Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Mazda 6 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2009 Mazda 6 include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) (~5.7× peers) and Rigid brake pipes (front) (~3.8× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,205 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

1,205 failed first-attempt tests · 2,875 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) — about 5.7× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear): about 5.7× more often than similar cars
  • Rigid brake pipes (front): about 3.8× more often than similar cars
  • Ball joint dust cover (front): about 3.7× 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 1,205 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 5.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 25 failed first-attempt tests; 2.1% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 25 failures · ×5.7 vs similar cars · 2.1% of failed first tests · Possible elevated fault

Rigid brake pipes (front)

This failure pattern appears about 3.8× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 41 failed first-attempt tests; 3.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 41 failures · ×3.8 vs similar cars · 3.4% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

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 Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Rear 25 ×5.7 2.1% Possible elevated fault
2 Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 41 ×3.8 3.4% Likely common fault pattern
3 Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 114 ×3.7 9.5% Likely common fault pattern
4 Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Front 64 ×3.1 5.3% Likely common fault pattern
5 SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 70 ×2.9 5.8% Possible elevated fault
6 Parking brake performance
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake performance > Rbt > Parking brake performance
 Any 42 ×2.7 3.5% Possible elevated fault
7 Rbt (sp)
Brakes > Brake performance > Parking brake efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp)
 Any 241 ×2.7 20.0% Possible elevated fault
8 Service brake imbalance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake imbalance
 Rear 30 ×2.2 2.5% Possible elevated fault
9 Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 45 ×2.0 3.7% Possible elevated fault
10 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 34 ×2.0 2.8% Possible elevated fault

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 discs (rear)
Brakes > Mechanical brake components > Brake discs and drums > Brake discs
 Rear 45 ×3.2 3.7% 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 Service brake performance (front)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Front 20 ×5.2 1.7% Elevated vs peers
2 Suspension arm (rear)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Rear 182 ×5.1 15.1% Elevated vs peers
3 Sub-frame
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Any 22 ×4.9 1.8% Elevated vs peers
4 Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 43 ×4.5 3.6% Elevated vs peers
5 Other suspension component (rear)
Suspension > Other suspension component > Other suspension component
 Rear 34 ×3.8 2.8% Elevated vs peers
6 Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 77 ×3.7 6.4% Elevated vs peers
7 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 39 ×3.5 3.2% Elevated vs peers
8 Sub-frame (rear)
Suspension > Sub-frames > Sub-frame
 Rear 283 ×3.4 23.5% Possible elevated fault

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2009 Mazda 6 on this page. Among 1,205 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.7× more often than peers; 25 observed failures; 2.1% 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: Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) (about 5.7× more often than peers; 25 observed failures; 2.1% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.7× more often than peers; 25 observed failures; 2.1% 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 2009 Mazda 6 include Anti-roll bars — Linkage (rear), Rigid brake pipes (front), Ball joint dust cover (front). 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 2009 Mazda 6 (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 Mazda models

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