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment — 42.1% 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 725,798 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.

Standardised forIndexReading
Age only98.8fails less often than expected
Age and annual mileage107.4fails more often than vehicles driven as much
Share doing under 3,000 miles a year10.7%a normal spread of use

This is the rare case where usage changes the answer, not just the number: once you compare these against vehicles driven as little, the car moves from one side of normal to the other. Read the mileage-matched figure, not the headline one. 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 Mazda 2 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.

AgeMazda 2Same class, same ageDifferenceTests
3 years8.54%11.32%-2.78 pp44,516
4 years12.45%14.25%-1.81 pp48,815
5 years15.2%17.43%-2.23 pp53,076
6 years17.78%20.78%-3 pp53,444
7 years20.95%24.35%-3.4 pp54,335
8 years25.31%28.17%-2.86 pp57,701
9 years30.51%32.04%-1.53 pp61,250
10 years35.35%35.6%-0.25 pp65,418
11 years38.17%38.66%-0.49 pp66,617
12 years40.28%41.26%-0.98 pp60,852
13 years42.49%43.3%-0.81 pp52,837
14 years43.76%45.05%-1.29 pp42,727
15 years45.3%46.32%-1.02 pp30,388
16 years44.45%47.36%-2.92 pp17,219
17 years42.86%47.81%-4.95 pp8,012
18 years42.36%48.01%-5.65 pp4,469
19 years43.31%47.75%-4.44 pp2,727
20 years43.08%47.37%-4.29 pp1,323

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 Mazda 2 perform as it gets older?

The 2 at age 16 stands out at 48.4%, against 43.1% for all vehicles of the same age.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

How does the Mazda 2 perform as it gets older? — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart axes: car age, years · failure-rate scale 0–52%.

Takeaway: a 10-year-old 2 has roughly a 32% chance of failing its MOT.

Data table
AgeMazda 2All vehiclesGap
38.4%12.4%-4.0 pp
49.3%13.1%-3.8 pp
511.2%15.1%-4.0 pp
613.7%17.5%-3.8 pp
715.0%20.2%-5.1 pp
819.2%23.3%-4.2 pp
922.4%26.5%-4.1 pp
1031.6%30.1%+1.4 pp
1135.7%33.2%+2.5 pp
1236.8%35.7%+1.1 pp
1340.4%38.2%+2.3 pp
1444.7%40.4%+4.3 pp
1546.3%41.6%+4.7 pp
1648.4%43.1%+5.3 pp
1742.9%43.1%-0.3 pp
1841.2%43.9%-2.7 pp
1943.8%43.5%+0.3 pp
2043.1%41.0%+2.0 pp

Is a Mazda 2 ULEZ compliant?

The share of classifiable 2024 Mazda 2 MOT tests likely ULEZ compliant by first-registration date is 96.4%.

Based on 127,095 classifiable initial MOT tests. This describes the tested fleet, not a specific car. MOT data do not record Euro class, so likely compliance is inferred from fuel and first-registration date. For the only authoritative answer, check the registration with TfL's official ULEZ checker.

higher = larger share likely compliantinferred from fuel and first-registration date; not a recorded Euro class

Age-band estimate from classifiable initial MOT tests
Vehicle age at testLikely ULEZ-compliant shareTests
Under 3 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 199
3–5 years100.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 16,352
6–7 years100.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 15,784
8 years100.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 10,071
9 years98.8%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 9,937
10–14 years98.7%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 48,738
15–17 years93.8%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 22,486
18 years93.2%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 1,226
19 years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 1,076
20+ years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 1,226

Mazda 2 petrol vs diesel: which ages best

Diesel is highest at 43.3%; Petrol is lowest at 30.2% — the gap is 13.0 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Mazda 2 petrol vs diesel: which ages best — 2024 UK MOT data
Fuel split table
FuelTests% failingGap vs best
Petrol124,06230.2%+0.0 pp
Diesel3,11443.3%+13.0 pp

Chart sample sizes: n=124k · n=3,114.

How dangerous are Mazda 2 MOT failures?

Major defects are well below the reference at 46.0 per 100 tests, against 52.8 per 100 tests nationally.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

How dangerous are Mazda 2 MOT failures? — 2024 UK MOT data
Severity table
SeverityThis family /100National /100Family / national
Minor12.7814.220.90×
Major45.9752.750.87×
Dangerous9.3911.150.84×

Chart values: Minor 12.8 · Major 46.0 · Dangerous 9.4.

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

Does the month of a Mazda 2 MOT matter?

Nov is highest at 32.0%; Mar is lowest at 27.1% — the gap is 4.9 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Does the month of a Mazda 2 MOT matter? — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart scale: 26%–34%.

bars: Mazda 2 · dashed: all class-4 cars

Month-by-month table
MonthMazda 2All vehiclesGap
Jan30.37%31.12%-0.8 pp
Feb28.44%29.99%-1.5 pp
Mar27.1%28.26%-1.2 pp
Apr30.8%29.78%+1.0 pp
May28.9%28.79%+0.1 pp
Jun28.77%28.15%+0.6 pp
Jul29.82%29.33%+0.5 pp
Aug29.36%29.2%+0.2 pp
Sep28.29%28.19%+0.1 pp
Oct31.61%30.34%+1.3 pp
Nov32.03%30.58%+1.5 pp
Dec31.09%29.33%+1.8 pp

Takeaway: the spread between best and worst month is 4.9 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.

Mazda 2 average mileage by age

At age 8, the middle half of 2s runs from 33,670 miles to 63,727 miles, against 47,628 miles as the median.

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

Bars: Mazda 2 · dashed: all class-4 cars — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart axes: car age, years · odometer scale 0–122k mi.

Does high mileage mean more Mazda 2 MOT failures at the same age?

Within the same age group, split by odometer (2024 MOTs), so this separates wear from age: at ages 10–14, 21.1% of those with under 40,000 miles failed first time versus 54.4% of those with over 140,000 miles.Inside this age group, higher mileage goes with more failures.

Does high mileage mean more Mazda 2 MOT failures at the same age? — 2024 UK MOT data
Mazda 2: first-time failure by mileage within each age group (2024)
AgeOdometer% failing95% intervalTests
3–5<40k miles9.3%8.9–9.8%14,407
3–540-70k miles15.4%13.8–17.1%1,811
3–570-100k miles18.8%12.8–26.8%117 (rough estimate)
6–9<40k miles13.2%12.7–13.8%15,717
6–940-70k miles19.6%19–20.3%14,705
6–970-100k miles26.2%25–27.5%4,517
6–9100-140k miles31.3%28.2–34.7%772
6–9140k+ miles41.3%30.9–52.6%75 (rough estimate)
10–14<40k miles21.1%20.2–22.1%6,850
10–1440-70k miles33.8%33.1–34.5%17,773
10–1470-100k miles44.4%43.6–45.2%15,767
10–14100-140k miles51.1%50–52.3%7,228
10–14140k+ miles54.4%51.5–57.3%1,117
15+<40k miles22.3%20.3–24.4%1,568
15+40-70k miles37.2%36–38.4%5,786
15+70-100k miles48%46.9–49%9,225
15+100-140k miles52.9%51.8–54%7,569
15+140k+ miles56.5%54.2–58.7%1,855

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

Mileage by age (p25 / median / p75)
Agep25Medianp75Tests
310,64116,03223,2853,766
413,55120,15128,4834,131
517,33125,44735,5798,455
622,32332,62044,6908,111
727,14939,24153,7047,673
833,67047,62863,72710,071
938,32753,48970,3259,937
1040,78256,46173,8548,419
1147,08364,07882,4148,575
1248,41667,08687,1348,846
1354,26473,36894,38910,574
1462,54083,219103,99712,328
1566,80387,931109,89912,080
1673,16794,276116,4787,762
1762,76085,480110,3452,644
1857,22676,61899,2911,226
1959,11380,699103,2111,076
20+62,10683,300107,2421,226

A typical 8-year-old 2 has ~47,628 miles on the clock. Much more — ask why; much less — check for gaps in the MOT history.

Where in Britain the Mazda 2 fails its MOT most

Kirkcaldy area is highest at 39.7%; Bromley area is lowest at 18.1% — the gap is 21.6 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Where in Britain the Mazda 2 fails its MOT most — 2024 UK MOT data
Toughest areas% failingvs model overall
Kirkcaldy (KY)39.68%+10.1 pp
Galashiels (TD)39.48%+9.9 pp
Aberdeen (AB)39.26%+9.7 pp
Sunderland (SR)39.04%+9.5 pp
Paisley (PA)38.21%+8.6 pp
Easiest areas% failingvs model overall
Bromley (BR)18.09%-11.5 pp
Watford (WD)20.64%-8.9 pp
Kingston upon Thames (KT)21.59%-8.0 pp
Ilford (IG)22.75%-6.8 pp
Croydon (CR)22.77%-6.8 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 frost days this model fails 5.8 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.53, n=113 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest mot centre density this model fails 5.9 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.51, n=113 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest road-salt proxy this model fails 6.4 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.50, n=113 areas with ≥800 tests).

Mazda 2 Why do areas differ? — 2024 UK MOT data
Values shown in the quintile chart
FactorLow QHigh QGapCorrelation
Frost days27.6%33.3%+5.7 ppr=0.53
MOT centre density25.7%31.5%+5.8 ppr=0.51
Road-salt proxy26.7%33.1%+6.4 ppr=0.50

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
CompositeBuilt fromTested againstrVerdict
Underbody corrosionfrost days × salt load ÷ (distance to coast + 1)share of tests with a corrosion defect+0.42holds (116 areas)
Tyre wearrain days × annual miles ÷ age at first tyre advisoryshare of tests failing on tyres+0.45holds (116 areas)
Overnight corrosionterraced housing × cars per household × frost daysshare with a corrosion defect+0.41holds (102 areas) — and adds signal beyond the first index
Deferred maintenancedeprivation × advisory-to-failure conversion ÷ labour ratecars repeating the same advisory−0.26fails (118 areas)
Powertrain stressengine capacity ÷ kerb weightsuspension, brake and emissions failures−0.16fails (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)
Factorrn areasLow-Q fail %High-Q fail %Gap ppLow-Q factorHigh-Q factor
Frost days (days/year)0.52511327.633.3+5.811.638
MOT centre density (per 10k vehicles)0.50911325.731.5+5.958.5
Road-salt proxy (g/m²-yr)0.50211326.733.1+6.4221.2670.1
Income deprivation (score)0.4029726.730.8+4.10.10.2
Terrain gradient (% grade)0.2906729.431.6+2.10.53.7
Urban share (0–1)-0.20811329.827.1-2.70.41
Distance to coast (km)-0.19111331.029.0-2.06.279.5

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: 23%–38% failing.

Mazda 2 survival: which cars are still on the road

By age 19 is well below the reference at 5.3%, against 100.0% at the ages 4–6 reference level.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Mazda 2 survival: which cars are still on the road — 2024 UK MOT data

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

Survival vs fail rate by age
AgeTestsSurvival vs ages 4–6Fail %
344,51686%8.54%
448,81594.3%12.45%
553,076100%15.2%
653,444100%17.78%
754,335100%20.95%
857,701100%25.31%
961,250100%30.51%
1065,418100%35.35%
1166,617100%38.17%
1260,852100%40.28%
1352,837100%42.49%
1442,72782.5%43.76%
1530,38858.7%45.3%
1617,21933.3%44.45%
178,01215.5%42.86%
184,4698.6%42.36%
192,7275.3%43.31%

By age 19, only about 5% as many cars of this family present for MOT as at ages 4–6 (reference n≈51,778); survivors still fail at 43.3% vs 12.4% at age 4. Older cars that still appear are a selected subset — weaker ones have already left.

How many miles does a Mazda 2 last?

100,000+ miles is highest at 10.7%; 200,000+ miles is lowest at 0.1% — the gap is 10.6 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

OdometerTests ≥ thresholdShare of sample
100,000+ miles77,74610.71%
150,000+ miles6,8340.94%
200,000+ miles5010.07%

Of 725,891 tests of this family with a usable odometer in 2024, 10.7% had reached 100k miles, 0.9% had reached 150k miles, 0.1% had reached 200k miles. This is a cross-section of cars still presenting for MOT, not a full birth cohort.

How many years is a Mazda 2 likely to last?

Bought at age 5 is highest at 10.5 years; Bought at age 15 is lowest at 1.6 years — the gap is 8.9 years.

bigger number = longer remaining lifeyears on the observed survival curve

Age nowTypical mileage (p50)Expected years left
5—10.5
8—7.5
10—5.5
12—3.5
15—at least 1.6

estimateEstimate only — not a warranty: a typical 10-year-old example of this family has about 5.5 expected years of further MOT-present life on the 2024 survival curve. Derived from how many cars of each age still appear for test, not from a longitudinal panel.

Mazda 2 faults that come together

Body & structure + Emissions & leaks stand out at 12.85×, against 1.00× if the faults were independent.

above 1.0× = more than expectedbelow 1.0× = less

Group AGroup BTogetherLift
Body, chassis, structureNoise, emissions and leaks2,14512.85×
Identification of the vehicleRoad Wheels2510.26× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureIdentification of the vehicle1437.22× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureRoad Wheels1336.5× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleNoise, emissions and leaks1155.79× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksRoad Wheels1175.7× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureBrakes2,5075.03×
BrakesIdentification of the vehicle2854.81× (rough estimate)
BrakesNoise, emissions and leaks2,3744.75×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentNoise, emissions and leaks5,0364.68×
Road WheelsSteering2204.65× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment5864.59×
Noise, emissions and leaksSteering1,7644.58×
Body, chassis, structureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment4,7364.42×
Body, chassis, structureSteering1,6824.38×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentRoad Wheels5654.28×
Road WheelsTyres3534.24× (rough estimate)
BrakesRoad Wheels2393.9× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleVisibility3713.86× (rough estimate)
BrakesSteering4,2793.72×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSteering9,0703.66×
Identification of the vehicleSteering1673.65× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleTyres2893.59× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsVisibility3503.52× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems533.41× (rough estimate)
SteeringSuspension10,8643.37×
Noise, emissions and leaksSuspension4,7113.37×
Road WheelsSuspension5783.37×
Body, chassis, structureSuspension4,5213.24×
Identification of the vehicleSuspension5233.15×
Noise, emissions and leaksTyres2,0953.08×
BrakesLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment9,8053.05×
Noise, emissions and leaksVisibility2,4383.01×
Body, chassis, structureTyres2,0393.01×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSuspension26,8642.99×
BrakesTyres5,9142.92×
Body, chassis, structureVisibility2,3332.89×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentVisibility15,0042.88×
BrakesSuspension11,9322.86×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentTyres12,3912.84×
SteeringTyres4,4252.83×
Body, chassis, structureSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems3512.69× (rough estimate)
TyresVisibility8,6562.63×
BrakesVisibility6,1912.56×
BrakesSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems9652.47×
SuspensionTyres13,9402.46×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsVisibility1,5242.4×
SteeringVisibility4,4672.39×
Noise, emissions and leaksSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems3012.3× (rough estimate)
SuspensionVisibility15,2962.26×
Road WheelsSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems352.18× (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsTyres9041.7×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1,3971.66×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSuspension1,4971.37×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSteering3841.27× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belt installation check12too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkSuspension11too few (rough estimate)
BrakesSeat belt installation check9too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkTyres8too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkVisibility8too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkSteering5too few (rough estimate)

Defects in «Body, chassis, structure» and «Noise, emissions and leaks» appear together 12.85× more often than chance (2,145 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 Mazda 2?

Cars driven under 5,000 miles a year is well below the reference at 22.0%, against 39.6% for cars driven 8,000–12,000 miles a year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

BandFail %Tests
<5k miles/year22%194,281
8–12k miles/year39.59%115,715
Gap (low − normal)-17.6 pp—
By fuel and age

Diesel

AgeLow-use fail %nNormal fail %nGap pp
515.387821.09313-5.7 pp
622.898323.05308-0.16 pp
720.419827.98386-7.57 pp
824.0913730.05549-5.97 pp
923.538541.92427-18.39 pp
1024.7722248.91918-24.14 pp
1131.9731952.621,279-20.64 pp
1232.5337553.581,258-21.04 pp
1335.1841556.281,098-21.1 pp
1433.3343554.6859-21.27 pp

Petrol

AgeLow-use fail %nNormal fail %nGap pp
511.3420,47019.5410,115-8.2 pp
613.2819,24222.6110,802-9.32 pp
715.0619,14927.5610,968-12.5 pp
817.2219,92833.5711,459-16.35 pp
921.0820,52040.7912,568-19.72 pp
1024.3321,23345.813,026-21.47 pp
1126.8520,72848.4412,958-21.59 pp
1228.519,45650.5611,063-22.06 pp
1331.1717,18952.348,876-21.17 pp
1432.6414,11953.196,471-20.55 pp

At matched ages 5–14, cars averaging under 5k miles/year fail at 22.0% vs 39.6% for 8–12k miles/year — 17.6 pp lower (n_low=194,281, n_normal=115,715). In this family low annual use is associated with fewer MOT fails, not more — the ‘garage queen’ penalty is not visible in overall fail rates.

Which Mazda 2 engine is best?

diesel 1.5–1.8 is highest at 122.1; petrol 1.0–1.2 is lowest at 98.1 — the gap is 24.0 points.

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

Engine bands against this model's own failure rate at the same ages
FuelCapacityvs own age normRaw fail %Tests
petrol1.0–1.2 litre98.142.19%1,408 (rough estimate)
petrol1.2–1.5 litre99.229.02%697,512
petrol1.5–1.8 litre102.339.53%3,337 (rough estimate)
diesel1.2–1.5 litre11742.56%20,675
diesel1.5–1.8 litre122.143.92%4,342 (rough estimate)

Splitting this model by fuel alone hides the thing that actually differs. Within the same badge, the diesel 1.2–1.5 runs at 117 against this model's own age norm while the petrol 1.2–1.5 runs at 99.2 — a spread of 17.8 points between two cars that share a name.

Read this one with more care than the rest of the page. Age is held constant, but who buys which engine is not: the largest capacity in a range is often a performance or executive variant that is garaged, cherished and lightly driven, while the smallest is frequently a fleet or entry car worked hard from new. The gap below is real in the test records; how much of it is the engine and how much is the owner, this data cannot separate. Bands under 100 tests are not shown; bands under 5,000 tests are rough estimates.

Best year for a Mazda 2, and the years to avoid

Build year 2008 is highest at 106.3; Build year 2019 is lowest at 77.3 — the gap is 29.0 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

Mazda 2 build year vs the same model at the same age · 100 = as expected — 2024 UK MOT data
Mazda 2 by build year, tests 2019–2024. Below 100 is better than the model's own age norm.
Every build year with its confidence interval
Build yearvs own age norm95% CIRaw fail %TestsVerdict
202084.778.5–918.61%8,297better
201977.374.1–80.49.01%25,533better
201880.878.1–83.510.59%32,651better
201782.980.5–85.211.95%39,956better
2016103.2101.2–105.116.98%61,095worse
2015100.698.8–102.420.25%60,156no different
20149694.3–97.822.95%51,132better
2013102.8101.2–104.528.47%52,160worse
2012100.999.4–102.431.7%54,479no different
2011103101.7–104.336.08%65,941worse
2010104.5103.3–105.639.84%79,098worse
2009103.1102–104.241.91%81,240worse
2008106.3105–107.644.89%55,739worse
20079391–95.140.21%20,552better
200692.389.6–9540.57%11,287better
20059693.1–98.842.52%10,194better
200496.693.6–99.742.93%8,814better
200394.790–99.541.8%3,617better

The best build year here is 2019 and the weakest is 2008. 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 — 15 of 18 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.

Mazda 2 MOT repair costs

The MOT-failure repair budget per test runs from £73.03 to £138.76, against £54.85 for the test itself.

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

MOT repairs, budget
£73–139
per test, repairs only
The test itself
£54.85
statutory cap, unchanged since 2010
How the figure is built: chance of failing × typical price of that repair
ComponentFails per 100 testsTypical repairIts priceContribution
Suspension17.5 (nat. 15.36)Suspension coil spring (single corner)£180£31.50
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment15.8 (nat. 18.09)Battery replacement (standard 12V lead-acid)£140£22.12
Brakes7.9 (nat. 11.25)Front brake pads (parts + labour, typical hatchback)£150£11.85
Tyres8.4 (nat. 8.7)Tyre (single mid-range 16" fitted)£90£7.56

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 £73 to £139, 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.

Mazda 2 running costs for a fleet

Vehicles failing at age 10 stand out at 32.0%, against 11.0% at age 5, tested in the same year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fails per 100 at age 5
11
vehicles needing work
At age 10
32
other cars of this model tested at age 10 in 2024
Repairs per 100
£7,303
plus £5,485 in test fees
Off the road
0d
median; 50.68% cleared same day
Failure rate and typical odometer by age
AgeFailsMedian odometerTestsGap vs age 5
38.39%16,0323,766-2.8 pp
49.27%20,1514,131-1.9 pp
511.18%25,4478,455+0.0 pp
613.67%32,6208,111+2.5 pp
715.04%39,2417,673+3.9 pp
819.18%47,62810,071+8.0 pp
922.43%53,4899,937+11.3 pp
1031.55%56,4618,419+20.4 pp
1135.7%64,0788,575+24.5 pp
1236.8%67,0868,846+25.6 pp
1340.44%73,36810,574+29.3 pp
1444.72%83,21912,328+33.5 pp
1546.29%87,93112,080+35.1 pp
1648.43%94,2767,762+37.3 pp
1742.85%85,4802,644+31.7 pp
1841.19%76,6181,226+30.0 pp
1943.77%80,6991,076+32.6 pp

The number a fleet manager needs is not the failure rate, it is the year the car starts costing more. Between cars aged 9 and cars aged 10, both tested in 2024, the failure rate of this model is 9.12 percentage points higher — the steepest one-year step in this cross-section of different cars, and a natural planning point for replacement.

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.

Mazda 2 rust problems: where they corrode

Age-standardised corrosion susceptibility stands out at 2.69×, against 1.00× for the national age-standardised rate.

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

How it rusts
2.69×
2.06% of tests record a corrosion defect vs 0.77% typical — age-standardised
Salt Belt exposure
85th
percentile among the models published here, from its tests across 113 postcode areas

This Mazda 2 fails on corrosion far more often than average once age is held constant, and its owners live in areas that are saltier than most for the models we publish.

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 Mazda 2 advisory become a failure?

Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment are highest at 31.7%; Identification of the vehicle is lowest at 3.2% — the gap is 28.5 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

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

Mazda 2 chance the same component fails at the next MOT, given an advisory now — 2024 UK MOT data
Mazda 2, advisory → failure conversion by component group, chained tests 2019–2024. Chart labels and rates: Lamps & electrical 31.7% · Suspension 25.4% · Steering 16.5% · Visibility 11.9% · Brakes 10.1% · Tyres 9.6% · Body & chassis 7.7% · Noise, emissions, leaks 5.8%.
Advisory today → failure at the next test, with how long you have
ComponentFails next timeTypical lead timeMiles of warningAdvisories tracked
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment31.7%12 months5,32610,057
Suspension25.4%12 months5,03069,676
Steering16.5%12 months5,34320,893
Visibility11.9%12 months5,992691
Brakes10.1%12 months4,491105,457
Tyres9.6%12 months5,478137,891
Body, chassis, structure7.7%12 months4,8669,649
Noise, emissions and leaks5.8%12 months5,16817,568
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems3.8%12 months5,0901,705
Identification of the vehicle3.2%12 months4,9957,571

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 32 in 100 cars, and the median gap is 12 months and roughly 5,326 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 Mazda 2?

Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment after a failure at age 15-19 are highest at 31.0%; Tyres after a passed at age <3 are lowest at 1.7% — the gap is 29.3 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

Probability of each component failing at the next test, by age and last result
AgeLast testMost likely next failuresCars tracked
<3passedVisibility 3.9% · Brakes 1.8% · Tyres 1.7%24,776
<3advisoryVisibility 5.4% · Tyres 3.3% · Brakes 2.8%4,915
<3failureVisibility 5.8% · Tyres 3.0% · Brakes 2.8%2,599
3-5passedVisibility 4.7% · Tyres 2.8% · Suspension 2.6%78,328
3-5advisoryVisibility 7.0% · Tyres 5.1% · Suspension 4.2%30,643
3-5failureVisibility 7.2% · Tyres 5.8% · Suspension 4.6%18,580
6-8passedSuspension 9.4% · Visibility 5.1% · Tyres 4.4%64,304
6-8advisorySuspension 13.7% · Visibility 7.7% · Tyres 7.0%40,743
6-8failureSuspension 16.8% · Tyres 8.5% · Visibility 8.2%34,905
9-11passedSuspension 14.5% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 9.7% · Visibility 6.1%53,789
9-11advisorySuspension 20.6% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 14.6% · Visibility 8.9%48,652
9-11failureSuspension 23.6% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 19.2% · Visibility 10.4%59,870
12-14passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 16.5% · Suspension 15.0% · Visibility 7.2%26,310
12-14advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 23.6% · Suspension 20.7% · Visibility 10.4%31,550
12-14failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 29.5% · Suspension 24.8% · Visibility 12.3%42,610
15-19passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 15.4% · Suspension 13.9% · Visibility 7.4%6,016
15-19advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 22.7% · Suspension 19.7% · Visibility 10.8%8,324
15-19failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 31.0% · Suspension 23.4% · Brakes 13.9%10,383
20+passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 17.1% · Suspension 17.1% · Visibility 12.2%41 (rough estimate)
20+advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 19.0% · Suspension 17.2% · Brakes 15.5%58 (rough estimate)
20+failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 24.1% · Suspension 20.7% · Visibility 12.6%87 (rough estimate)

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.

Mazda 2 ownership: what six years of MOTs show

The same-day re-test pass rate is highest at 50.7%; The later re-test pass rate is lowest at 2.0% — the gap is 48.7 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fixed same day
50.68%
of failures re-tested
Fails /10k miles
0.579
miles actually driven
Clean streaks
39.26%
3+ tests, nothing noted
Odometer anomaly
0.627%
reading went backwards

Failing is usually a same-week event, not a disaster. Of 162,015 failures followed through to their re-test, 50.68% were repaired and passed the same day and 47.29% within ten days; the median gap is 0 days. 373,801 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 0.579 failures per 10,000 miles, on a median of 4,415 miles a year across 135,832 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. 39.26% of these cars strung together three or more tests with nothing recorded at all, while 31.9% 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: 0.627% of 135,856 chains show a reading lower than the previous test, with a median drop of 11,525 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.

Mazda 2 safety recalls and how to check yours

DVSA recall campaigns stand out at 4.

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

Most recent safety recall campaigns for the Mazda 2
ReferenceLaunchedVehiclesConcern
R/2017/15031/05/201795,172MOUNTING POINTS FOR SEAT RUNNER MAY FAIL
R/2016/18631/08/20161,489FUEL MAY LEAK
R/2017/05431/08/20161,489FUEL MAY LEAK
R/2016/14330/06/201699STEERING MAY FAIL

DVSA lists 4 safety recall campaigns for the Mazda 2, covering roughly 98,249 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.

Mazda 2 inspection results in other countries

Netherlands APK stands out at 55.4%, against 50.8% nationally.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Same model, different national inspection regimes
CountryTestThis model failsNational averagePositionSample
United KingdomMOT (class 4)30.56%26.01%+4.5 pp127,191
NetherlandsAPK55.4%50.8%+4.6 pp19,093
FinlandKatsastus28.3%26.3%+2 pp2,668
NorwayPKK37.9%33.7%+4.2 pp2,324

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.

The exact faults Netherlands records — APK defect codes, 2024
CodeFaultRecordedType
210Tyre pressure not at the correct value4,090failure
205Tyre with insufficient tread2,053failure
497Number-plate light not working or missing1,530failure
391Wipers leave insufficient visibility1,516failure
522Dipped-beam cut-off line unclear1,450failure
584Sidelight not working properly1,436failure
516Dipped headlight incorrectly aimed1,403failure
186Ball joint with excessive play1,221failure

Worth dwelling on how mundane the top of that list is: tyre pressure, tread depth, headlight aim. The Dutch APK records 1.368 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 Mazda 2 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; Statens vegvesen — Periodisk kjøretøykontroll (PKK) 2024, CC BY 4.0. Adapted; licences and full notice.

Mazda 2 MOT: quick answers

Mazda 2 MOT Risk Index is close to the reference at 100, 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 Mazda 2 first-time MOT pass rate?
69.44% of first attempts passed in 2024 (127,191 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 30.56% figure is the first-time initial failure rate, using 127,191 primary tests as the denominator (first-time, excluding retests). The age-adjusted MOT initial-failure ratio 100.0 is shown separately because raw rates compare fleet age as well as cars.

Compare the Mazda 2 with other cars

Mazda 2 is highest at 100; Ford Mondeo is lowest at 98.8 — the gap is 1.2 points.

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

Same brand

All Mazda MOT statistics

Similar risk

Skoda Fabia (index 99.8)Ford Mondeo (index 98.8)Hyundai i20 (index 98.8)

Same size class

how Audi A6 compareshow Audi A5 compareshow Hyundai i20 compares

By build year

Mazda 2 2003Mazda 2 2004Mazda 2 2005Mazda 2 2006Mazda 2 2007Mazda 2 2008Mazda 2 2009Mazda 2 2010Mazda 2 2011Mazda 2 2012Mazda 2 2013Mazda 2 2014Mazda 2 2015Mazda 2 2016Mazda 2 2017Mazda 2 2018Mazda 2 2019Mazda 2 2020

By area

Mazda 2 MOT failure rate by postcode area

By failure group

Mazda 2 body, chassis and structure failuresMazda 2 brakes failuresMazda 2 vehicle identification failuresMazda 2 lamps, reflectors and electrics failuresMazda 2 noise, emissions and leaks failuresMazda 2 road wheels failuresMazda 2 seat belts and airbags failuresMazda 2 steering failuresMazda 2 suspension failuresMazda 2 tyres failuresMazda 2 visibility failures

Inspections abroad

Mazda 2 in NorwayMazda 2 in FinlandMazda 2 in the Netherlands


Data details & how to cite

Scope: class-4 vehicles (cars), initial tests only, outcomes pass / fail / fixed-on-the-spot at the station (PRS counts towards the failure rate — the defect was present at arrival). Index = observed initial failures ÷ failures expected for this fleet's exact age profile, ×100; margin of error is a 95% confidence interval. Covers ALL generations together — a 3-year-old and a 15-year-old are very different cars; a generation split is on the roadmap. Dataset release dataset_release_id=dvsa-2024-v2, frozen baseline; headline claim_id=family-stats:mazda-2:dvsa-2024-v2. Full method: methodology.

Cite: MOT Risk Index (2026). Mazda 2 MOT statistics 2024 (data release dvsa-2024-v2; downloadable dataset motriskindex-families-2024-v5, doi:10.5281/zenodo.22975051). https://motriskindex.co.uk/cars/mazda-2/ · Published 2026-07-30.