On the 2014 Seat Toledo, MOT failures for Pins and bushes (front) and Coil spring (front) show up more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. Figures come from UK DVSA open data for tests in 2025 (249 failed first-attempt tests). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.
Sample
249 failed first-attempt tests · 773 first tests (test year 2025)
Standout pattern
Pins and bushes (front) — about 3.0× more often than on similar cars.
What to check
Pins and bushes (front) — about 3.0× more often than similar cars
Coil spring (front) — about 2.3× more often than similar cars
Drive shafts — Joints (front) — about 2.2× more often than similar cars
Common faults
Failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars.
These MOT failure patterns show up more often on this registration year than on
similar cars of the same class, age, and mileage.
Based on 249 failed first-attempt tests
in 2025.
Pins and bushes (front)
This failure pattern appears about 3.0× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 36 failed first-attempt tests; 14.5% of failed tests for this model year.
Front·36 failures·×3.0·14.5% of failed first tests·Likely
Coil spring (front)
This failure pattern appears about 2.3× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 35 failed first-attempt tests; 14.1% of failed tests for this model year.
Front·35 failures·×2.3·14.1% of failed first tests·Possible
No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift
rows that still cleared the display floors.
Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown
(at least 20 failures and about
2.0× more often than similar cars).
Note: Rates and comparisons are among first-attempt failed tests, not all MOTs. Patterns come from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer service bulletins, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Failures and advisories are listed separately.
Wear patterns
Usage and mileage effects that often track road use rather than model design.
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.
Note: Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.
FAQs
Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.
We do not show a single reliability score for the 2014 Seat Toledo on this page. Among 249 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Pins and bushes (front) appears more often than on similar cars (about 3.0× more often than similar cars; 36 observed failures; 14.5% 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 highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Pins and bushes (front) (about 3.0× more often than similar cars; 36 observed failures; 14.5% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Pins and bushes (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (about 3.0× more often than similar cars; 36 observed failures; 14.5% of failed tests). That does not prove a design fault — age, mileage, and how the car was used still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2014 Seat Toledo include Pins and bushes (front), Coil spring (front), Drive shafts — Joints (front). These patterns show up more often than on similar cars after we filter out sparse noise — 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 appear more often than on similar cars 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 MOT failure patterns for the 2014 Seat Toledo (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are compared with cars of a similar age and mileage. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer service-bulletin 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 car 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
How this page is built and what it can (and can't) say.
These figures come from UK MOT open data for this model year. We surface common failure patterns against similar cars — not a full reliability score, and not a pass/fail verdict on any individual vehicle.
20242025
What we include
UK Class 4 cars only. Normal MOT tests (not retests); first test per vehicle per calendar year; results pass, PRS, or fail.
Same-day repairs
PRS means the car 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.
How we compare
We compare this model year with other Class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year. This model family is left out of the peer group so the car is not measured against itself.
What this does not cover
MOTs do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronics — this is not a full reliability score.
Common faults come from MOT defect stats, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
Age and mileage matching reduces — but does not remove — differences in how cars were used and maintained.
We never invent pass rates, star scores, or ranks when those data marts are missing.