The trade-van short answer
The Ford Transit wins this one, but not by the kind of margin that lets you switch your brain off. In the 2024 public UK MOT record, the Transit posted a
Pass-rate split
This is a serious sample, not a forum argument. Together, these two vans account for 1,518,750 recorded 2024 tests in this comparison. The Transit is the bigger population by a distance, which matters because high-volume commercial vehicles absorb every kind of use: careful owner-driver work, parcel routes, cold starts, builders’ rubble, multi-drop abuse, ex-fleet disposal and vans that only see a spanner when the test date forces the issue.
The Transit still comes out ahead. A 69.34% pass rate is not pretty in normal car terms, but for a van carrying this much mileage and trade use, it is stronger than the Vivaro’s 66.72%. The gap is not massive, yet it is meaningful because both vehicles live hard lives. When two work vans are being used by the same kind of buyer, a 2.62-point edge across this many tests is not just noise.
The fail-rate split sharpens the picture. The Transit recorded a 23.75% fail rate, while the Vivaro recorded 27.66%. The Vivaro also has a lower PRS rate than the Transit, so its weaker headline is not simply a case of more testers fixing tiny items during the test. More Vivaros are failing outright.
That does not make the Vivaro a bad van. It means a used Vivaro needs a harder pre-purchase inspection than its reputation sometimes gets. The Transit is not gentle on owners either. Its top failure list is full of the parts that tell you how commercial vehicles age: glass, lamps, brake pipes, structure, CV boots, suspension joints and wipers.
Where they fail
The Transit failure pattern starts with visibility and basic roadworthiness, then moves quickly into corrosion and running gear. Its top recorded failure reasons are:
- Windscreen or window damage: 73,220
- Rear registration plate lamp fault, multiple-lamp case: 64,427
- Brake pipe damaged or excessively corroded: 46,403
- Load-bearing structure significantly reduced or poorly repaired near a prescribed area: 41,078
- Lamp missing or more than half of a multiple light source not working: 38,019
That is a very Transit-looking list. It says many vans are being worked until the cheap visible stuff is ignored, then the underbody starts asking for proper money. Brake pipes and structure are the ones to take seriously. A bulb, wiper or chipped screen can be cheap. Corrosion near suspension or sub-frame mountings is not a haggling point; it is a walk-away point unless the repair evidence is excellent.
The Vivaro’s list has a different flavour. Its top recorded failure reasons are:
- Steering ball joint excessive wear or free play: 28,753
- Windscreen or window damage: 21,916
- Suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn: 14,405
- Suspension pin, bush or joint excessively worn: 12,403
- Rear registration plate lamp fault, multiple-lamp case: 10,449
The Vivaro is more front-end and suspension-led. Steering ball joints sit right at the top. Two separate suspension-wear entries appear inside the top four. That is the story a buyer should carry into the viewing: do not let clean ply lining, a fresh valet or a nice screen distract from play in the front end.
Neither van lets you buy blind. The Transit is the stronger data pick, but its failure list has more expensive corrosion language. The Vivaro loses the pass-rate fight, and its front-end wear pattern is exactly the sort of thing that can make a cheap van expensive after two weeks of loaded work.
Cohort tells
The age split is where the Transit win becomes more useful. In the pre-2018 cohort, the Transit recorded 1,040,769 tests with a 68.78% pass rate and 122,777 miles on average at test. The Vivaro recorded 354,661 tests with a 65.75% pass rate and 126,898 miles on average.
That is the used-buyer heartland. Most affordable trade vans sit there. It is also where the Vivaro’s mileage burden is slightly heavier, so some of its weaker result is earned honestly: older Vivaros in the record are carrying more miles on average than older Transits. Even allowing for that, a three-point gap in the oldest, largest cohort is worth paying attention to.
The 2018-2020 cohort narrows the contest. Transit: 80,393 tests, 76.52% pass rate, 82,578 miles average. Vivaro: 42,149 tests, 74.89% pass rate, 76,842 miles average. The Transit still leads, but it does so while carrying higher average mileage. That is a clean result for the Ford.
The 2021-on cohort is too small to carry the same weight. The Transit has 670 recorded tests at 81.19%. The Vivaro has only 108 recorded tests at 77.78%. Those numbers point the same way, but they are not the main buying evidence. For working vans, the useful truth is in the older cohorts where there are hundreds of thousands of tests and enough miles for weak parts to reveal themselves.
So the cohort answer is simple: Transit wins older, Transit wins middle-aged, Transit also leads the small newer group. The Vivaro’s best defence is not the table; it is the individual van. A clean Vivaro with proof of recent suspension, steering and brake work beats a rusty Transit with a thin MOT pass and a stack of repeat advisories.
Mileage tells
Average mileage is brutal here. The Transit sits at 119,795 miles at test. The Vivaro sits at 121,550 miles. That is close enough to call them both properly used, but the Vivaro is carrying 1,755 more miles on average.
For cars, that gap would be modest. For commercial vans, the character of the miles matters more than the number. A 100,000-mile florist’s van and a 100,000-mile courier van are not the same mechanical object. The public record cannot tell you how many kerbs, cold starts, overfilled loads or short-hop delivery routes a van has seen. It can tell you what tends to be waiting at test time.
On the Transit, mileage seems to show through as a mixed bag: brake pipes, structure, CV boots, suspension joints, lamps and wipers. That is whole-van ageing. On the Vivaro, mileage points more directly into steering and suspension first, with brake pipe corrosion and parking brake efficiency also appearing in the wider top ten.
This is where buyers often get the Transit wrong. The badge is familiar, parts are everywhere, and every trader knows someone who can work on one. That does not make a neglected Transit cheap to own. A Transit with structural corrosion near mounting points can turn into a welding bill with paperwork attached. A Vivaro with steering play can be less frightening if the repair is clean and the rest of the van is honest, but ignore it and it will eat tyres, knock under load and fail again.
Mileage is not the villain. Deferred maintenance is.
For either van, the MOT history should show work being done before failure, not the same advisory dragged across three tests. Repeated brake pipe corrosion, suspension play, worn pads, damaged lamps and windscreen notes are not background noise. They are a picture of how the van has been run.
The numbers we trust
The fairest verdict comes from numbers that are hard to game: pass rate, sample size, average mileage and cohort split. Trim level, engine tune and body shape matter in the real world, but this comparison is about the broad model record. It asks which badge gives a buyer the better statistical starting point before inspecting a specific van.
Here are the core numbers:
- Ford Transit: 1,121,832 tests, 69.34% pass rate, 119,795 average miles
- Vauxhall Vivaro: 396,918 tests, 66.72% pass rate, 121,550 average miles
- Transit lead: 2.62 percentage points
- Transit pre-2018 cohort: 68.78% pass, 122,777 average miles
- Vivaro pre-2018 cohort: 65.75% pass, 126,898 average miles
- Transit 2018-2020 cohort: 76.52% pass, 82,578 average miles
- Vivaro 2018-2020 cohort: 74.89% pass, 76,842 average miles
The uncomfortable bit is that neither van is a soft buy. A pass rate in the high sixties means roughly three in ten do not simply sail through first time once PRS and failures are accounted for. These are working tools, and working tools get used up.
That is why the winner should guide your shortlist, not replace your inspection. Start with the Transit if everything else is equal. Be especially suspicious of corrosion, brake pipes and repeated lamp or screen issues. With the Vivaro, put your attention into steering play, suspension joints, bushes, springs, parking brake efficiency, brake pipes and tyres.
Buying call
If you are choosing for a small business and downtime hurts, the Transit is the better default. The data backs the boring market wisdom: there are many of them, they are well understood, and the broad pass-rate record is stronger than the Vivaro’s. But the same popularity also means plenty of Transits have been through hard hands. Never buy the average Transit. Buy the one whose history is cleaner than the average.
The Vivaro is the value play when the individual van is right. Its weaker pass rate should push the price down or push the seller to show proper evidence: ball joints, suspension work, brake servicing, tyres, lights and any corrosion repairs. A cheap Vivaro with a clean underside and recent front-end work can be a better buy than a famous-name Transit with rot hiding behind a fresh ticket.
For private buyers converting a van, the warning is sharper. A camper build can bury the very areas you should have checked first. Before insulation, flooring and cabinets go in, get the underside, brake pipes, suspension mounts and front-end joints inspected properly. A shiny conversion on a mechanically tired base vehicle is the expensive mistake.
The Vauxhall Vivaro is still worth buying when the individual history is cleaner, especially if steering and suspension work has already been done properly. But on equal condition, equal price and equal evidence, start with the Transit. The MOT record gives it the cleaner statistical case.