Ford Focus 2004: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2004 Ford Focus include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) (~20.6× peers) and Linkage pins and bushes (rear) (~16.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (5,495 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear): about 20.6× more often than similar cars
  • Linkage pins and bushes (rear): about 16.7× more often than similar cars
  • Suspension arm (rear): about 14.2× more often than similar cars

Common faults

These are MOT failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age band, and mileage in the same test year (leave-one-out peer comparison; whole model family excluded).

Statistical patterns from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer TSBs, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Fail and advisory patterns are kept separate.

Based on 5,495 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 20.6× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 195 failed first-attempt tests; 3.5% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 195 failures · ×20.6 vs similar cars · 3.5% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Linkage pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 16.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 138 failed first-attempt tests; 2.5% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 138 failures · ×16.7 vs similar cars · 2.5% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Suspension arm (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 14.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 261 failed first-attempt tests; 4.7% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 261 failures · ×14.2 vs similar cars · 4.7% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
Rear 195 ×20.6 3.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
Rear 138 ×16.7 2.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
Rear 261 ×14.2 4.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
Rear 157 ×4.2 2.9% Likely common fault pattern
5 Rear fog lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
Any 364 ×3.1 6.6% Likely common fault pattern
6 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Front 132 ×2.8 2.4% Possible elevated fault
7 Rear fog lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
Rear 172 ×2.7 3.1% Possible elevated fault
8 Prescribed areas (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
Rear 125 ×2.5 2.3% Possible elevated fault

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and 2.0× peer lift).

Advisories

Advisory items recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear elevated versus peers. Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
Rear 164 ×11.6 3.0% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
Rear 772 ×6.2 14.0% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Prescribed areas (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
Rear 62 ×4.1 1.1% Possible elevated fault
4 Brake fluid
Brakes > Hydraulic systems > Brake fluid
Any 34 ×4.0 0.6% Elevated vs peers
5 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
Front 318 ×3.6 5.8% Possible elevated fault
6 Anti-roll bar (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
Rear 97 ×3.4 1.8% Elevated vs peers
7 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
Rear 352 ×3.4 6.4% Likely common fault pattern
8 Suspension arm
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
Any 53 ×2.7 1.0% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2004 Ford Focus on this page. Among 5,495 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 20.6× more often than peers; 195 observed failures; 3.5% 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 surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) (about 20.6× more often than peers; 195 observed failures; 3.5% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 20.6× more often than peers; 195 observed failures; 3.5% of failed tests). That does not prove a causal design fault — age, mileage, and usage still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer TSB.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2004 Ford Focus include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear), Linkage pins and bushes (rear), Suspension arm (rear). These are elevated versus similar peer cars where lift clears our floors — 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 look elevated versus peers 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 elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2004 Ford Focus (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are ranked against similar age and mileage peers. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer TSB 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 vehicle 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

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

PRS policy. PRS means the vehicle 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.

Peer baseline. We compare this model year with other class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year, excluding the whole model family so the car is not compared with itself (leave-one-out peer baseline).

Data years. Test years covered: 2024, 2025.

Limitations.

  • MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules — so this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults are inferred from MOT defect statistics, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Matching on age and mileage reduces but does not remove every usage or maintenance difference between cars.
  • Pass rates and star scores appear only when those data marts are available; this page never invents them.

Display rules config: 1

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