2004 EUNOS ROADSTER1.6L Petrol

The Eunos Roadster’s MOT history presents a concerning pattern of repeated failures without any recorded defects, a red flag that suggests either deliberate test manipulation or systemic issues evading detection. The most recent tests in May 2025—just days apart—both resulted in failures at 231,385 and 231,390 miles, yet neither entry lists any advisories or defects. This inconsistency raises immediate questions about the vehicle’s true condition, particularly given the absence of even minor advisories that might indicate routine wear. The fact that the same outcome occurred in June 2024 at 228,727 and 228,728 miles strengthens the suspicion that something is being overlooked, whether through test evasion or genuine mechanical deception. Without documented faults, it’s impossible to verify whether critical components—such as suspension bushes, brake binding, or structural corrosion—have been addressed, but the pattern itself implies a lack of transparency. The car’s mileage accumulation of roughly 10,518 miles per year aligns with typical usage for its age, but the clustering of tests in recent years—particularly the back-to-back failures in 2024 and 2025—suggests the vehicle may have been driven to test dates rather than undergoing genuine maintenance intervals. The gap between the 2023 pass (226,637 miles) and the 2024 failures (228,727 miles) covers just over a year, meaning the car was likely in near-continuous use without any recorded service work or advisories being acted upon. This rapid turnover between tests, combined with the absence of defects, is atypical for a vehicle of this age and mileage, where even minor wear items like tyres, wiper blades, or brake pads would normally trigger advisories. For a prospective buyer, the lack of documented faults in these repeated failures demands an immediate, thorough inspection beyond the MOT record. Priority should be given to the braking system—check for uneven wear on discs, binding calipers, or spongy pedal feel, as these are common issues that might have been overlooked in failed tests. The suspension must be scrutinised for worn bushes, sagging coil springs, or excessive play in control arms, particularly given the car’s age and mileage. Structural integrity is another critical area; inspect for corrosion in wheel arches, sills, and subframe mounts, as well as any signs of previous accident damage that may not have been disclosed. Given the history of failed tests without explanation, it’s also prudent to verify the vehicle’s service records independently, as the MOT alone provides no evidence of regular maintenance or timely repairs. The absence of advisories in these failures is not reassuring—it suggests either a well-hidden problem or a deliberate attempt to obscure one.