Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Hyundai Tucson 2018: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2018 Hyundai Tucson include Pins and bushes (rear) (~19.7× peers) and Hand lever (~12.1× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (4,305 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

4,305 failed first-attempt tests · 24,033 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Pins and bushes (rear) — about 19.7× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Pins and bushes (rear): about 19.7× more often than similar cars
  • Hand lever: about 12.1× more often than similar cars
  • Parking brake control — Lever: about 10.4× 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 4,305 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 19.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 236 failed first-attempt tests; 5.5% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 236 failures · ×19.7 vs similar cars · 5.5% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Hand lever

This failure pattern appears about 12.1× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 126 failed first-attempt tests; 2.9% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 126 failures · ×12.1 vs similar cars · 2.9% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Parking brake control — Lever

This failure pattern appears about 10.4× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 202 failed first-attempt tests; 4.7% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 202 failures · ×10.4 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 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 236 ×19.7 5.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Hand lever
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Hand lever
 Any 126 ×12.1 2.9% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Parking brake control — Lever
Brakes > Parking brake control > Lever
 Any 202 ×10.4 4.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 313 ×4.8 7.3% Likely common fault pattern
5 Anti-lock braking system
Brakes > ABS / EBS / ESC > Anti-lock braking system
 Any 99 ×4.4 2.3% Likely common fault pattern
6 Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 221 ×3.1 5.1% Likely common fault pattern

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

Wear patterns

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. They are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

# 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 565 ×2.2 13.1% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault
2 Brake pads (front)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake linings and pads > Brake pads
 Front 544 ×2.1 12.6% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault

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 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 202 ×12.2 4.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2018 Hyundai Tucson on this page. Among 4,305 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 19.7× more often than peers; 236 observed failures; 5.5% 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: Pins and bushes (rear) (about 19.7× more often than peers; 236 observed failures; 5.5% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 19.7× more often than peers; 236 observed failures; 5.5% 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 2018 Hyundai Tucson include Pins and bushes (rear), Hand lever, Parking brake control — Lever. 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 2018 Hyundai Tucson (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 Hyundai models

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