Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Mitsubishi L200 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2006 Mitsubishi L200 include Leaf spring (rear) (~62.3× peers) and Rear fog lamp (~6.9× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,753 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

1,753 failed first-attempt tests · 3,816 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Leaf spring (rear) — about 62.3× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Leaf spring (rear): about 62.3× more often than similar cars
  • Rear fog lamp: about 6.9× more often than similar cars
  • Rear fog lamp (rear): about 6.6× 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 1,753 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Leaf spring (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 62.3× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 127 failed first-attempt tests; 7.2% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 127 failures · ×62.3 vs similar cars · 7.2% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Rear fog lamp

This failure pattern appears about 6.9× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 208 failed first-attempt tests; 11.9% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 208 failures · ×6.9 vs similar cars · 11.9% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Rear fog lamp (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 6.6× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 110 failed first-attempt tests; 6.3% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 110 failures · ×6.6 vs similar cars · 6.3% 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 Leaf spring (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Leaf spring
 Rear 127 ×62.3 7.2% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Rear reflectors
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Rear reflectors
 Any 43 ×14.1 2.5% Likely common fault pattern
3 Rear reflectors (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Rear reflectors
 Rear 36 ×11.0 2.1% Likely common fault pattern
4 Rear fog lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Any 208 ×6.9 11.9% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Rear fog lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Front and rear fog lamps > Rear fog lamp > Rear fog lamp
 Rear 110 ×6.6 6.3% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 56 ×6.4 3.2% Likely common fault pattern
7 Chassis condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Rear 136 ×5.2 7.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
8 Rigid brake pipes
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Any 53 ×3.5 3.0% Likely common fault pattern
9 Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 106 ×3.4 6.0% Likely common fault pattern
10 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 100 ×3.4 5.7% Likely common fault pattern

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 Shackle pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Springs > Leaf springs > Shackle pins and bushes
 Rear 66 ×59.0 3.8% Likely common fault pattern
2 Steering box
Steering > Steering play > Steering box
 Any 21 ×18.8 1.2% Elevated vs peers
3 Prop shaft
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Prop shafts > Prop shaft
 Any 28 ×13.5 1.6% Elevated vs peers
4 Chassis condition
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Any 155 ×6.6 8.8% Possible elevated fault
5 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 85 ×6.1 4.8% Likely common fault pattern
6 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 153 ×5.5 8.7% Likely common fault pattern
7 Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 133 ×4.2 7.6% Likely common fault pattern
8 Chassis condition (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Chassis > Chassis condition
 Front 41 ×4.1 2.3% Likely common fault pattern

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2006 Mitsubishi L200 on this page. Among 1,753 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Leaf spring (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 62.3× more often than peers; 127 observed failures; 7.2% 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: Leaf spring (rear) (about 62.3× more often than peers; 127 observed failures; 7.2% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Leaf spring (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 62.3× more often than peers; 127 observed failures; 7.2% 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 2006 Mitsubishi L200 include Leaf spring (rear), Rear fog lamp, Rear fog lamp (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 2006 Mitsubishi L200 (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).