Pass rate
68.1%
Below average — 4.8 pts behind the 72.9% that cars this age and mileage manage.
Across 91 recorded tests.
Typical repair bill £75–£207
2002 Suzuki Alto MOT pass rate
- 2002
- typical 50,327 mi
Only 91 tests of this exact model and year are in the DVSA data, below the 100 we ask for before a page goes in the index. The figures are still shown, because they are the only ones there are.
Most common fault
Suspension
23.2% of faults · 21.0% nationally
mostly worn arm bushes, split ball-joint boots and broken coil springs.
Which year to buy
- Best 2015 83.1% pass
- Avoid 2001 66.4% pass
Across the 13 years on record, a spread of 16.7 points. See every year →
- First-attempt pass
- 60.8%
- Typical mileage
- 50k mi
The 2002 Suzuki Alto MOT pass rate is 68.1% of its MOT tests — 4.8 points behind what its age and mileage predict. Suspension is the biggest single reason it fails, at 23.2% of what testers record.
Check your postcode
MOT pass rates are national — type your postcode to see how Suzuki Alto does in your corner of the country.
Expert verdict
Body & chassis: 3.0× the national share
Body & chassis accounts for 16.9% of everything recorded on the 2002 Suzuki Alto, against 5.6% nationally — 11.3 points above. Suspension is still the single largest share at 23.2%, but at 21.0% nationally that one is ordinary. Look underneath for corrosion near the jacking points and suspension mounts; surface rust is normal, flaking metal is not.
- Falls short of its own age and mileage. Like-for-like, cars this age and mileage expect about 72.9%; this one manages 68.1% — 4.8 points below. Age is a fair excuse; this is not age.
- When it fails, it costs. Only 11% of this model’s typical repairs come in under £30 in parts — the failures here tend to be the kind that need a garage rather than a bulb.
Written from this page's own figures: fault shares against the national composition, the like-for-like pass rate, and the priced repair list. How these are worked out
Watching a Suzuki Alto? Get an email when these numbers change .
How does the 2002 Suzuki Alto compare?
Cars of this age and mileage average 72.9%, so this figure is 4.8 points behind what its age and mileage predict. On a first attempt, before any retests, the figure drops to 60.8%. The median 2002 Suzuki Alto in this dataset had covered 50,327 mi.
The single most recorded failure item is "Service brake imbalance across an axle", noted on 15.38% of tests.
- 91 recorded tests behind this page.
- 68.1% overall pass rate, 60.8% on a first attempt.
- Across every year of the Suzuki Alto, the average is 79.4% — best year 2015 (83.1%), worst 2001 (66.4%).
Figures count every completed test on this vehicle-year in the dataset, including retests. See methodology for the exact definition.
This page's data
- Tests analysed
- 91
- Typical mileage (median)
- 50,327 mi
- Make and model
- Suzuki Alto
- Updated
- 2026-11-05
Source: DVSA anonymised MOT test data (2023–2025), OGL v3.0.
Top part to budget for
Brake Discs and Pads Set
Usually a DIY or independent-garage job.
Does mileage affect the Alto MOT pass rate?
Pass rate by odometer reading. Bar lengths start at 49% so small gaps stay visible.
Regional pass rates for the Alto
| Region | Tests | Pass rate |
|---|---|---|
| South East | 22 | 63.6% |
| West Midlands | 17 | 70.6% |
| East of England | 16 | 68.8% |
| South West | 15 | 66.7% |
Regions come from the postcode area recorded at the test station. Areas on region borders are assigned to the region with the majority of their population.
What fails a 2002 Alto
Everything a tester recorded on this vehicle, grouped into the inspection sections that produced it. The notch on each bar is the national share, so you can see at a glance whether this car is unusual or just ordinary.
A test can record several items, so these percentages do not add up to 100%. The exact strings, with prices, are in the full DVSA record at the bottom of this page.
Before your test
Three checks worth doing on a 2002 Alto
These are not generic tips — they are the faults recorded most often on this exact model, rewritten as things you can check yourself. All three take about ten minutes and cost nothing.
-
Check corrosion 7.7% of tests
“component mounting prescribed areas prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength”
Look under the sills, around the jacking points and where the suspension mounts meet the body. Flaking, holed or crumbly metal fails; a brown stain on sound metal does not.
-
Check the windscreen 7.7% of tests
“windscreen damaged”
Check the driver’s side of the screen within the swept area for chips and cracks; anything larger than 10mm in the driver’s central view is a fail. Most chips can be resin-repaired for far less than a new screen.
-
Check the suspension joints 4.4% of tests
“ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated”
With the car parked on level ground, rock the top of each front wheel in and out while someone watches the suspension arm. Clunks, or rubber boots split and greasy, are what testers record here.
Shares are the proportion of tests on this vehicle that recorded the item, so they overlap: one test can record several.
What it costs to get a 2002 Alto through its MOT
Across the 10 items that are recorded most often on this model, the average repair comes to £75–£207 — and 11% of those repairs are parts that cost under £30.
- Average repair across the 10 common items
- £75–£207
- Cheapest common item: registration plate lamp(s) inoperative in the…
- £5–£20
- Dearest common item: component mounting prescribed areas…
- £180–£450
- Common items a careful owner can do at home
- 40%
- Repairs that still cost under £30
- 11%
Estimates from typical UK parts prices, weighted by how often each item appears in 91 MOT tests on this vehicle. They exclude diagnostics, retest fees and garage labour where the part is a DIY fit, and they are not figures from the DVSA dataset. Older and higher-mileage examples cost more than the average. How these estimates are built → · All MOT repair costs → · Cheapest cars to put through a test →
Every year of the Alto, side by side
13 model years on record, from 2001 to 2015. Across them the pass rate runs from 66.4% to 83.1% — a spread of 16.7 points. The bar under each year is the item that failed it most often.
- 2001 66.4% joints constant velocity boot…
- 2002 68.1%service brake imbalance across an…
- 2003 67.5% registration plate lamp(s)…
- 2004 67.4% joints constant velocity boot…
- 2005 67.7% joints constant velocity boot…
- 2006 68.1% service brake imbalance across an…
- 2009 76.9% registration plate lamp(s)…
- 2010 77.1% registration plate lamp(s)…
- 2011 79.1% registration plate lamp(s)…
- 2012 79.4% joints constant velocity boot…
- 2013 81.1% joints constant velocity boot…
- 2014 82.6% joints constant velocity boot…
- 2015 83.1% joints constant velocity boot…
Colour is the pass rate on a fixed scale, so a block means the same thing on any model. Each year links to its own page with the full fault breakdown.
Compare the 2002 Suzuki Alto with another year
The raw pass rate mostly measures age. The year comparison adds the like-for-like figure, the mileage bands and the repair bill.
Other 2002 cars with a similar record
- Citroen C3 68.6%
- Volkswagen Polo 68.7%
- Honda Accord 68.7%
- Vauxhall Corsa 68.8%
- Peugeot 307 68.9%
- Ford Ka 67.2%
Closest pass rates among 2002 cars with at least 2,000 tests, so a small sample cannot flatter itself into the list. See the full rankings: best and worst MOT pass rates.
The full DVSA record for the 2002 Suzuki Alto 10 failure items · 6 advisories · 10 inspection categories · mileage brackets · all of it in the page, none of it above the fold
Every inspection category
Shares of the 311 individual items recorded on this vehicle, and the same share across all cars nationally. A single test can record several items, so a row is not a percentage of tests.
| Category | Items | This car | Nationally | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suspension | 73 | 23.20% | 20.98% | +2.22 |
| Brakes | 65 | 20.70% | 20.89% | −0.19 |
| Body, chassis, structure | 53 | 16.90% | 5.57% | +11.33 |
| Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment | 37 | 11.80% | 12.21% | −0.41 |
| Tyres | 34 | 10.80% | 19.76% | −8.96 |
| Noise, emissions and leaks | 21 | 6.70% | 5.52% | +1.18 |
| Visibility | 11 | 3.50% | 4.97% | −1.47 |
| Non-component advisories | 7 | 2.20% | 4.18% | −1.98 |
| Identification of the vehicle | 7 | 2.20% | 1.76% | +0.44 |
| Steering | 3 | 1.00% | 2.57% | −1.57 |
The exact failure items, in the tester's words
| Recorded item | Severity | Tests | Est. cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service brake imbalance across an axle Brakes | Major | 15.4% | £45–110 |
| Joints constant velocity boot severely deteriorated Body, chassis, structure | Minor | 14.3% | £80–250 |
| Component mounting prescribed areas prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength Suspension | Major | 7.7% | £180–450 |
| Windscreen damaged but not adversely affecting driver's view Visibility | Minor | 7.7% | £80–200 |
| Joints constant velocity boot split or insecure, no longer prevents the ingress of dirt Body, chassis, structure | Major | 6.6% | £80–250 |
| Ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated Suspension | Minor | 4.4% | £18–45 |
| Registration plate lamp(s) inoperative in the case of multiple lamps or light sources Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment | Minor | 4.4% | £5–20 |
| Catalyst emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle exceeds manufacturer's specified limits Noise, emissions and leaks | Major | 3.3% | £60–250 |
| Headlamp lens slightly defective Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment | Minor | 3.3% | £5–25 |
| Integral vehicle structure condition corroded to the extent that the rigidity of the assembly is significantly reduced Body, chassis, structure | Major | 3.3% | £180–450 |
Severity is as recorded: Major and Dangerous fail the test outright; Minor and Advisory do not. Costs are estimates from typical UK parts prices — see how they are built.
What testers noted without failing the car
Advisories are the early warnings — the same parts a year or two before they fail. Reading them is how you tell a car that has been maintained from one that has been patched.
| Recorded item | Severity | Tests | Est. cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rigid brake pipes excessively corroded Brakes | Advisory | 23.1% | £80–180 |
| Has a tear, caused by separation or partial failure of its structure Tyres | Advisory | 22.0% | £45–95 |
| Coil spring corroded so that its cross sectional area is reduced and seriously weakened Suspension | Advisory | 13.2% | £25–65 |
| Engine oil leaks leaking excessively from engine Noise, emissions and leaks | Advisory | 12.1% | £200–700 |
| Pins and bushes pin or bush excessively worn Suspension | Advisory | 12.1% | £40–150 |
| Tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm Tyres | Advisory | 11.0% | £45–95 |
Pass rate by mileage
| Mileage | Tests | Pass rate | Median odometer |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-30k | 20 | 70.0% | 23,805 mi |
| 30-60k | 36 | 75.0% | 44,049 mi |
| 60-90k | 26 | 57.7% | 73,964 mi |
| 90-120k | 9 | 66.7% | 104,019 mi |
Source: 91 recorded tests on this vehicle-year. Every row above is recomputed from the same DVSA extract as the rest of the page — see the methodology.
2002 Alto MOT questions
What is the MOT pass rate for a 2002 Suzuki Alto?
68.1% of the 91 2002 Suzuki Alto tests in this dataset passed, against a national average of 72.9% for cars first used in 2002. First-attempt pass rate: 60.8%.
What are the most common MOT failures on a 2002 Suzuki Alto?
The three most recorded items are service brake imbalance across an axle (15.38%), joints constant velocity boot severely deteriorated (14.29%), component mounting prescribed areas prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength (7.69%). Percentages are the share of tests on this vehicle that recorded the item.
Does mileage affect the 2002 Suzuki Alto MOT pass rate?
Yes. Cars under 30,000 miles passed 70.0% of the time, falling to 66.7% for those over 120,000 miles. The median 2002 Suzuki Alto in this dataset had covered 50,327 mi.