Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Ford S-Max 2007: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2007 Ford S-Max include Suspension arm (rear) (~21.1× peers) and Pins and bushes (rear) (~6.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,461 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

1,461 failed first-attempt tests · 3,106 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Suspension arm (rear) — about 21.1× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Suspension arm (rear): about 21.1× more often than similar cars
  • Pins and bushes (rear): about 6.7× 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 1,461 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Suspension arm (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 21.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 240 failed first-attempt tests; 16.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 240 failures · ×21.1 vs similar cars · 16.4% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 6.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 122 failed first-attempt tests; 8.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 122 failures · ×6.7 vs similar cars · 8.4% 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 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 240 ×21.1 16.4% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 122 ×6.7 8.4% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 40 ×2.6 2.7% Possible elevated fault
4 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 67 ×2.3 4.6% Possible elevated fault
5 Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 61 ×2.2 4.2% Possible elevated fault
6 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 92 ×2.2 6.3% Possible elevated fault
7 Linkage ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joint dust cover
 Front 143 ×2.1 9.8% Possible elevated fault
8 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 164 ×2.0 11.2% 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 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 215 ×4.9 14.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 191 ×4.2 13.1% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 25 ×3.4 1.7% Elevated vs peers
4 Brake pads (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Rear 179 ×2.9 12.3% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault
5 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 40 ×2.9 2.7% Possible elevated fault
6 Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 26 ×2.9 1.8% Possible elevated fault
7 Anti-roll bar (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
 Rear 23 ×2.3 1.6% Elevated vs peers
8 Coil spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Rear 275 ×2.3 18.8% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2007 Ford S-Max on this page. Among 1,461 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Suspension arm (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 21.1× more often than peers; 240 observed failures; 16.4% 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: Suspension arm (rear) (about 21.1× more often than peers; 240 observed failures; 16.4% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Suspension arm (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 21.1× more often than peers; 240 observed failures; 16.4% 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 2007 Ford S-Max include Suspension arm (rear), Pins and bushes (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 2007 Ford S-Max (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.

Most reliable Ford models

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