Model Reports 8 min read Updated 13 Jul 2026

Land Rover Discovery 2008: reliability & common MOT faults

On the 2008 Land Rover Discovery, MOT failures for Pins and bushes (rear) and Prop shaft 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 (1,467 failed first-attempt tests). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Sample

1,467 failed first-attempt tests · 4,086 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern

Pins and bushes (rear) — about 7.3× more often than on similar cars.

What to check

  • Pins and bushes (rear) — about 7.3× more often than similar cars
  • Prop shaft — about 49× more often than similar cars (55 observed failures)
  • Electronic parking brake — about 31× more often than similar cars (66 observed failures)

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 1,467 failed first-attempt tests in 2025.

Pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 7.3× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 140 failed first-attempt tests; 9.5% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear 140 failures ×7.3 9.5% of failed first tests Strong

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 55 ×49 3.7% Likely
2 Electronic parking brake
Brakes > Parking brake control > Electronic parking brake
 Any 66 ×31 4.5% Likely
3 Decelerometer (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Decelerometer (sp)
 Any 57 ×9.1 3.9% Likely
4 Flexible brake hoses (front)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Front 85 ×8.9 5.8% Likely
5 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 140 ×7.3 9.5% Strong
6 Visibility — Bonnet
Visibility > Bonnet
 Any 31 ×4.7 2.1% Likely
7 Brake performance not tested
Brakes > Brake performance > Brake performance not tested
 Any 50 ×4.7 3.4% Likely
8 Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 39 ×3.6 2.7% Likely
9 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 51 ×3.3 3.5% Likely
10 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 65 ×2.7 4.4% 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 Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 24 ×20 1.6% Likely
2 Prescribed areas (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Rear 29 ×10 2.0% Possible
3 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 97 ×6.1 6.6% Elevated
4 Flexible brake hoses (front)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Front 124 ×5.0 8.5% Likely
5 Integral vehicle structure condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Rear 66 ×3.7 4.5% Elevated
6 Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 30 ×3.3 2.0% Elevated
7 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 142 ×3.0 9.7% Strong
8 Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 50 ×2.7 3.4% Likely
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 2008 Land Rover Discovery on this page. Among 1,467 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar cars (about 7.3× more often than similar cars; 140 observed failures; 9.5% 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 highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (rear) (about 7.3× more often than similar cars; 140 observed failures; 9.5% 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 cars (about 7.3× more often than similar cars; 140 observed failures; 9.5% 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 2008 Land Rover Discovery include Pins and bushes (rear), Prop shaft, Electronic parking brake. 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 2008 Land Rover Discovery (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 Land Rover models

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