MOT Risk Index.co.uk

Suzuki Grand Vitara — MOT statistics 2024

The Suzuki Grand Vitara failed 38% of 21,104 first MOT attempts in 2024 ("first-time", excluding retests). Adjusted for the age of the fleet, its initial-failure ratio is 93.5 (100 = expected for its age profile). This car fails its MOT about 6% less often than expected for its age.

MOT risk index 93.5, 95% CI 91.9–95.1 (100 = national average) 100 93.5 0 200
Index
93.5
100 = age-normal
Raw fail rate
38%
n = 21,104
Dangerous /100
10
national ≈11
Diesel − petrol
+3.7 pp
fail-rate gap
Rank
388 of 761
lower index = better

Age-adjusted peer: Hyundai Kona (index 93.2) — the two published results are 0.3 index points apart.

Suzuki Grand Vitara common problems: what actually fails the MOT

Body, chassis, structure stand out at 20.7 per 100 tests, against 11.2 per 100 tests across UK vehicles of the same ages.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

Suzuki Grand Vitara 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
Lamps & electrical25.443,89432.10.79×0.78–0.80
Suspension21.737,50427.20.80×0.79–0.81
Body & structure20.735,74011.21.86×1.84–1.87
Brakes18.632,14319.80.94×0.93–0.95
Visibility10.317,82911.00.94×0.92–0.95
Emissions & leaks7.613,0517.11.07×1.04–1.08
Named defects — items per 100 initial tests, this family vs UK national average; this model measured on 172,812 tests, 2019-2024, national column 2024
What failedper 100 tests (this family)per 100 tests (UK average)ratio family / UKWhat to check
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 repaired4.861.124.35×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Brake pipe damaged or excessively corrodedBrake pipe damaged or excessively corroded5.101.413.63×Look underneath for rust or cracks around subframe and suspension mountings
Transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot…A transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot severely deteriorated5.061.483.42×Ask the seller about: A transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot severely d
Transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot…A transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot missing or no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc5.131.563.29×Ask the seller about: A transmission shaft constant velocity joint boot missing or
Headlamp reflector or lens slightly defectiveHeadlamp reflector or lens slightly defective4.111.093.76×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
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 functioning4.102.091.96×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the…Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the windscreen3.492.221.57×Check wipers, washers and windscreen chips in the driver's view
Suspension pin, bush or joint excessively wornA suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn5.914.871.21×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 sources3.772.831.33×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure
Aim of a headlamp is not within limits laid down…The aim of a headlamp is not within limits laid down in the requirements3.102.571.21×Try every light and switch — lamps are a top failure

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

Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT advisories: what gets flagged

Brakes are highest at 58.4 per 100 tests; Non-component advisories are lowest at 9.3 per 100 tests — the gap is 49.1 per 100 tests.

higher bar = flagged more oftenadvisory items per 100 initial tests

Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT advisories: what gets flagged — 2024 UK MOT data
Advisory rates table
GroupAdvisories per 100
Brakes58.4
Suspension47.3
Tyres33.9
Body & structure17.1
Emissions & leaks13.8
Non-component advisories9.3

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

Tyres, brakes and suspension: Suzuki Grand Vitara against cars of the same age

AgePartSuzuki Grand VitaraSame age, petrol and dieselDifference
6 yearsTyres2.065.54-3.48
6 yearsBrakes4.113.810.30
6 yearsSuspension0.613.72-3.11
7 yearsTyres2.515.95-3.44
7 yearsBrakes5.264.550.71
7 yearsSuspension1.215.68-4.47
8 yearsTyres2.256.31-4.06
8 yearsBrakes5.735.380.35
8 yearsSuspension2.127.78-5.66

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 failed37.0%14,207
It passed31.1%81,518

A failed test raises next year's chance of failing again by 5.9 percentage points. The failure most likely to come back is lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment — 34.7% 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 172,144 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 only90.7fails less often than expected
Age and annual mileage92.3fails less often than vehicles driven as much
Share doing under 3,000 miles a year6.9%a normal spread of use

Mileage changes little here (+1.6 points): this fleet is driven about as much as the vehicles it is compared with. 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara 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.

AgeSuzuki Grand VitaraSame class, same ageDifferenceTests
5 years10.64%15.06%-4.42 pp592
6 years14.29%17.34%-3.05 pp1,799
7 years18.72%20.15%-1.43 pp2,986
8 years19.39%23.22%-3.83 pp4,534
9 years23.31%26.74%-3.43 pp6,554
10 years26.07%30.04%-3.98 pp8,823
11 years29%33.47%-4.47 pp11,130
12 years32.35%36.49%-4.14 pp13,674
13 years36.11%38.91%-2.79 pp15,590
14 years38.54%40.85%-2.32 pp17,025
15 years40.7%42.32%-1.62 pp18,114
16 years43.22%43.13%+0.09 pp17,638
17 years43.55%43.51%+0.03 pp15,753
18 years44.31%43.62%+0.69 pp13,055
19 years43.76%43.19%+0.57 pp10,085
20 years43.35%42.41%+0.93 pp6,944

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 Suzuki Grand Vitara perform as it gets older?

The Grand Vitara at age 10 is well below the reference at 15.4%, against 30.1% for all vehicles of the same age.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

How does the Suzuki Grand Vitara perform as it gets older? — 2024 UK MOT data

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

Takeaway: a 10-year-old Grand Vitara has roughly a 15% chance of failing its MOT.

Data table
AgeSuzuki Grand VitaraAll vehiclesGap
1015.3%30.1%-14.8 pp
1123.9%33.2%-9.3 pp
1229.7%35.7%-6.0 pp
1333.4%38.2%-4.8 pp
1434.1%40.4%-6.3 pp
1537.4%41.6%-4.2 pp
1641.7%43.1%-1.4 pp
1739.6%43.1%-3.5 pp
1843.8%43.9%-0.1 pp
1942.1%43.5%-1.4 pp
2042.4%41.0%+1.3 pp

Is a Suzuki Grand Vitara ULEZ compliant?

The share of classifiable 2024 Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT tests likely ULEZ compliant by first-registration date is 47.7%.

Based on 20,794 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 = 0
3–5 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 1
6–7 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 4
8 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 3
9 yearsSuppressed — sample below publication threshold
Check a registration with TfL
n = 50
10–14 years71.6%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 5,897
15–17 years70.5%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 5,945
18 years78.6%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 1,852
19 years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 2,152
20+ years0.0%
Check a registration with TfL
n = 4,890

How dangerous are Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT failures?

Major defects stand out at 82.5 per 100 tests, against 52.8 per 100 tests nationally.

higher bar = fails more oftenrate per 100 tests

How dangerous are Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT failures? — 2024 UK MOT data
Severity table
SeverityThis family /100National /100Family / national
Minor23.3014.221.64×
Major82.4552.751.56×
Dangerous10.3111.150.92×

Chart values: Minor 23.3 · Major 82.5 · Dangerous 10.3.

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

Does the month of a Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT matter?

Apr is highest at 39.1%; Sep is lowest at 35.6% — the gap is 3.6 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Does the month of a Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT matter? — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart scale: 27%–41%.

bars: Suzuki Grand Vitara · dashed: all class-4 cars

Month-by-month table
MonthSuzuki Grand VitaraAll vehiclesGap
Jan37.64%31.12%+6.5 pp
Feb37.44%29.99%+7.4 pp
Mar35.94%28.26%+7.7 pp
Apr39.14%29.78%+9.4 pp
May37.08%28.79%+8.3 pp
Jun36.14%28.15%+8.0 pp
Jul37.34%29.33%+8.0 pp
Aug36.49%29.2%+7.3 pp
Sep35.57%28.19%+7.4 pp
Oct37.79%30.34%+7.4 pp
Nov37.49%30.58%+6.9 pp
Dec36.94%29.33%+7.6 pp

Takeaway: the spread between best and worst month is 3.6 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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara average mileage by age

At age 15, the middle half of Grand Vitaras runs from 69,825 miles to 109,401 miles, against 88,293 miles as the median.

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

Bars: Suzuki Grand Vitara · dashed: all class-4 cars — 2024 UK MOT data

Chart axes: car age, years · odometer scale 0–128k mi.

Does high mileage mean more Suzuki Grand Vitara 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+, 22% of those with under 40,000 miles failed first time versus 50.8% of those with over 140,000 miles.Inside this age group, higher mileage goes with more failures.

Does high mileage mean more Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT failures at the same age? — 2024 UK MOT data
Suzuki Grand Vitara: first-time failure by mileage within each age group (2024)
AgeOdometer% failing95% intervalTests
10–14<40k miles14.6%12.2–17.4%699
10–1440-70k miles23.6%21.7–25.5%1,949
10–1470-100k miles33.2%31.2–35.3%2,023
10–14100-140k miles40.7%37.8–43.7%1,034
10–14140k+ miles45.6%38.4–52.8%180 (rough estimate)
15+<40k miles22%18.3–26.2%423 (rough estimate)
15+40-70k miles33.1%31.3–35%2,498
15+70-100k miles40%38.7–41.3%5,297
15+100-140k miles45.7%44.3–47%5,213
15+140k+ miles50.8%48.2–53.5%1,369

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

Mileage by age (p25 / median / p75)
Agep25Medianp75Tests
1037,89855,52372,015508
1145,95863,30882,7541,131
1252,02672,79394,2711,091
1361,10478,86699,5951,438
1463,64982,409103,0941,729
1569,82588,293109,4011,764
1673,77393,361112,4371,990
1775,11894,074113,9732,199
1877,67997,282117,3691,852
1974,71895,933119,3472,153
20+76,91199,807122,3574,897

A typical 15-year-old Grand Vitara has ~88,293 miles on the clock. Much more — ask why; much less — check for gaps in the MOT history.

Where in Britain the Suzuki Grand Vitara fails its MOT most

Dundee area is highest at 49.4%; Twickenham area is lowest at 24.6% — the gap is 24.8 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Suzuki Grand Vitara line: median · band: middle half of the fleet (p25–p75) — 2024 UK MOT data
Toughest areas% failingvs model overall
Dundee (DD)49.38%+12.4 pp
Kirkcaldy (KY)47.59%+10.6 pp
Aberdeen (AB)46.27%+9.2 pp
Hull (HU)45.59%+8.6 pp
Falkirk (FK)45.33%+8.3 pp
Easiest areas% failingvs model overall
Twickenham (TW)24.61%-12.4 pp
Slough (SL)24.64%-12.4 pp
Croydon (CR)25.55%-11.5 pp
Sutton (SM)25.67%-11.4 pp
Enfield (EN)26.6%-10.4 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 mot centre density this model fails 7.4 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.65, n=84 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest urban share this model fails 6.7 pp less often than in the lowest fifth (r=-0.51, n=84 areas with ≥800 tests).

In areas with the highest terrain gradient this model fails 3.5 pp more often than in the lowest fifth (r=0.38, n=51 areas with ≥800 tests).

Suzuki Grand Vitara Why do areas differ? — 2024 UK MOT data
Values shown in the quintile chart
FactorLow QHigh QGapCorrelation
MOT centre density33.3%40.7%+7.4 ppr=0.65
Urban share40.2%33.5%-6.7 ppr=-0.51
Terrain gradient35.6%39.1%+3.5 ppr=0.38

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
MOT centre density (per 10k vehicles)0.6478433.340.7+7.45.79
Urban share (0–1)-0.5078440.233.5-6.70.30.9
Terrain gradient (% grade)0.3835135.639.1+3.50.64.6
Distance to coast (km)-0.3778439.834.5-5.3681.4
Frost days (days/year)0.3158437.039.9+2.911.238.8
Road-salt proxy (g/m²-yr)0.3128436.839.9+3.0220.4693
Income deprivation (score)-0.0056934.334.3+0.10.10.2

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: 27%–45% failing.

Suzuki Grand Vitara 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

Suzuki Grand Vitara 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 %
4605%11.67%
559249.5%10.64%
61,799100%14.29%
72,986100%18.72%
84,534100%19.39%
96,554100%23.31%
108,823100%26.07%
1111,130100%29%
1213,674100%32.35%
1315,590100%36.11%
1417,025100%38.54%
1518,114100%40.7%
1617,638100%43.22%
1715,753100%43.55%
1813,055100%44.31%
1910,085100%43.76%

By age 19, at least as many cars of this family present for MOT as at ages 4–6 (reference n≈1,196): the older fleet has not thinned out here, so there is no survivor selection to allow for.

How many miles does a Suzuki Grand Vitara last?

100,000+ miles is highest at 32.9%; 150,000+ miles is lowest at 3.7% — the gap is 29.2 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

OdometerTests ≥ thresholdShare of sample
100,000+ miles56,71932.89%
150,000+ miles6,2923.65%

Of 172,439 tests of this family with a usable odometer in 2024, 32.9% had reached 100k miles, 3.6% 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara likely to last?

Bought at age 5 is highest at 28.8 years; Bought at age 15 is lowest at 4.5 years — the gap is 24.3 years.

bigger number = longer remaining lifeyears on the observed survival curve

Age nowTypical mileage (p50)Expected years left
5—at least 28.8
8—at least 11.5
10—at least 9.5
12—at least 7.5
15—at least 4.5

estimateEstimate only — not a warranty: a typical 10-year-old example of this family has at least 9.5 expected years of further MOT-present life. The curve is observed only until age 19, so the true figure is likely higher.

Suzuki Grand Vitara faults that come together

Identification + Seatbelts & SRS stand out at 4.98×, against 1.00× if the faults were independent.

above 1.0× = more than expectedbelow 1.0× = less

Group AGroup BTogetherLift
Identification of the vehicleSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1124.98× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleSteering343.98× (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSteering1983.94× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsTyres613.86× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleNoise, emissions and leaks1713.7× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleTyres1183.7× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems9833.61×
Noise, emissions and leaksSteering3653.53× (rough estimate)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsSuspension2,1383.49×
BrakesIdentification of the vehicle3033.49× (rough estimate)
SteeringSuspension8033.45×
Body, chassis, structureNoise, emissions and leaks4,4223.39×
Body, chassis, structureIdentification of the vehicle3563.3× (rough estimate)
SteeringTyres2343.29× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment4173.23× (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems363.23× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentRoad Wheels2043.19× (rough estimate)
BrakesSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1,6143.17×
Noise, emissions and leaksRoad Wheels713.1× (rough estimate)
BrakesSteering5963.08×
Body, chassis, structureSteering7403.07×
Road WheelsVisibility1023.05× (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleVisibility2002.97× (rough estimate)
BrakesRoad Wheels1272.95× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems1,8632.94×
BrakesNoise, emissions and leaks3,0602.92×
Noise, emissions and leaksTyres1,1252.92×
Identification of the vehicleSuspension3042.92× (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSuspension3,4922.77×
BrakesTyres1,9372.68×
BrakesSuspension6,2952.67×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belts and supplementary restraint systems2,0232.67×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentNoise, emissions and leaks4,1422.65×
Road WheelsSuspension1372.65× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentTyres2,7772.58×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsTyres4842.58× (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSteering7352.55×
TyresVisibility1,4292.54×
Body, chassis, structureSuspension7,3202.49×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentVisibility5,4412.39×
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systemsVisibility9442.38×
BrakesLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment6,9492.37×
SuspensionTyres2,0542.37×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSuspension8,2822.36×
Body, chassis, structureBrakes5,7612.36×
Noise, emissions and leaksVisibility1,8702.29×
Body, chassis, structureTyres2,0082.23×
BrakesVisibility3,3692.21×
SteeringVisibility3312.2× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureRoad Wheels1172.19× (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment7,6012.09×
SuspensionVisibility3,7272.03×
Body, chassis, structureVisibility3,6781.94×
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSeat belt installation check19too few (rough estimate)
Road WheelsSteering16too few (rough estimate)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipmentSpeedometer and speed limiter15too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkSuspension14too few (rough estimate)
BrakesSeat belt installation check11too few (rough estimate)
Identification of the vehicleRoad Wheels10too few (rough estimate)
BrakesSpeedometer and speed limiter10too few (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSeat belt installation check10too few (rough estimate)
Seat belt installation checkVisibility8too few (rough estimate)
Noise, emissions and leaksSpeedometer and speed limiter5too few (rough estimate)
Body, chassis, structureSpeedometer and speed limiter5too few (rough estimate)

Defects in «Noise, emissions and leaks» and «Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems» appear together 3.61× more often than chance (983 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara?

Cars driven under 5,000 miles a year is well below the reference at 22.5%, against 38.6% for cars driven 8,000–12,000 miles a year.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

BandFail %Tests
<5k miles/year22.48%20,612
8–12k miles/year38.56%19,256
Gap (low − normal)-16.08 pp—
By fuel and age

Diesel

AgeLow-use fail %nNormal fail %nGap pp
618.875313.33150+5.53 pp
715.3813025.4315-10.01 pp
819.7717225.15489-5.39 pp
917.9224032.93744-15.01 pp
1017.8934134.891,218-17 pp
1123.9839238.041,501-14.06 pp
1225.3944939.571,840-14.18 pp
1328.0852743.381,955-15.29 pp
1429.8565044.651,673-14.8 pp

Petrol

AgeLow-use fail %nNormal fail %nGap pp
56.9118811.794-4.79 pp
69.3451414.79284-5.45 pp
713.1580628.05410-14.9 pp
813.021,15225.87661-12.85 pp
914.621,59430.75969-16.14 pp
1016.171,99131.731,147-15.56 pp
1119.262,36734.961,410-15.7 pp
1224.022,73541.061,634-17.04 pp
1327.143,21746.641,681-19.5 pp
1431.023,84347.351,605-16.33 pp

At matched ages 5–14, cars averaging under 5k miles/year fail at 22.5% vs 38.6% for 8–12k miles/year — 16.1 pp lower (n_low=20,612, n_normal=19,256). 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. Diesel alone: 29.1% low-use vs 44.1% normal (-15.0 pp).

Which Suzuki Grand Vitara engine is best?

diesel over 2.0 is highest at 112.4; diesel 1.5–1.8 is lowest at 90.1 — the gap is 22.3 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
diesel1.5–1.8 litre90.132.23%121 (rough estimate)
petrolover 2.0 litre91.528.42%29,332
petrol1.5–1.8 litre97.737.58%58,636
petrol1.8–2.0 litre100.440.57%36,551
diesel1.8–2.0 litre107.238.95%47,343
dieselover 2.0 litre112.435.69%325 (rough estimate)

Splitting this model by fuel alone hides the thing that actually differs. Within the same badge, the diesel 1.8–2.0 runs at 107.2 against this model's own age norm while the petrol over 2.0 runs at 91.5 — a spread of 15.7 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara, and the years to avoid

Build year 2006 is highest at 103.4; Build year 2014 is lowest at 73.3 — the gap is 30.1 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

Suzuki Grand Vitara build year vs the same model at the same age · 100 = as expected — 2024 UK MOT data
Suzuki Grand Vitara 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
201578.652.2–105.113.28%256no different
201473.366.4–80.313.54%3,140better
201390.485.6–95.219.49%7,028better
201299.294.5–10424.37%6,899no different
201197.293.4–101.126.6%9,217no different
201095.792.5–98.929.15%11,645better
200998.295.3–101.232.62%12,849no different
200899.697–102.235.85%15,493no different
2007100.398–102.538.55%19,142no different
2006103.4101–105.842.03%16,785worse
2005100.798.4–102.942.48%18,643no different
200499.397.1–101.543.01%18,195no different
2003100.397.7–102.944.14%13,276no different
2002101.298.1–104.244.39%9,553no different
2001100.496.3–104.544.37%5,188no different
2000101.294.7–107.744.51%2,103no different
199993.684.6–102.641.25%1,011no different
199897.581.2–113.742.72%323no different

The best build year here is 2013 and the weakest is 2006. 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 — 3 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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT repair costs

The MOT-failure repair budget per test runs from £117.72 to £223.67, against £54.85 for the test itself.

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

MOT repairs, budget
£118–224
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
Suspension21.7 (nat. 15.36)Suspension coil spring (single corner)£180£39.06
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment25.4 (nat. 18.09)Battery replacement (standard 12V lead-acid)£140£35.56
Brakes18.6 (nat. 11.25)Front brake pads (parts + labour, typical hatchback)£150£27.90
Noise, emissions and leaks7.6 (nat. 3.67)Exhaust rear silencer£200£15.20

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 £118 to £224, 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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara running costs for a fleet

Fails per 100 at age 10
15
vehicles needing work (rough estimate: 508 tests)
Repairs per 100
£11,772
plus £5,485 in test fees
Off the road
1d
median; 28.56% cleared same day
Failure rate and typical odometer by age
AgeFailsMedian odometerTestsGap vs age 5
1015.35%55,523508—
1123.87%63,3081,131—
1229.7%72,7931,091—
1333.38%78,8661,438—
1434.12%82,4091,729—
1537.36%88,2931,764—
1641.66%93,3611,990—
1739.61%94,0742,199—
1843.79%97,2821,852—
1942.08%95,9332,153—

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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara rust problems: where they corrode

Age-standardised corrosion susceptibility stands out at 3.79×, against 1.00× for the national age-standardised rate.

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

How it rusts
3.79×
2.9% of tests record a corrosion defect vs 0.77% typical — age-standardised
Salt Belt exposure
82nd
percentile among the models published here, from its tests across 84 postcode areas

This Suzuki Grand Vitara 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara advisory become a failure?

Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment are highest at 27.4%; Non-component advisories are lowest at 0.0% — the gap is 27.4 percentage points.

higher = more likelypercentage is the observed transition probability

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

Suzuki Grand Vitara chance the same component fails at the next MOT, given an advisory now — 2024 UK MOT data
Suzuki Grand Vitara, advisory → failure conversion by component group, chained tests 2019–2024. Chart labels and rates: Lamps & electrical 27.4% · Body & chassis 25% · Suspension 20.5% · Brakes 14.7% · Seat belts & restraints 10.8% · Noise, emissions, leaks 8.4% · Tyres 7.6% · Steering 5.9%.
Advisory today → failure at the next test, with how long you have
ComponentFails next timeTypical lead timeMiles of warningAdvisories tracked
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment27.4%12.1 months3,7593,512
Body, chassis, structure25.0%12.1 months3,48714,304
Suspension20.5%12.1 months4,19828,564
Brakes14.7%12.1 months3,66441,988
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems10.8%12.1 months3,7812,280
Noise, emissions and leaks8.4%12.1 months4,35915,828
Tyres7.6%12.1 months4,31825,933
Steering5.9%12.1 months4,2081,700
Identification of the vehicle3.3%12.1 months4,2482,416
Non-component advisories0.0%——10,655

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 27 in 100 cars, and the median gap is 12.1 months and roughly 3,759 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara?

Body, chassis, structure after a failure at age 20+ are highest at 28.3%; Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment after a passed at age 3-5 are lowest at 2.5% — the gap is 25.8 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
3-5passedVisibility 4.9% · Brakes 2.7% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 2.5%1,052
3-5advisoryBrakes 5.6% · Visibility 5.6% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 3.5%517
3-5failureVisibility 8.7% · Brakes 8.3% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 7.3%218 (rough estimate)
6-8passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 6.5% · Brakes 4.5% · Visibility 4.2%5,802
6-8advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 9.7% · Brakes 8.1% · Visibility 6.4%3,522
6-8failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 13.6% · Brakes 10.1% · Visibility 7.6%2,278
9-11passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 9.7% · Brakes 6.8% · Visibility 5.0%10,605
9-11advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 15.0% · Brakes 11.0% · Suspension 8.3%8,677
9-11failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.6% · Brakes 12.4% · Suspension 10.9%7,621
12-14passedLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 12.2% · Suspension 9.9% · Body, chassis, structure 7.1%12,121
12-14advisoryLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 17.1% · Suspension 14.8% · Brakes 10.6%13,299
12-14failureLamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 21.7% · Suspension 18.6% · Brakes 13.2%14,564
15-19passedBody, chassis, structure 16.6% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 12.2% · Suspension 10.9%12,611
15-19advisoryBody, chassis, structure 23.4% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 18.5% · Suspension 17.2%16,315
15-19failureBody, chassis, structure 26.0% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 22.9% · Suspension 21.0%21,261
20+passedBody, chassis, structure 19.3% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 12.2% · Suspension 8.8%1,391
20+advisoryBody, chassis, structure 26.4% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 20.1% · Suspension 14.7%2,074
20+failureBody, chassis, structure 28.3% · Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 25.3% · Suspension 17.9%2,445

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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara ownership: what six years of MOTs show

The ten-day re-test pass rate is highest at 65.5%; The later re-test pass rate is lowest at 6.0% — the gap is 59.5 percentage points.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Fixed same day
28.56%
of failures re-tested
Fails /10k miles
0.792
miles actually driven
Clean streaks
26.29%
3+ tests, nothing noted
Odometer anomaly
2.555%
reading went backwards

Failing is usually a same-week event, not a disaster. Of 43,476 failures followed through to their re-test, 28.56% were repaired and passed the same day and 65.45% within ten days; the median gap is 1 day. 122,903 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 0.792 failures per 10,000 miles, on a median of 3,658 miles a year across 33,488 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. 26.29% of these cars strung together three or more tests with nothing recorded at all, while 45.71% 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: 2.555% of 33,536 chains show a reading lower than the previous test, with a median drop of 29,260 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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara safety recalls and how to check yours

DVSA recall campaigns stand out at 13.

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

recall campaigns launched per year

Suzuki Grand Vitara recall campaigns launched per year — 2024 UK MOT data
Campaigns launched per year for the Suzuki Grand Vitara. Source: DVSA vehicle safety recalls. Chart values: 2006: 1 · 2007: 3 · 2008: 2 · 2009: 1 · 2010: 1 · 2011: 1 · 2012: 0 · 2013: 0 · 2014: 0 · 2015: 0 · 2016: 0 · 2017: 1 · 2018: 0 · 2019: 0 · 2020: 3.
Most recent safety recall campaigns for the Suzuki Grand Vitara
ReferenceLaunchedVehiclesConcern
R/2020/04214/03/20204,340IN THE EVENT OF DEPLOYMENT THE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY
R/2020/04214/03/20204,340IN THE EVENT OF DEPLOYMENT THE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY
R/2020/04214/03/20204,340IN THE EVENT OF DEPLOYMENT THE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY
R/2017/07620/03/20174,272DRIVER MAY BE UNABLE TO CHANGE / SELECT GEAR
R/2011/01018/04/20112,690DRIVE BELT TENSIONER MAY BREAK.
All 13 campaigns
ReferenceLaunchedBuild datesVehiclesConcern
R/2020/04214/03/202009/07/1998 – 31/05/19994,340IN THE EVENT OF DEPLOYMENT THE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY
R/2020/04214/03/202028/04/1998 – 31/05/19994,340IN THE EVENT OF DEPLOYMENT THE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY
R/2020/04214/03/202015/01/1998 – 31/05/19994,340IN THE EVENT OF DEPLOYMENT THE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY
R/2017/07620/03/201701/06/2008 – 30/06/20134,272DRIVER MAY BE UNABLE TO CHANGE / SELECT GEAR
R/2011/01018/04/201102/06/2008 – 20/10/20102,690DRIVE BELT TENSIONER MAY BREAK.
R/2010/06726/07/20105,425LOSS OF STEERING ASSISTANCE.
R/2009/04915/06/200901/06/2005 – 28/02/20073,751FIRE MAY OCCUR
R/2008/12022/09/200828/06/2005 – 31/05/20086,591FIRE MAY OCCUR
R/2007/18004/02/200801/06/2006 – 31/07/20072,197FUEL MAY LEAK
R/2007/08510/09/200728/06/2005 – 02/04/20073,775RISK OF FIRE
R/2007/08410/09/200728/06/2005 – 02/04/20073,421RISK OF FIRE
R/2007/10210/09/200717/06/2005 – 29/12/20063,579WIRING HARNESS MAY CHAFE RESULTING IN POSSIBLE LOSS OF ENGINE POWER
R/2006/17220/11/200628/06/2005 – 01/08/20062,931INTERCOOLER PIPE CLAMP MAY FAIL

DVSA lists 13 safety recall campaigns for the Suzuki Grand Vitara, covering roughly 51,652 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.

Suzuki Grand Vitara inspection results in other countries

United Kingdom MOT stands out at 38.0%, against 26.0% nationally.

higher = larger sharecompare shares in percentage points

Same model, different national inspection regimes
CountryTestThis model failsNational averagePositionSample
United KingdomMOT (class 4)38%26.01%+12 pp21,104
NetherlandsAPK60%50.8%+9.2 pp5,938
NorwayPKK43.5%33.7%+9.8 pp4,650
FinlandKatsastus27.7%26.3%+1.4 pp1,573

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 suspension28.6%
Chassis and body24.2%
Brake systems22.4%
Environmental hazards18%
Lighting devices and electrical equipment2.8%

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 value1,000failure
205Tyre with insufficient tread717failure
584Sidelight not working properly548failure
497Number-plate light not working or missing522failure
391Wipers leave insufficient visibility484failure
RA2Excessive leak of other fluids443advisory
AC1Tyre down to 1.6–2.5 mm of tread440advisory
516Dipped headlight incorrectly aimed419failure

Worth dwelling on how mundane the top of that list is: tyre pressure, tread depth, headlight aim. The Dutch APK records 1.563 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara 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 93.5 — 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: RDW open data — Meldingen Keuringsinstantie + Geconstateerde Gebreken + Gekentekende voertuigen (2024), CC0. Not an RDW endorsement.; Statens vegvesen — Periodisk kjøretøykontroll (PKK) 2024, CC BY 4.0; Traficom — Periodic inspections of cars by model / by model and fault object 2024, CC BY 4.0. Adapted; licences and full notice.

Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT: quick answers

Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT Risk Index is well below the reference at 93.5, 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 Suzuki Grand Vitara first-time MOT pass rate?
62% of first attempts passed in 2024 (21,104 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 38% figure is the first-time initial failure rate, using 21,104 primary tests as the denominator (first-time, excluding retests). The age-adjusted MOT initial-failure ratio 93.5 is shown separately because raw rates compare fleet age as well as cars.

Compare the Suzuki Grand Vitara with other cars

Suzuki Grand Vitara is highest at 93.5; Audi A1 is lowest at 93.1 — the gap is 0.4 points.

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

Same brand

All Suzuki MOT statisticsSuzuki Ignis MOT statsSuzuki Swift MOT stats

Similar risk

Hyundai Kona (index 93.2)Audi A1 (index 93.1)Mitsubishi Shogun (index 93.1)

Same size class

how Mercedes-Benz Sprinter compareshow Nissan Pulsar compareshow Hyundai i40 compares

By build year

Suzuki Grand Vitara 1998Suzuki Grand Vitara 1999Suzuki Grand Vitara 2000Suzuki Grand Vitara 2001Suzuki Grand Vitara 2002Suzuki Grand Vitara 2003Suzuki Grand Vitara 2004Suzuki Grand Vitara 2005Suzuki Grand Vitara 2006Suzuki Grand Vitara 2007Suzuki Grand Vitara 2008Suzuki Grand Vitara 2009Suzuki Grand Vitara 2010Suzuki Grand Vitara 2011Suzuki Grand Vitara 2012Suzuki Grand Vitara 2013Suzuki Grand Vitara 2014Suzuki Grand Vitara 2015

By area

Suzuki Grand Vitara MOT failure rate by postcode area

By failure group

Suzuki Grand Vitara body, chassis and structure failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara brakes failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara vehicle identification failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara lamps, reflectors and electrics failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara noise, emissions and leaks failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara road wheels failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara seat belts and airbags failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara steering failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara suspension failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara tyres failuresSuzuki Grand Vitara visibility failures

Inspections abroad

Suzuki Grand Vitara in NorwaySuzuki Grand Vitara in FinlandSuzuki Grand Vitara 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:suzuki-grand-vitara:dvsa-2024-v2. Full method: methodology.

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