Mg A 1600mk2 vs Mg Metro: reliability comparison
MOT pass rates, common faults and mileage compared from real UK MOT data.
Mg A 1600mk2
90%
MOT pass rate · 1 vehicles
Mg Metro
70%
MOT pass rate · 99,203 vehicles
Verdict: On MOT pass rate the Mg A 1600mk2 (90%) and Mg Metro (70%) are very close — weigh the individual measures below, and remember condition depends on age, mileage and upkeep.
Head to head
| Measure | Mg A 1600mk2 | Mg Metro |
|---|---|---|
| MOT pass rate | 90% ✓ | 70% |
| MOT failure rate | 10% ✓ | 30% |
| Faults & advisories per test | 0.1 ✓ | 1.9 |
| Dangerous-fault share | 0% ✓ | 1% |
| Average mileage | 67,901 mi | 69,393 mi |
| Sample size (vehicles) | 1 | 99,203 |
Most common faults
Mg A 1600mk2
- Front registration plate character(s) likely to be misread (6.3.4b)
Mg Metro
- Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content excessive (7.3.B.1a)
- Exhaust emissions hydrocarbon content excessive (7.3.B.1b)
- Nearside Front Subframe mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
- Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
- Oil leak
- Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)
Reliability FAQ
On MOT pass rate the Mg A 1600mk2 (90%) and Mg Metro (70%) are very close — weigh the individual measures below, and remember condition depends on age, mileage and upkeep.
Full Mg A 1600mk2 report Full Mg Metro report Most reliable cars
Pass rates are computed over completed (pass/fail) MOT tests. Reliability also depends on age, mileage and upkeep — see each model's page for the full picture.