Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Mitsubishi Colt 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2009 Mitsubishi Colt include SRS malfunction indicator lamp (~5.9× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,536 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

1,536 failed first-attempt tests · 3,292 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: SRS malfunction indicator lamp — about 5.9× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • SRS malfunction indicator lamp: about 5.9× 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 1,536 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

SRS malfunction indicator lamp

This failure pattern appears about 5.9× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 137 failed first-attempt tests; 8.9% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 137 failures · ×5.9 vs similar cars · 8.9% 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 Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 87 ×24.8 5.7% Likely common fault pattern
2 Anti-roll bars — Linkage (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage
 Front 56 ×15.5 3.6% Likely common fault pattern
3 SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 137 ×5.9 8.9% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 74 ×4.4 4.8% Likely common fault pattern
5 Ball joint dust cover (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint dust cover
 Front 152 ×4.3 9.9% Likely common fault pattern
6 Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 187 ×3.1 12.2% Likely common fault pattern
7 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 35 ×3.0 2.3% Possible elevated fault
8 Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 121 ×2.9 7.9% Possible elevated fault
9 Registration plate lamp(s)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Any 131 ×2.7 8.5% Possible elevated fault
10 Track rod end
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Any 61 ×2.7 4.0% 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 Linkage pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Front 80 ×9.3 5.2% Likely common fault pattern
2 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 23 ×4.3 1.5% Elevated vs peers
3 Seat belts — Condition (rear)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Rear 33 ×3.7 2.1% Elevated vs peers
4 Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 77 ×2.8 5.0% Elevated vs peers
5 Integral vehicle structure condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Integral vehicle structure > Integral vehicle structure condition
 Rear 21 ×2.6 1.4% Elevated vs peers
6 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 27 ×2.6 1.8% Possible elevated fault
7 Track rod end (front)
Steering > Steering linkage components > Track rod end
 Front 49 ×2.4 3.2% Likely common fault pattern
8 Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Any 20 ×2.2 1.3% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2009 Mitsubishi Colt on this page. Among 1,536 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), SRS malfunction indicator lamp appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.9× more often than peers; 137 observed failures; 8.9% 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: SRS malfunction indicator lamp (about 5.9× more often than peers; 137 observed failures; 8.9% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
SRS malfunction indicator lamp shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.9× more often than peers; 137 observed failures; 8.9% 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 Mitsubishi Colt include SRS malfunction indicator lamp. 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 Mitsubishi Colt (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 Mitsubishi models

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