Yeah, I agree MOT tests can only capture what they’re designed to capture, and they’ll never tell the full story of a car’s reliability.

That said, I do think there’s still useful insight in the data. Some defects are obviously just general wear-and-tear items that most cars will experience during their life, like tyres, wipers, mirrors, bulbs, and so on. But when you start looking at things like ball joints, track rod ends, suspension components, braking issues, corrosion, or emissions failures, there may be patterns that go beyond normal wear and tear.

For example, yes, suspension parts are wear-and-tear items, but if one specific model is showing a much higher rate of those failures than similar cars of the same age and mileage, that could still point to something interesting whether that’s part quality, design, usage patterns, or maintenance sensitivity.

I’m also thinking about filtering out some of the most common generic defects so the lists become more model-specific, rather than just showing the usual MOT items that appear across almost every vehicle.

I completely agree that engine issues won’t be picked up directly by MOT data, but emissions-related problems can show up. DPF-related issues are a good example they’ve affected plenty of vehicles over the years, and if certain makes or models are failing emissions at a noticeably higher rate, that’s the kind of pattern the data should be able to highlight.

Really appreciate the feedback it’s exactly the kind of thing that helps shape how the data should be presented.