2010 Mazda 2 1.3L Petrol · GF10 CDX

The vehicle’s most recent MOT test, conducted just six months ago on 2025-11-13, confirms it passed without any recorded defects or advisories. This suggests the car remains roadworthy under current MOT standards, though the duplicate entry of a failed test at the same mileage on the same date appears anomalous and may indicate a data error rather than a mechanical issue. The consistent pass rates over the past three years—without recurring faults—point to a stable maintenance history, though the lack of advisories or defects does not preclude hidden wear. Buyers should verify whether the duplicate failure was a genuine test or a clerical oversight, as it does not reflect actual roadworthiness. The recorded mileage of 126,661 miles over 16 years aligns with typical usage for this model, averaging around 7,900 miles annually. There are no obvious gaps in service intervals, though the jump from 117,141 to 126,661 miles between the 2024 and 2025 tests suggests moderate but steady driving. The absence of advisories or defects in prior tests implies no urgent mechanical concerns, but the lack of mileage-based service records means critical components like timing belts, suspension bushes, and brake calipers may not have been systematically inspected. The most recent test date, while recent, does not account for wear that could have developed since November 2025. Given the clean MOT history, a buyer should prioritise an independent inspection of high-wear items such as coil springs, suspension bushes, and brake calipers, as these are not routinely checked under MOT but can fail catastrophically. The rear brakes were flagged in past tests (though not in this record), so binding or uneven wear should be verified. Corrosion in wheel arches, sills, or subframes is also likely given the vehicle’s age, particularly if it has been exposed to salted roads. The lack of advisories does not guarantee these areas are sound, so visual and functional checks are essential. The duplicate failure entry warrants clarification, as it could indicate either a genuine oversight or a red flag for inconsistent testing.