Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2005 Land Rover Range Rover Sport include Prop shaft (~23.2× peers) and Electronic parking brake (~18.8× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (872 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

872 failed first-attempt tests · 2,647 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Prop shaft — about 23.2× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Prop shaft: about 23.2× more often than similar cars
  • Electronic parking brake: about 18.8× more often than similar cars
  • Suspension arm (rear): about 14.8× 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 872 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Prop shaft

This failure pattern appears about 23.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 29 failed first-attempt tests; 3.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 29 failures · ×23.2 vs similar cars · 3.3% of failed first tests · Possible elevated fault

Electronic parking brake

This failure pattern appears about 18.8× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 20 failed first-attempt tests; 2.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 20 failures · ×18.8 vs similar cars · 2.3% of failed first tests · Possible elevated fault

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 29 ×23.2 3.3% Possible elevated fault
2 Electronic parking brake
Brakes > Parking brake control > Electronic parking brake
 Any 20 ×18.8 2.3% Possible elevated fault
3 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 73 ×14.8 8.4% Likely common fault pattern
4 Brake performance not tested
Brakes > Brake performance > Brake performance not tested
 Any 34 ×3.9 3.9% Likely common fault pattern
5 Decelerometer (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Decelerometer (sp)
 Any 22 ×3.5 2.5% Possible elevated fault
6 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 41 ×3.3 4.7% Likely common fault pattern
7 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 49 ×2.9 5.6% Possible elevated fault
8 Linkage ball joints (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Rear 22 ×2.9 2.5% Possible elevated fault
9 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 39 ×2.6 4.5% Possible elevated fault
10 Rear fog lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Rear 20 ×2.2 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 Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Any 83 ×6.2 9.5% Elevated vs peers
2 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 59 ×3.8 6.8% Possible elevated fault
3 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 86 ×3.4 9.9% Likely common fault pattern
4 Integral vehicle structure condition
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Any 39 ×3.0 4.5% Elevated vs peers
5 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Rear 81 ×2.9 9.3% Likely common fault pattern
6 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 38 ×2.2 4.4% Possible elevated fault

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2005 Land Rover Range Rover Sport on this page. Among 872 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Prop shaft appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 23.2× more often than peers; 29 observed failures; 3.3% 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: Prop shaft (about 23.2× more often than peers; 29 observed failures; 3.3% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Prop shaft shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 23.2× more often than peers; 29 observed failures; 3.3% 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 2005 Land Rover Range Rover Sport include Prop shaft, Electronic parking brake, 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 2005 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (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 Land Rover models

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