Ford Ka 2008: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2008 Ford Ka include Component mounting prescribed areas (front) (~24.8× peers) and Prescribed areas (~23.1× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,739 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Component mounting prescribed areas (front): about 24.8× more often than similar cars
  • Prescribed areas: about 23.1× more often than similar cars
  • Component mounting prescribed areas (rear): about 10.3× 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 1,739 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Component mounting prescribed areas (front)

This failure pattern appears about 24.8× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 184 failed first-attempt tests; 10.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 184 failures · ×24.8 vs similar cars · 10.6% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Prescribed areas

This failure pattern appears about 23.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 133 failed first-attempt tests; 7.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 133 failures · ×23.1 vs similar cars · 7.6% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 10.3× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 489 failed first-attempt tests; 28.1% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 489 failures · ×10.3 vs similar cars · 28.1% 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 Prescribed areas (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
Front 99 ×26.3 5.7% Likely common fault pattern
2 Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
Front 184 ×24.8 10.6% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Prescribed areas
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
Any 133 ×23.1 7.6% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
Front 86 ×18.7 4.9% Likely common fault pattern
5 Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
Front 73 ×17.3 4.2% Likely common fault pattern
6 Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
Front 76 ×16.5 4.4% Likely common fault pattern
7 Component mounting prescribed areas
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
Any 53 ×13.4 3.0% Likely common fault pattern
8 Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
Any 40 ×13.3 2.3% Likely common fault pattern
9 Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
Rear 40 ×12.4 2.3% Likely common fault pattern
10 Integral vehicle structure condition
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
Any 43 ×11.9 2.5% Likely common fault pattern

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 Component mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
Front 115 ×20.2 6.6% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Prescribed areas
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
Any 30 ×17.2 1.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
Front 69 ×16.7 4.0% Likely common fault pattern
4 Integral vehicle structure condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
Front 47 ×12.4 2.7% Likely common fault pattern
5 Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (front)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
Front 87 ×10.2 5.0% Likely common fault pattern
6 Component mounting prescribed areas
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
Any 44 ×7.6 2.5% Likely common fault pattern
7 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Pins and bushes
Rear 28 ×6.7 1.6% Elevated vs peers
8 Integral vehicle structure condition
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
Any 55 ×5.4 3.2% Likely common fault pattern

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2008 Ford Ka on this page. Among 1,739 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Component mounting prescribed areas (front) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 24.8× more often than peers; 184 observed failures; 10.6% 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 surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Component mounting prescribed areas (front) (about 24.8× more often than peers; 184 observed failures; 10.6% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Component mounting prescribed areas (front) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 24.8× more often than peers; 184 observed failures; 10.6% 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 2008 Ford Ka include Component mounting prescribed areas (front), Prescribed areas, Component mounting prescribed areas (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 2008 Ford Ka (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.