MOT Status
ExpiredMileage
128,185 miAbove average mileage for this year
Not all car check providers offer a guarantee. Don't risk buying from services that can't back their data. CarVerify reports include a £30,000 finance data guarantee.
Vehicle Details
All premium checks include
50+ data pointsMOT History
Central Exhaust system not adequately supported Rubber hanger insecure. (7.1.1)
Emissions not tested Front section of exhaust leaking so badly, could not get a reading at tailpipe. (7.3.A.1)
Front Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
Horn not working (1.6.2a)
Nearside Front Anti-roll bar has excessive play in a ball joint (2.4.G.2)
Offside Front Upper Anti-roll bar ball joint dust cover excessively deteriorated so that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
All brake disc faces corroded.
Brake pipe slightly corroded Both rear pipes. (3.6.B.2c)
Offside and Nearside Sill panels corroded surface (heavily) at rear suspension fixings.
Small binding to offside rear brake.
Small leak at steering rack.
front brake fluctuating, but not excessively Both front brakes. (3.7.B.3)
Nearside Headlamp not working on dipped beam (1.7.5a)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content at idle excessive (7.3.D.4)
Front Headlamp aim beam image obviously incorrect (1.8.A.1b)
Nearside Front Steering rack gaiter split (2.2.D.2d)
Nearside Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged to the extent that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc (2.5.C.1a)
Offside Front Steering rack gaiter split (2.2.D.2d)
Emissions not tested (7.0)
Front Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
Headlamp levelling device obviously defective (1.7.2)
Nearside Headlamp cleaning device obviously defective (1.7.2)
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
Offside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
Offside Headlamp cleaning device obviously defective (1.7.2)
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area repaired, but not inappropriately (2.4.A.3)
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Rear Service brake: service brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
Exhaust noisy (7.1.4)
Front Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage rubber mounting deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
rear tyres are worn on the inner edges.
Offside Front Headlamp aim beam image obviously incorrect (1.8.A.1b)
Exhaust noisy (7.1.4)
Front Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Offside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage rubber mounting deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Service brake: service brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
rear tyres are worn on the inner edges.
Advise poor headlight images
Brakes imbalanced requirements only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.5b)
Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
Nearside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Offside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Rear fog lamp tell tale not working (1.3.1b)
Advise poor headlight images
Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
Nearside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Offside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (2.4.A.3)
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
Nearside Rear Brake pad(s) less than 1.5 mm thick (3.5.1g)
Nearside Steering rack gaiter split (2.2.D.2d)
Nearside rear brake binding (3.7.B.1)
Offside Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
Corrosion under vehicle not to x/s at time of test.
Offside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
Offside Rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
wiper blades begun to tear
Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (3.5.1g)
How Reliable is the Mitsubishi Fto?
Based on 55,254 MOT tests across 5,410 vehicles.
Top MOT Failure Points
Don't risk it. Know before you buy.
Not all vehicle check providers are the same. Some don't offer a data guarantee, which means if their information is wrong, you're on your own. Every CarVerify report is backed by a £30,000 finance data guarantee.
M538 SWP is a 1994 Mitsubishi Fto in Silver with a 1,995cc petrol engine. This vehicle has been through 18 MOT tests with a personal pass rate of 61.1%.
Across all 1994 Mitsubishi Fto models, the average MOT pass rate is 63.6% with a typical mileage of 108,370 miles. This particular vehicle has a lower pass rate than the average for its year, which may indicate maintenance issues worth investigating.
The most common reason a Mitsubishi Fto fails its MOT is suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded, accounting for 4,056 recorded failures. If you're considering buying M538 SWP, it's worth having these areas checked by a mechanic before committing.
The Mitsubishi Fto typically stays on UK roads for around 32 years. At 32 years old, this Mitsubishi Fto is approaching the upper end of the typical lifespan for this model.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I check the history of M538 SWP?
You can check the full history of M538 SWP by running a full vehicle check. This shows you finance, stolen, write-off, MOT history, mileage records and more.
What year was M538 SWP registered?
M538 SWP is a 1994 Mitsubishi Fto, first registered on 31 December 1994.
Is M538 SWP safe to buy?
The MOT history for M538 SWP shows 18 tests with a 61.1% pass rate. To check for outstanding finance, stolen markers, write-off history and mileage discrepancies, run a full vehicle check.
Does M538 SWP have outstanding finance?
Finance checks require a premium vehicle report. This checks against all major UK finance providers to see if there is any outstanding finance on M538 SWP. If you buy a car with outstanding finance, the finance company can repossess it.
No warranty or guarantee of accuracy is provided for any free data on this page. The data guarantee applies only to information obtained through the purchase of a full check.