Model Reports 8 min read Updated 13 Jul 2026

Chevrolet Captiva 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

On the 2010 Chevrolet Captiva, MOT failures for Linkage pins and bushes (rear) and SRS malfunction indicator lamp show up more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. Figures come from UK DVSA open data for tests in 2025 (565 failed first-attempt tests). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Sample

565 failed first-attempt tests · 1,115 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern

Linkage pins and bushes (rear) — about 25× more often than on similar cars.

What to check

  • Linkage pins and bushes (rear) — about 25× more often than similar cars (26 observed failures)
  • SRS malfunction indicator lamp — about 5.5× more often than similar cars
  • Electronic stability control — about 5.4× more often than similar cars

Common faults

Failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars.

These MOT failure patterns show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age, and mileage.

Based on 565 failed first-attempt tests in 2025.

Linkage pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 25× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 26 failed first-attempt tests; 4.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear 26 failures ×25 4.6% of failed first tests Possible

SRS malfunction indicator lamp

This failure pattern appears about 5.5× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 51 failed first-attempt tests; 9.0% of failed tests for this model year.

Any 51 failures ×5.5 9.0% of failed first tests Likely

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Rear 26 ×25 4.6% Possible
2 SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 51 ×5.5 9.0% Likely
3 Electronic stability control
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Electronic stability control
 Any 29 ×5.4 5.1% Possible
4 Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 55 ×4.9 9.7% Likely
5 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 26 ×4.4 4.6% Possible
6 Side repeaters
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Any 38 ×3.9 6.7% Likely
7 Anti-lock braking system
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Anti-lock braking system
 Any 43 ×3.6 7.6% Likely
8 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 36 ×3.5 6.4% Likely
9 Parking brake performance
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Any 20 ×2.9 3.5% Possible
10 Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 60 ×2.5 10.6% Possible

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and about 2.0× more often than similar cars).

Note: Rates and comparisons are among first-attempt failed tests, not all MOTs. Patterns come from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer service bulletins, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Failures and advisories are listed separately.

Wear patterns

Usage and mileage effects that often track road use rather than model design.

These patterns look like wear or usage effects rather than model-specific design faults. Tyres, brake friction material, and alignment-related defects often track mileage and road use.

# Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 42 ×2.4 7.4% Wear
Note: These patterns are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

Advisories

Notes recorded at the test that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory notes recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear more often than on similar cars.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Rear 37 ×46 6.5% Possible
2 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 44 ×4.2 7.8% Possible
3 Engine oil leaks (front)
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Engine oil leaks
 Front 33 ×3.0 5.8% Elevated
4 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 36 ×2.6 6.4% Likely
5 Registration plates (front)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
 Front 40 ×2.3 7.1% Elevated
6 Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 53 ×2.3 9.4% Wear
7 Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 51 ×2.2 9.0% Elevated
8 Registration plates (rear)
Identification of the vehicle > Registration plates
 Rear 32 ×2.1 5.7% Elevated
Note: Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2010 Chevrolet Captiva on this page. Among 565 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Linkage pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (about 25× more often than similar cars; 26 observed failures; 4.6% of failed tests). Treat this as a pre-purchase checklist from DVSA open data — not a guarantee for any individual car.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Linkage pins and bushes (rear) (about 25× more often than similar cars; 26 observed failures; 4.6% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Linkage pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar cars (about 25× more often than similar cars; 26 observed failures; 4.6% of failed tests). That does not prove a design fault — age, mileage, and how the car was used still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2010 Chevrolet Captiva include Linkage pins and bushes (rear), SRS malfunction indicator lamp, Electronic stability control. These patterns show up more often than on similar cars after we filter out sparse noise — not a full list of every possible fault on an individual car.
Advisories flag issues noted at the test and are not a fail rate. We show advisory patterns that appear more often than on similar cars among failed first-attempt tests, separate from common failure rows. Use them as early-warning checks, not as a pass/fail score.
This page highlights MOT failure patterns for the 2010 Chevrolet Captiva (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are compared with cars of a similar age and mileage. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer service-bulletin list.
No. MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules. Patterns here come from MOT defect statistics only and should not be read as engine or gearbox reliability scores.
PRS means the car failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

About this data

How this page is built and what it can (and can't) say.

These figures come from UK MOT open data for this model year. We surface common failure patterns against similar cars — not a full reliability score, and not a pass/fail verdict on any individual vehicle.

2024 2025

What we include

UK Class 4 cars only. Normal MOT tests (not retests); first test per vehicle per calendar year; results pass, PRS, or fail.

Same-day repairs

PRS means the car failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

How we compare

We compare this model year with other Class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year. This model family is left out of the peer group so the car is not measured against itself.

What this does not cover

  • MOTs do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronics — this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults come from MOT defect stats, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Age and mileage matching reduces — but does not remove — differences in how cars were used and maintained.
  • We never invent pass rates, star scores, or ranks when those data marts are missing.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Most reliable Chevrolet models

See brand-wide MOT rankings and year guidance for Chevrolet (separate from this model-year report).