2016 Ford Fiesta 1.5L Diesel · AO66 AEF

The 2016 Ford Fiesta’s most recent MOT test on 2024-08-02—just 11 months prior to today—shows a clean pass with no defects recorded, though it is unusual to have two identical entries (one pass, one fail) at the same mileage. This suggests either an administrative error in the DVSA system or a vehicle that has consistently avoided major failures, though the lack of advisories or defects over five tests implies no recurring mechanical issues were detected. The stability of the record is notable, as there are no warnings about suspension bushes, coil springs, binding calipers, or corrosion in critical areas. However, the absence of advisories also means no proactive maintenance notes were logged, leaving some wear-and-tear assessment to the buyer’s own inspection. The vehicle’s mileage progression—from 85,266 miles in August 2022 to 100,643 miles in August 2024—averages just over 10,000 miles annually, a rate typical for a car of this age. There are no significant gaps in testing, and the mileage increments are consistent, ruling out extended periods of neglect or rapid depreciation. While this suggests the vehicle has been driven regularly rather than left stationary, the lack of advisories in prior tests means there is no evidence of deferred maintenance or accelerated wear on high-impact components. Given the clean MOT history, the primary focus for an in-person inspection should centre on suspension integrity , particularly the rear bushings and coil springs, as these are common failure points at this mileage. The brakes—though never flagged—should be checked for uneven pad wear, binding calipers, or excessive lateral run-out on the discs, as these can develop silently. Corrosion should be scrutinised around the wheel arches, sills, and subframe, especially if the vehicle has seen winter road salt exposure. The exhaust system’s structural integrity is also worth examining, as leaks or sagging supports are often overlooked until they become MOT failures. Finally, the tyre tread depth and uniformity should be verified, as the absence of advisories in prior tests suggests either diligent replacement or a history of underinflation.