Model Reports 8 min read Updated 13 Jul 2026

Fiat 500c 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

On the 2010 Fiat 500c, MOT failures for Shock absorbers (front) and Macpherson strut (front) 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 (872 failed first-attempt tests). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Sample

872 failed first-attempt tests · 1,948 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern

Shock absorbers (front) — about 4.9× more often than on similar cars.

What to check

  • Shock absorbers (front) — about 4.9× more often than similar cars
  • Macpherson strut (front) — about 3.7× more often than similar cars
  • Parking brake performance (rear) — about 3.5× 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 872 failed first-attempt tests in 2025.

Shock absorbers (front)

This failure pattern appears about 4.9× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 97 failed first-attempt tests; 11.1% of failed tests for this model year.

Front 97 failures ×4.9 11.1% of failed first tests Likely

Macpherson strut (front)

This failure pattern appears about 3.7× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 21 failed first-attempt tests; 2.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Front 21 failures ×3.7 2.4% of failed first tests Possible

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 Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 97 ×4.9 11.1% Likely
2 Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 21 ×3.7 2.4% Possible
3 Parking brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Rear 31 ×3.5 3.6% Likely
4 Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 77 ×3.3 8.8% Likely
5 Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 133 ×2.9 15.3% Possible
6 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 23 ×2.6 2.6% Possible
7 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 89 ×2.4 10.2% Possible
8 Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 24 ×2.4 2.8% 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.

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 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 27 ×6.1 3.1% Elevated
2 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Pins and bushes
 Front 42 ×5.1 4.8% Elevated
3 Transmission oil leaks
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Transmission oil leaks
 Any 29 ×3.0 3.3% Elevated
4 Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 92 ×2.9 10.6% Likely
5 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 76 ×2.7 8.7% Elevated
6 Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 65 ×2.4 7.5% Likely
7 Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 153 ×2.4 17.5% Elevated
8 Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 52 ×2.2 6.0% 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 Fiat 500c on this page. Among 872 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Shock absorbers (front) appears more often than on similar cars (about 4.9× more often than similar cars; 97 observed failures; 11.1% 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: Shock absorbers (front) (about 4.9× more often than similar cars; 97 observed failures; 11.1% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Shock absorbers (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (about 4.9× more often than similar cars; 97 observed failures; 11.1% 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 Fiat 500c include Shock absorbers (front), Macpherson strut (front), Parking brake performance (rear). 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 Fiat 500c (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 Fiat models

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