2010 Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab — MOT failures & pass rate
Across 3,554 MOT tests, the 2010 Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab recorded a 73.3% pass rate. Pick-up trucks of a similar age fail at 27.1%, so the 2010 L200 Double Cab sits squarely on the average. Failures cluster in lighting & signalling, suspension and brakes.
What the MOT record shows
Lighting & signalling dominates the failure mix at 21.0% of all tests — 6.8 points clear of suspension, so it is the first thing to check.
At component level the recurring items are rigid brake pipes, position lamp and ball joint — rigid brake pipes alone was recorded 374 times.
Condition tracks the odometer closely. Failures run at 14.4% in the 30-60k band and 29.6% in the 150k+ band, a 15.2-point spread — more than double.
Advisories point at the next bill rather than this one: brakes was flagged on 39.1% of tests without failing them.
The trend is worsening — 24.5% of tests failed in 2021 against 27.6% in 2025, the usual pattern as a fleet ages.
How it compares
Top failure categories
| # | Category | % of tests affected | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lighting & signalling | 21.0% | 747 |
| 2 | Suspension | 14.2% | 504 |
| 3 | Brakes | 10.6% | 376 |
| 4 | Body, structure & corrosion | 7.0% | 248 |
| 5 | Visibility | 5.6% | 199 |
| 6 | Tyres | 3.2% | 113 |
Most common specific failures
The exact components most often recorded as failures — more specific than the categories above.
| # | Failure item | Times recorded |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rigid brake pipes | 374 |
| 2 | Position lamp | 351 |
| 3 | Ball joint | 315 |
| 4 | Rear fog lamp | 311 |
| 5 | Headlamp aim | 220 |
| 6 | Joints | 188 |
Top advisory categories
Advisories aren't failures, but they flag work likely needed soon — useful when budgeting.
| # | Category | % of tests with advisory | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brakes | 39.1% | 1,391 |
| 2 | Suspension | 30.9% | 1,100 |
| 3 | Tyres | 20.5% | 728 |
| 4 | Lighting & signalling | 18.5% | 657 |
| 5 | Body, structure & corrosion | 16.5% | 587 |
| 6 | Emissions & environmental | 12.0% | 426 |
Failure rate by mileage
Higher-mileage cars tend to fail more — often the most useful guide to real condition.
| Mileage band | Tests | Fail rate |
|---|---|---|
| 30-60k | 139 | 14.4% |
| 60-90k | 542 | 22.9% |
| 90-120k | 1,157 | 26.3% |
| 120-150k | 976 | 29.2% |
| 150k+ | 733 | 29.6% |
Failure rate by age
Trend over time
| Dataset year | Tests | Fail rate |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 809 | 24.5% |
| 2022 | 791 | 26.4% |
| 2023 | 751 | 27.3% |
| 2024 | 660 | 28.5% |
| 2025 | 543 | 27.6% |
What to check before buying a 2010 L200 Double Cab
On a 2010 L200 Double Cab, lighting & signalling is what the MOT record says goes wrong most — it appeared in 21.0% of tests. Check these areas before you commit.
- Lighting & signalling (21.0% of tests): Often a cheap bulb, but persistent issues can mean wiring or corrosion in the units. Typical repair: £10–£150.
- Suspension (14.2% of tests): Worn drop links, bushes, springs or shocks — listen for knocks over bumps and check for uneven tyre wear. Typical repair: £150–£450 per corner.
- Brakes (10.6% of tests): Pads/discs are routine wear; binding, imbalance or corroded pipes are more serious — test for pulling under braking. Typical repair: £100–£350 per axle.
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 2010 Mitsubishi L200 Double Cabs pass their MOT?
73.3% of the 3,554 2010 Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab MOT tests in this dataset passed — a 26.7% fail rate.
What is the most common MOT failure on a 2010 Mitsubishi L200 Double Cab?
Lighting & signalling, recorded in 21.0% of tests, followed by suspension (14.2%).
Does the 2010 L200 Double Cab get worse with mileage?
Its MOT fail rate rises from 14.4% in the 30-60k band to 29.6% in the 150k+ band.
Methodology & source. Based on 3,554 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.