Model Reports 8 min read Updated 13 Jul 2026

Smart (mcc) Fortwo 2008: reliability & common MOT faults

On the 2008 Smart (mcc) Fortwo, MOT failures for Fuel cap/sealing device and Suspension arm (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 (1,581 failed first-attempt tests). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Sample

1,581 failed first-attempt tests · 4,177 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern

Fuel cap/sealing device — about 19× more often than on similar cars.

What to check

  • Fuel cap/sealing device — about 19× more often than similar cars
  • Suspension arm (front) — about 7.8× more often than similar cars
  • Service brake performance (rear) — about 3.5× 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 1,581 failed first-attempt tests in 2025.

Fuel cap/sealing device

This failure pattern appears about 19× more often than on similar cars — recorded on 120 failed first-attempt tests; 7.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Any 120 failures ×19 7.6% of failed first tests Strong

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Fuel cap/sealing device
Body, chassis, structure > Fuel system > Fuel cap/sealing device
 Any 120 ×19 7.6% Strong
2 Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 32 ×7.8 2.0% Likely
3 Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Rear 33 ×3.5 2.1% Likely
4 Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 64 ×3.2 4.0% Likely
5 Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 139 ×2.9 8.8% Possible
6 Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Spark ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 185 ×2.8 11.7% Possible
7 Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 88 ×2.4 5.6% Possible

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.

# Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Headlamp aim not tested (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamp aim > Headlamp aim not tested
 Front 22 ×3.2 1.4% Wear
Note: These patterns are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

Advisories

Notes recorded at the test that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory notes recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear more often than on similar cars.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Side repeaters
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Side repeaters
 Any 21 ×7.4 1.3% Elevated
2 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 30 ×4.8 1.9% Elevated
3 Rigid brake pipes (rear)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Rear 281 ×2.9 17.8% Possible
4 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Pins and bushes
 Front 45 ×2.6 2.8% Elevated
5 Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Rear 22 ×2.4 1.4% Likely
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 2008 Smart (mcc) Fortwo on this page. Among 1,581 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Fuel cap/sealing device appears more often than on similar cars (about 19× more often than similar cars; 120 observed failures; 7.6% 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: Fuel cap/sealing device (about 19× more often than similar cars; 120 observed failures; 7.6% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Fuel cap/sealing device shows up more often than on similar cars (about 19× more often than similar cars; 120 observed failures; 7.6% 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 2008 Smart (mcc) Fortwo include Fuel cap/sealing device, Suspension arm (front), Service brake performance (rear). 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 2008 Smart (mcc) Fortwo (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.

2024 2025

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.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Most reliable Smart (mcc) models

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