MOT Risk Index.co.uk

Mitsubishi Pajero — MOT statistics 2024

The Mitsubishi Pajero failed 33.39% of 1,770 first MOT attempts in 2024 ("first-time", excluding retests). Adjusted for the age of the fleet, its initial-failure ratio is 84.3 (100 = expected for its age profile). This car fails its MOT about 16% less often than expected for its age. Small sample — treat with care.

MOT risk index 84.3, 95% CI 78.8–89.9 (100 = national average) 100 84.3 0 200
Index
84.3
100 = age-normal
Raw fail rate
33.39%
n = 1,770
Dangerous /100
12
national ≈11
Rank
303 of 761
lower index = better

Age-adjusted peer: Land Rover Discovery (index 84.1) — the two published results are 0.2 index points apart.

Mitsubishi Pajero common problems: what actually fails the MOT

Body, chassis, structure stand out at 33.7 per 100 tests, against 15.2 per 100 tests across UK vehicles of the same ages.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

Mitsubishi Pajero 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
Body & structure33.75,58415.22.22×2.16–2.28
Lamps & electrical31.95,27834.00.94×0.91–0.96
Suspension29.74,91826.41.12×1.09–1.16
Brakes24.44,04022.31.09×1.06–1.13
Steering12.01,9816.71.78×1.70–1.86
Visibility11.01,82312.00.92×0.88–0.96
Named defects — items per 100 initial tests, this family vs UK national average; this model measured on 16,563 tests, 2019-2024, national column 2024
What failedper 100 tests (this family)per 100 tests (UK average)ratio family / UKWhat to check
Body, cab or chassis excessively corroded at a…Body, cab or chassis excessively corroded at a mounting point8.660.2633.44×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Strength or continuity of the load bearing…The strength or continuity of the load bearing structure within 30cm of any seat belt anchorage (a 'prescribed area') is significantly reduced or inadequately repaired7.900.3820.90×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Brake pipe damaged or excessively corrodedBrake pipe damaged or excessively corroded7.661.415.45×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Strength or continuity of the load bearing…The strength or continuity of the load bearing structure within 30cm of any sub-frame, spring or suspension component mounting (a 'prescribed area') is significantly reduced or inadequately repaired6.971.126.23×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Obligatory rear fog lamp missing, or a front or…An obligatory rear fog lamp missing, or a front or rear fog lamp inoperative or in the case of a multiple light source more than 1/2 not functioning6.010.4314.11×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Vehicle structure corroded to the extent that the…Vehicle structure corroded to the extent that the rigidity of the assembly is seriously reduced5.520.3914.26×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Exhaust system leaking or insecureExhaust system leaking or insecure5.161.164.45×Watch for smoke on a cold start — emissions failures are costly
Suspension pin, bush or joint excessively wornA suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn8.154.871.67×Listen for knocks over bumps — worn joints show up on the test
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 sources6.002.832.12×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Suspension joint dust cover severely deterioratedA suspension joint dust cover severely deteriorated4.761.902.50×Listen for knocks over bumps — worn joints show up on the test

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

Mitsubishi Pajero MOT advisories: what gets flagged

Brakes are highest at 65.5 per 100 tests; Non-component advisories are lowest at 13.0 per 100 tests — the gap is 52.5 per 100 tests.

higher bar = flagged more oftenadvisory items per 100 initial tests

Mitsubishi Pajero MOT advisories: what gets flagged — 2024 UK MOT data
Advisory rates table
GroupAdvisories per 100
Brakes65.5
Suspension65.4
Body & structure32
Emissions & leaks24
Tyres20.4
Non-component advisories13

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

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 failed29.9%1,414
It passed28.8%6,391

A failed test does not clearly change next year's odds here (29.9% against 28.8%): the difference is within the margin of error. The failure most likely to come back is noise, emissions and leaks — 29.3% 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 16,347 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 only93.8fails less often than expected
Age and annual mileage84.5fails less often than vehicles driven as much
Share doing under 3,000 miles a year2.9%a normal spread of use

Mileage matters here: matching on how much these are driven moves the figure by 9.3 points — this fleet works harder than the vehicles it is measured against, so the age-only view penalises 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 Mitsubishi Pajero 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.

AgeMitsubishi PajeroSame class, same ageDifferenceTests
14 years39.53%34.58%+4.95 pp215
15 years34.46%36.04%-1.58 pp444
16 years35.33%37.09%-1.75 pp866
17 years33.94%37.47%-3.53 pp1,264
18 years34.52%37.85%-3.33 pp1,437
19 years34.96%37.45%-2.49 pp1,270
20 years38.85%36.96%+1.89 pp991

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 Mitsubishi Pajero perform as it gets older?

The Pajero at age 19 is well below the reference at 30.6%, against 43.5% for all vehicles of the same age.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

How does the Mitsubishi Pajero perform as it gets older? — 2024 UK MOT data

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

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

Data table
AgeMitsubishi PajeroAll vehiclesGap
1834.1%43.9%-9.8 pp
1930.6%43.5%-12.9 pp
2034.8%41.0%-6.3 pp

Is a Mitsubishi Pajero ULEZ compliant?

The share of classifiable 2024 Mitsubishi Pajero MOT tests likely ULEZ compliant by first-registration date is 12.7%.

Based on 1,644 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 = 2
3–5 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 38
6–7 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 46
8 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 21
9 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 7
10–14 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 51
15–17 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 109
18 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 138
19 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 252
20+ years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 980

How dangerous are Mitsubishi Pajero MOT failures?

Major defects stand out at 118.7 per 100 tests, against 52.8 per 100 tests nationally.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

How dangerous are Mitsubishi Pajero MOT failures? — 2024 UK MOT data
Severity table
SeverityThis family /100National /100Family / national
Minor31.1214.222.19×
Major118.7352.752.25×
Dangerous12.1911.151.09×

Chart values: Minor 31.1 · Major 118.7 · Dangerous 12.2.

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

Does the month of a Mitsubishi Pajero MOT matter?

Jun is highest at 39.6%; Dec is lowest at 32.0% — the gap is 7.5 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Does the month of a Mitsubishi Pajero MOT matter? — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart scale: 27%–41%.

bars: Mitsubishi Pajero · dashed: all class-4 cars

Month-by-month table
MonthMitsubishi PajeroAll vehiclesGap
Jan36.61%31.12%+5.5 pp
Feb35.16%29.99%+5.2 pp
Mar37.17%28.26%+8.9 pp
Apr38.35%29.78%+8.6 pp
May36.7%28.79%+7.9 pp
Jun39.57%28.15%+11.4 pp
Jul36.85%29.33%+7.5 pp
Aug33.85%29.2%+4.7 pp
Sep36.66%28.19%+8.5 pp
Oct35.05%30.34%+4.7 pp
Nov35.59%30.58%+5.0 pp
Dec32.03%29.33%+2.7 pp

Takeaway: the spread between best and worst month is 7.5 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.

Mitsubishi Pajero average mileage by age

At age 19, the middle half of Pajeros runs from 113,889 miles to 184,765 miles, against 140,905 miles as the median.

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

Does high mileage mean more Mitsubishi Pajero MOT failures at the same age?

Within the same age group, split by odometer (2024 MOTs), so this separates wear from age: at ages 15+, 21.2% of those with 40,000–70,000 miles failed first time versus 38.5% of those with over 140,000 miles.Inside this age group, higher mileage goes with more failures.

Does high mileage mean more Mitsubishi Pajero MOT failures at the same age? — 2024 UK MOT data
Mitsubishi Pajero: first-time failure by mileage within each age group (2024)
AgeOdometer% failing95% intervalTests
15+40-70k miles21.2%13.7–31.4%80 (rough estimate)
15+70-100k miles24.7%19.1–31.3%190 (rough estimate)
15+100-140k miles33.1%29–37.4%472 (rough estimate)
15+140k+ miles38.5%35–42.1%720

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

Mileage by age (p25 / median / p75)
Agep25Medianp75Tests
18103,491133,210175,699138
19113,889140,905184,765252
20+112,049140,186182,781981

A typical 19-year-old Pajero has ~140,905 miles on the clock. Much more — ask why; much less — check for gaps in the MOT history.

Where in Britain the Mitsubishi Pajero fails its MOT most

Taunton area is highest at 55.5%; Wolverhampton area is lowest at 13.8% — the gap is 41.6 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Mitsubishi Pajero line: median · band: middle half of the fleet (p25–p75) — 2024 UK MOT data
Toughest areas% failingvs model overall
Taunton (TA)55.46%+19.5 pp
Exeter (EX)52.41%+16.4 pp
Dorchester (DT)51.45%+15.4 pp
Plymouth (PL)49.82%+13.8 pp
Brighton (BN)49.78%+13.8 pp
Easiest areas% failingvs model overall
Wolverhampton (WV)13.82%-22.2 pp
Leeds (LS)16.41%-19.6 pp
Romford (RM)21.99%-14.0 pp
Wakefield (WF)24.51%-11.5 pp
Bradford (BD)24.66%-11.3 pp

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: 25%–52% failing.

Mitsubishi Pajero survival: which cars are still on the road

By age 19 is close to the reference at 100.0%, against 100.0% at the ages 4–6 reference level.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Mitsubishi Pajero 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 %
38185.9%28.4%
48286.9%24.39%
59095.4%22.22%
6111100%20.72%
78590.1%30.59%
86366.8%28.57%
115457.2%35.19%
127175.3%28.17%
13123100%38.21%
14215100%39.53%
15444100%34.46%
16866100%35.33%
171,264100%33.94%
181,437100%34.52%
191,270100%34.96%

Ages 4–6 average 94 tests, too few for an 'only X% as many' claim. The rows are the counts of cars still coming to an MOT.

How many miles does a Mitsubishi Pajero last?

100,000+ miles is highest at 83.7%; 200,000+ miles is lowest at 22.4% — the gap is 61.3 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

OdometerTests ≥ thresholdShare of sample
100,000+ miles13,82683.71%
150,000+ miles8,44951.16%
200,000+ miles3,69922.4%

Of 16,516 tests of this family with a usable odometer in 2024, 83.7% had reached 100k miles, 51.2% had reached 150k miles, 22.4% 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 Mitsubishi Pajero likely to last?

Bought at age 8 is highest at 14.8 years; Bought at age 15 is lowest at 4.5 years — the gap is 10.3 years.

bigger number = longer remaining lifeyears on the observed survival curve

Age nowTypical mileage (p50)Expected years left
5—at least 13.2
8—at least 14.8
12—at least 9.8
15—at least 4.5

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.

Mitsubishi Pajero faults that come together

Emissions & leaks + Tyres stand out at 3.98×, against 1.00× if the faults were independent.

above 1.0× = more than expectedbelow 1.0× = less

Group AGroup BTogetherLift
Noise, emissions and leaksTyres703.98× (rough estimate)
BrakesRoad Wheels223.63× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSuspension253.53× (rough estimate)
BrakesIdentification of the vehicle533.4× (rough estimate)
BrakesSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems3383.35× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSteering343.32× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment793.3× (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsTyres553.29× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1273.25× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureRoad Wheels283.25× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSuspension593.23× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureNoise, emissions and leaks4813.18× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleVisibility343.15× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentRoad Wheels293.12× (rough estimate)
BrakesNoise, emissions and leaks3303.1× (rough estimate)
BrakesTyres1403.08× (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSuspension3633.07× (rough estimate)
SuspensionTyres1572.95× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSteering2032.91× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSuspension3592.88× (rough estimate)
SteeringTyres862.88× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems4122.87× (rough estimate)
BrakesSuspension9022.8×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsVisibility1952.79× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentTyres1932.77× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureBrakes1,0662.73×
SteeringSuspension5742.72×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentNoise, emissions and leaks4382.68× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureIdentification of the vehicle592.66× (rough estimate)
BrakesLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment1,1032.62×
BrakesSteering4722.62× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksVisibility1922.6× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems3992.57× (rough estimate)
TyresVisibility802.54× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSuspension1,1502.51×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSteering1632.46× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentVisibility7022.4×
Body, chassis, structureTyres1542.38× (rough estimate)
BrakesVisibility4432.33× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment1,3832.3×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSteering6362.3×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSuspension1,1162.26×
Body, chassis, structureSteering5732.23×
Body, chassis, structureVisibility5932.19×
SteeringVisibility2732.18× (rough estimate)
SuspensionVisibility4642.08× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSteering17too few (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems14too few (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleNoise, emissions and leaks14too few (rough estimate)
Road WheelsVisibility12too few (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksRoad Wheels11too few (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSpeedometer and speed limiter11too few (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSpeedometer and speed limiter10too few (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleTyres9too few (rough estimate)
Speedometer and speed limiterSuspension8too few (rough estimate)
Speedometer and speed limiterSteering5too few (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems5too few (rough estimate)

Defects in «Brakes» and «Suspension» appear together 2.80× more often than chance (902 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).

Which Mitsubishi Pajero engine is best?

petrol 1.0–1.2 is highest at 115.6; petrol over 2.0 is lowest at 82.1 — the gap is 33.5 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
petrolover 2.0 litre82.127.21%1,584 (rough estimate)
petrolunder 1.0 litre87.229.22%219 (rough estimate)
dieselover 2.0 litre101.436.92%13,812
petrol1.8–2.0 litre109.235.34%133 (rough estimate)
petrol1.0–1.2 litre115.641.94%465 (rough estimate)

Splitting this model by fuel alone hides the thing that actually differs. Within the same badge, the petrol 1.0–1.2 runs at 115.6 against this model's own age norm while the petrol over 2.0 runs at 82.1 — a spread of 33.5 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.

Mitsubishi Pajero MOT repair costs

The MOT-failure repair budget per test runs from £134.72 to £255.97, against £54.85 for the test itself.

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

MOT repairs, budget
£135–256
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
Suspension29.7 (nat. 15.36)Suspension coil spring (single corner)£180£53.46
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment31.9 (nat. 18.09)Battery replacement (standard 12V lead-acid)£140£44.66
Brakes24.4 (nat. 11.25)Front brake pads (parts + labour, typical hatchback)£150£36.60

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 £135 to £256, 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.

Mitsubishi Pajero running costs for a fleet

Vehicles failing at age 19 are well below the reference at 31.0%, against 34.0% at age 18, tested in the same year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fails per 100 at age 18
34
vehicles needing work (rough estimate: 138 tests)
At age 19
31
other cars of this model tested at age 19 in 2024 (rough estimate: 252 tests)
Repairs per 100
£13,472
plus £5,485 in test fees
Off the road
4d
median; 16.13% cleared same day
Failure rate and typical odometer by age
AgeFailsMedian odometerTestsGap vs age 5
1834.06%133,210138—
1930.56%140,905252—

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.

Mitsubishi Pajero rust problems: where they corrode

Age-standardised corrosion susceptibility stands out at 3.93×, against 1.00× for the national age-standardised rate.

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

How it rusts
3.93×
3.01% of tests record a corrosion defect vs 0.77% typical — age-standardised
Salt Belt exposure
45th
percentile among the models published here, from its tests across 0 postcode areas

This Mitsubishi Pajero fails on corrosion far more often than average once age is held constant, and its owners live in areas that are about typical for the models we publish. Those two point in opposite directions, which is the informative case: it rusts more than average despite living in gentler places, so the cause is the car, not the postcode.

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 Mitsubishi Pajero advisory become a failure?

Body, chassis, structure are highest at 25.0%; Non-component advisories are lowest at 0.0% — the gap is 25.0 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

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

Mitsubishi Pajero chance the same component fails at the next MOT, given an advisory now — 2024 UK MOT data
Mitsubishi Pajero, advisory → failure conversion by component group, chained tests 2019–2024. Chart labels and rates: Body & chassis 25% · Suspension 19.2% · Brakes 16.2% · Steering 14% · Noise, emissions, leaks 6.5% · Tyres 5.5% · Non-component 0%.
Advisory today → failure at the next test, with how long you have
ComponentFails next timeTypical lead timeMiles of warningAdvisories tracked
Body, chassis, structure25.0%12.1 months2,9382,259
Suspension19.2%12.1 months3,5413,676
Brakes16.2%12.2 months2,9103,986
Steering14.0%12.1 months3,2321,048
Noise, emissions and leaks6.5%12.1 months3,6602,543
Tyres5.5%12.1 months2,2601,339
Non-component advisories0.0%——1,318

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 25 in 100 cars, and the median gap is 12.1 months and roughly 2,938 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 Mitsubishi Pajero?

Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment after a failure at age 20+ are highest at 25.0%; Suspension after a passed at age 3-5 is lowest at 4.4% — the gap is 20.5 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
<3passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 12.9%62 (rough estimate)
3-5passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 13.3% · Suspension 4.4%113 (rough estimate)
3-5advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 16.1%56 (rough estimate)
3-5failureBrakes 14.9% · Noise, emissions and leaks 12.8% · Suspension 10.6%47 (rough estimate)
6-8passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 9.7%72 (rough estimate)
9-11passedSteering 11.4%44 (rough estimate)
12-14passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 13.2% · Brakes 6.3% · Suspension 5.6%144 (rough estimate)
12-14advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 24.7% · Body, chassis, structure 15.8% · Brakes 11.6%146 (rough estimate)
12-14failureBody, chassis, structure 20.5% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.6% · Suspension 18.0%161 (rough estimate)
15-19passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 13.2% · Body, chassis, structure 12.0% · Suspension 8.8%1,073
15-19advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.8% · Body, chassis, structure 18.2% · Suspension 15.7%1,508
15-19failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 23.1% · Body, chassis, structure 21.4% · Suspension 18.8%1,414
20+passedBody, chassis, structure 12.2% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 12.0% · Suspension 8.9%1,909
20+advisoryBody, chassis, structure 19.8% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.9% · Suspension 15.3%2,424
20+failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 24.9% · Body, chassis, structure 22.5% · Suspension 18.8%2,529

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.

Mitsubishi Pajero ownership: what six years of MOTs show

The ten-day re-test pass rate is highest at 71.4%; The later re-test pass rate is lowest at 12.5% — the gap is 58.9 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fixed same day
16.13%
of failures re-tested
Fails /10k miles
0.714
miles actually driven
Clean streaks
21.25%
3+ tests, nothing noted
Odometer anomaly
26.082%
reading went backwards

Failing is usually a same-week event, not a disaster. Of 3,689 failures followed through to their re-test, 16.13% were repaired and passed the same day and 71.37% within ten days; the median gap is 4 days. 13,075 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 0.714 failures per 10,000 miles, on a median of 2,492 miles a year across 3,554 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. 21.25% of these cars strung together three or more tests with nothing recorded at all, while 47.93% 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: 26.082% of 3,650 chains show a reading lower than the previous test, with a median drop of 64,845 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.

Mitsubishi Pajero safety recalls and how to check yours

DVSA recall campaigns stand out at 2.

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

Most recent safety recall campaigns for the Mitsubishi Pajero
ReferenceLaunchedVehiclesConcern
R/2021/24025/07/202119,699THE AIR BAG INFLATOR MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE THAN DESIGNED P
R/2021/24025/07/202119,699THE AIR BAG INFLATOR MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE THAN DESIGNED P

DVSA lists 2 safety recall campaigns for the Mitsubishi Pajero, covering roughly 39,398 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.

Mitsubishi Pajero inspection results in other countries

Netherlands APK stands out at 65.9%, 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)33.39%26.01%+7.4 pp1,770
NorwayPKK44%33.7%+10.3 pp4,143
NetherlandsAPK65.9%50.8%+15.1 pp817
FinlandKatsastus35%26.3%+8.7 pp609

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.

What Finland fails it for — share of recorded faults
Fault areaShare
Axles, wheels and suspension33.8%
Chassis and body20.6%
Brake systems19.6%
Steering equipment12.1%
Environmental hazards6.6%

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.

The exact faults Netherlands records — APK defect codes, 2024
CodeFaultRecordedType
210Tyre pressure not at the correct value150failure
497Number-plate light not working or missing88failure
RA2Excessive leak of other fluids84advisory
205Tyre with insufficient tread83failure
AC4Steering or suspension ball joint worn up to 1.0 mm79advisory
516Dipped headlight incorrectly aimed73failure
289Schijf-, trommelrem loopt niet vrij73failure
115Exhaust not gas-tight or venting unsafely69failure

Worth dwelling on how mundane the top of that list is: tyre pressure, tread depth, headlight aim. The Dutch APK records 2.035 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 Mitsubishi Pajero 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.

One caveat before you read the UK row: these are raw failure rates, because no other country publishes the age detail our index needs. This model's raw UK rate looks worse than the national average while its age-adjusted index is 84.3 — the fleet here is unusually old, and the raw column silently credits that. The index above is the fair comparison; this table is for reading each country against itself.

Rows with fewer than 500 inspections are not published. Sources: Statens vegvesen — Periodisk kjøretøykontroll (PKK) 2024, CC BY 4.0; 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.

Mitsubishi Pajero MOT: quick answers

Mitsubishi Pajero MOT Risk Index is well below the reference at 84.3, 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 Mitsubishi Pajero first-time MOT pass rate?
66.61% of first attempts passed in 2024 (1,770 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 33.39% figure is the first-time initial failure rate, using 1,770 primary tests as the denominator (first-time, excluding retests). The age-adjusted MOT initial-failure ratio 84.3 is shown separately because raw rates compare fleet age as well as cars.

Compare the Mitsubishi Pajero with other cars

Audi A3 is highest at 84.8; Chrysler 300C is lowest at 83.8 — the gap is 1.0 points.

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

Same brand

All Mitsubishi MOT statisticsMitsubishi Eclipse MOT statsMitsubishi Lancer MOT stats

Similar risk

Land Rover Discovery (index 84.1)Audi A3 (index 84.8)Chrysler 300C (index 83.8)

Same size class

how Toyota Vitz compareshow Toyota Voxy compareshow Mercedes-Benz S compares

By build year

Mitsubishi Pajero 2003Mitsubishi Pajero 2004Mitsubishi Pajero 2005Mitsubishi Pajero 2006

By area

Mitsubishi Pajero MOT failure rate by postcode area

By failure group

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

Inspections abroad

Mitsubishi Pajero in NorwayMitsubishi Pajero in FinlandMitsubishi Pajero 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:mitsubishi-pajero:dvsa-2024-v2. Full method: methodology.

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