Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Nissan Note 2015: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2015 Nissan Note include Position lamp (rear) (~5.3× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (3,149 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

3,149 failed first-attempt tests · 14,496 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Position lamp (rear) — about 5.3× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Position lamp (rear): about 5.3× 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 3,149 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Position lamp (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 5.3× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 196 failed first-attempt tests; 6.2% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 196 failures · ×5.3 vs similar cars · 6.2% 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 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 92 ×9.6 2.9% Likely common fault pattern
2 Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 196 ×5.3 6.2% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Position lamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Front 404 ×3.4 12.8% Likely common fault pattern
4 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 63 ×3.1 2.0% Likely common fault pattern
5 Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 142 ×3.1 4.5% Likely common fault pattern
6 Catalyst emissions
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Catalyst emissions
 Any 151 ×2.1 4.8% 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 Coil spring
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Any 50 ×6.2 1.6% Elevated vs peers
2 Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 38 ×4.9 1.2% Elevated vs peers
3 Wheel bearings (rear)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Rear 27 ×4.0 0.9% Likely common fault pattern
4 Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 102 ×3.9 3.2% Elevated vs peers
5 Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 98 ×3.6 3.1% Likely common fault pattern
6 Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Ball joint
 Front 20 ×3.5 0.6% Likely common fault pattern
7 Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 30 ×2.9 1.0% Elevated vs peers
8 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Pins and bushes
 Front 572 ×2.7 18.2% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2015 Nissan Note on this page. Among 3,149 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Position lamp (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.3× more often than peers; 196 observed failures; 6.2% 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: Position lamp (rear) (about 5.3× more often than peers; 196 observed failures; 6.2% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Position lamp (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 5.3× more often than peers; 196 observed failures; 6.2% 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 2015 Nissan Note include Position 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 2015 Nissan Note (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 Nissan models

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