2000 Ford Ranger — MOT failures & pass rate

3,374 MOT tests on the 2000 Ford Ranger are in this dataset, and 72.7% of them passed. That is 1.1 percentage points better than pick-up trucks of a similar age, which fail at 28.4%. Failures cluster in lighting & signalling, body, structure & corrosion and suspension.

73%
Pass rate
3,374
MOT tests analysed
27.3%
Fail rate
better than
vs pick-up trucks of similar age
22.7
Avg age at test (yrs)

What the MOT record shows

One area stands out: lighting & signalling, recorded in 19.1% of tests against 12.6% for the next-worst category.

At component level the recurring items are headlamp, chassis condition and rear fog lamp — headlamp alone was recorded 274 times.

A 150k+ example is materially riskier than a 0-30k one: 28.5% versus 11.9%.

Brakes is the most common advisory, noted on 37.1% of tests — work that passed today but is likely due soon.

How it compares

Fail rate vs benchmarks (lower is better) 2000 Ranger 27.3% pick-up trucks avg 28.4% National avg 26.7%
Fail rate for this model-year against the segment and national averages for cars of a similar age.

Top failure categories

Most common MOT failure areas — 2000 Ford Ranger
# Category % of tests affected Tests
1 Lighting & signalling 19.1% 644
2 Body, structure & corrosion 12.6% 426
3 Suspension 10.8% 364
4 Brakes 10.6% 357
5 Visibility 6.8% 229
6 Tyres 3.8% 129
Share of tests failing on each category Lighting & signalling 19.1% Body, structure & corrosion 12.6% Suspension 10.8% Brakes 10.6% Visibility 6.8% Tyres 3.8%
Percentage of tests with at least one failure recorded in each category.

Most common specific failures

The exact components most often recorded as failures — more specific than the categories above.

Most frequently recorded failure items — 2000 Ford Ranger
#Failure itemTimes recorded
1Headlamp274
2Chassis condition255
3Rear fog lamp242
4Component mounting prescribed areas225
5Rigid brake pipes206
6Headlamp aim203

Top advisory categories

Advisories aren't failures, but they flag work likely needed soon — useful when budgeting.

Most common MOT advisories — 2000 Ford Ranger
# Category % of tests with advisory Tests
1 Brakes 37.1% 1,253
2 Body, structure & corrosion 34.0% 1,147
3 Suspension 32.6% 1,101
4 Tyres 21.0% 710
5 Other defects 16.8% 568
6 Emissions & environmental 12.8% 431

Failure rate by mileage

Higher-mileage cars tend to fail more — often the most useful guide to real condition.

MOT fail rate by recorded mileage 0-30k 11.9% 30-60k 21.5% 60-90k 24.5% 90-120k 28.1% 120-150k 28.0% 150k+ 28.5%
MOT fail rate by recorded mileage band.
Fail rate by recorded mileage — 2000 Ranger
Mileage band Tests Fail rate
0-30k 42 11.9%
30-60k 172 21.5%
60-90k 461 24.5%
90-120k 746 28.1%
120-150k 844 28.0%
150k+ 1,094 28.5%

Failure rate by age

MOT fail rate by vehicle age at test 21 yrs 27.6% 22 yrs 27.4% 23 yrs 27.3% 24 yrs 27.2% 25 yrs 26.6%
How this model-year's MOT fail rate climbs as the cars get older.

Trend over time

Fail rate by dataset year — 2000 Ranger
Dataset year Tests Fail rate
2021 876 27.6%
2022 748 27.4%
2023 684 27.3%
2024 569 27.2%
2025 497 26.6%

What to check before buying a 2000 Ranger

The failure pattern for this year is specific enough to inspect against: lighting & signalling accounted for 19.1% of tests. Start there.

Repair costs are rough UK ballpark ranges to set expectations, not quotes — actual prices vary widely by car, parts and garage.

Frequently asked questions

How many 2000 Ford Rangers pass their MOT?

72.7% of the 3,374 2000 Ford Ranger MOT tests in this dataset passed — a 27.3% fail rate.

What is the most common MOT failure on a 2000 Ford Ranger?

Lighting & signalling, recorded in 19.1% of tests, followed by body, structure & corrosion (12.6%).

Does the 2000 Ranger get worse with mileage?

Its MOT fail rate rises from 11.9% in the 0-30k band to 28.5% in the 150k+ band.

Methodology & source. Based on 3,374 MOT tests. Dataset: DVSA MOT testing data (2021,2022,2023,2024,2025). Data last updated 2026-07-27. Figures reflect MOT-testable defects only — read the methodology for how these are calculated and what they don't measure.

Related data