Mitsubishi ASX
Registered from 2009 to 2021.
About this model
The Mitsubishi ASX is a subcompact crossover SUV manufactured by the Japanese automaker Mitsubishi Motors. On introduction, it was positioned below the Outlander in Mitsubishi's crossover SUV line-up, until the Eclipse Cross filled the gap between the ASX and Outlander in 2017. It was built on the GS platform closely shared with the Lancer and Outlander.
From the Wikipedia article Mitsubishi ASX, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
What fails its inspection
Great Britain's MOT record for the 2017 1.6 petrol. 197 of 2,047 tests failed, 10%.
Better than 73% of 2017 cars. The typical one fails 12%, across 926 models with enough tests behind them to say.
| Where | Share of failures | Failed tests |
|---|---|---|
| Brakes | 44% | 87 |
| Tyres and wheels | 34% | 67 |
| Visibility | 16% | 32 |
| Lights and electrics | 15% | 30 |
| Suspension | 11% | 21 |
| Body and structure | 4% | 7 |
The defects inspectors cite
- A brake lining or pad worn below 1.5mm
- Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the requirements
- Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the windscreen
- A tyre seriously damaged
- Parking brake efficiency below minimum requirement
- A suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn
Where it stands out against its peers
- Brakes: failed more often than 94% of 2017 cars — 44% of its 197 failed tests, where an ordinary 2017 car has 23%.
Same model year only, at least 30 peer cars, zeros included. Every car has a worst part; this shows which, and how far from ordinary it is. A high share means more to check, not a verdict.
NHTSA's investigations are American; no European regulator publishes an equivalent record, so this section has nothing to draw on for a European car. There is no European equivalent of the service-bulletin register either.
Before you buy one
Built from what this car fails on, not from general knowledge of the model.
- Brakes — 44% of its failures
- A brake lining or pad worn below 1.5mm
- Parking brake efficiency below minimum requirement
- Parking brake inoperative on one side
- Tyres and wheels — 34% of its failures
- Tyre tread depth not in accordance with the requirements
- A tyre seriously damaged
- Suspension — 11% of its failures
- A suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn
- Lights and electrics — 15% of its failures
- Visibility — 16% of its failures
- Wiper blade missing or obviously not clearing the windscreen
When it starts failing
At 80–100k miles this one fails 20% of its inspections, against the 16% an ordinary car of the same age fails.
| Odometer | Failure rate | Rate | Its age | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–20k miles | 5% | 6% | 147 | |
| 20–40k miles | 7% | 10% | 850 | |
| 40–60k miles | 12% | 13% | 780 | |
| 60–80k miles | 11% | 15% | 214 | |
| 80–100k miles | 20% | 16% | 45 |
2,036 British inspections, grouped by the odometer reading recorded at the test.
Half of these have more than 40k miles on them. That is how far people drive this car, not how long it lasts.
Specification
| Year | Measured |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 2.0 petrol · 148 hp · 1471 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 6.7 L/100km (WLTP) |
| 2020 | 2.0 petrol · 148 hp · 1467 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 7.1 L/100km (WLTP) |
| 2019 | 1.6 petrol · 115 hp · 1342 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 6.5 L/100km (WLTP) |
| 2018 | 1.6 petrol · 115 hp · 1336 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 6.4 L/100km (WLTP) |
| 2017 | 1.6 petrol · 115 hp · 1335 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 5.5 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2016 | 1.6 diesel · 113 hp · 1444 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 4.7 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2015 | 1.6 petrol · 115 hp · 1336 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 5.6 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2014 | 1.8 diesel · 134 hp · 1541 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 5.2 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2013 | 1.6 petrol · 115 hp · 1346 kg · 2670 mm wheelbase · 5.6 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2012 | 1.8 diesel · 138 hp · 1548 kg · 2657 mm wheelbase · 5.5 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2011 | 1.8 diesel · 142 hp · 1573 kg · 2617 mm wheelbase · 5.7 L/100km (NEDC) |
| 2010 | 1.8 diesel · 1553 kg · 2577 mm wheelbase · 5.6 L/100km (NEDC) |
Recalls
Filed by the manufacturer with a regulator. A recall is repaired free of charge, whoever owns the car now.
A12/00510/21
The Fluorine anti-rust coating of the ramp shaft for the rear parking brake may peel off, allowing water to penetrate inside and rust the shaft and the internal caliper.As the result, the shaft could become stuck, causing decreased parking brake force, leading to increased risk of an accident.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/00923/21
Due to improper software of the FCM ECU (Forward Collision Mitigation), camera images might be processed incorrectly and a possible collision might be detected falsely. As a result. the FCM system might operate primary braking, leading to increased risk of an accident. The product does not comply with the requirements laid down in the Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/0098/18
The door lock mechanism might not operate properly in high temperatures. As a result, the door may not be locked properly and could open while the vehicle is moving.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/0099/18
The engine electronic control unit relay may heat up abnormally. This could lead to the engine stalling while driving and not being able to restart the engine.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/0412/14
Unwanted soot / carbon deposits on the piston rings might cause the piston rings to get stuck in the piston groove. As a result, this can cause increased blow-by gas to directly enter the crank case which in turn may cause the piston to overheat and melt. As a consequence, the engine may stall.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/0549/14
The “keyless operation system” control unit may shut down at very low temperatures (-20 to -30 degrees). In this case, the engine will not start and it will not be possible to lock or unlock the doors, tailgate and steering.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/0900/13
During the roof glass installation at the factory, the primer may not have been applied properly on the roof glass leading to insufficient chemical bonding between the primer and the glue in specific areas. The consequent insufficient adhesion force between the glass roof panel and the steel body could, in the worst case, result in the roof glass panel detaching from the steel roof panel.Two cases have been reported in Europe.
Recall of the product from end users
A12/1096/18
The parking brake lever shaft might be stuck due to corrosion or/and the auto-adjuster of the rear brake piston assembly might be inoperative. The parking brake might work with lower efficiency or might be inoperative.
Recall of the product from end users
3 more campaigns have been filed against this model. A dealer can check by VIN which apply to one car.