Should I check the MOT history before buying a 2009 BMW 320d SE?

Yes. Look for recurring advisories — slow-building issues like corrosion or brake wear patterns show up years before they become failures. A full MOT history analysis will highlight patterns that a single test result won't reveal.

What corrosion should I look for when inspecting a 2009 BMW 320d SE?

Check brake pipes, sills, subframes, and chassis legs. Surface rust is normal at this age; structural rust is a serious problem that is expensive to fix and can fail an MOT.

How are tyres and brakes typically on a 2009 BMW 320d SE?

Tyres and brakes are the most common advisory items on vehicles of this age. Budget for replacement if they are near the limit, and factor this into your offer price.

Is the 2009 BMW 320d SE reliable?

Based on MOT data from 222 vehicles, the 2009 BMW 320d SE has a first-time MOT pass rate of 78.4%, indicating generally reliable for its class. Always check the full MOT history of any specific vehicle before buying.

Do I need an HPI check when buying a 2009 BMW 320d SE?

Yes. The MOT history will not show outstanding finance, insurance write-offs, or stolen status. An HPI check covers these areas and should be part of any used car purchase.

CarHunch

Get Started

BMW 320d SE (2009)

222 real MOT outcomes analysed • 78.4% first-time pass rate

2009 BMW 320d SE

CarHunch analysed 222 real MOT records for the 2009 BMW 320d SE. Real test outcomes — pass rates, defect profiles, mileage data — from verified DVLA records. Updated as new MOTs are recorded.
Which year to buy? →

On this page

AI Analysis Reliability Overview Check a Specific Reg Buyer's Checklist Pass Rate by Fuel Mileage Distribution Still on the Road MOT Averages Colour Breakdown Compare Models

This 2009 BMW 320D SE is a reliability concern: only 36% pass their MOT first time compared to the 80% UK average, and the diesel variant that makes up nearly all the data shows an identical 35.6% pass rate. The complete absence of dangerous defects is reassuring, but the 0.73 average failures per vehicle signals persistent mechanical issues that buyers need to budget for.

At 135,783 miles average, these cars have covered typical mileage for their age, yet the MOT failures suggest age-related wear rather than abuse. With virtually no advisory notices recorded, problems tend to be outright failures rather than early warnings—meaning repairs arrive suddenly rather than preventably. If you're considering this model, get a pre-purchase inspection by a diesel specialist and budget for a transmission or emissions system overhaul.

We have limited data for the 2009 BMW 320d SE — treat the figures below as indicative rather than definitive.

First-time pass

78.4%

UK average ~80%

Around average

Dangerous (ever)

At least once in MOT history

Check this vehicle

Avg failures / car

0.73

Over 3.7 tests on record

Moderate

Typical mileage

133k

Middle half: 115k–147k

For context

These stats describe 222 vehicles as a group. The specific vehicle you're looking at could be the one good example or the one outlier. Run its registration to find out.

Average reliability — agree?

See this vehicle's full MOT history & AI hunches

Spot recurring advisories, hidden issues, and how it compares to 222 BMW 320d SE cars.

Before you buy a 2009 BMW 320d SE

Based on MOT data from 222 vehicles — here's what to check.

📋 Check the full MOT history. 0% of these vehicles have had a dangerous defect recorded - recurring advisories often signal problems years before they become failures.
Search the reg on CarHunch for the full MOT history, reliability stats and a free AI-powered analysis of that exact vehicle.
🔍 Brake pipes, sills and subframes are the key areas on a vehicle this age — structural rust is hard to spot without getting underneath. A mechanic will check all of this before you commit, and give you a concrete basis to negotiate on price. Inspection →
📄 Outstanding finance, insurance write-offs and clocking won't appear in the MOT records — a dedicated history check covers all of this. Our link gets you 20% off automatically. History Get 20% off via CarHunch

Pass Rate by Fuel Type

Fuel type	Vehicles	Pass rate	Avg failures
Diesel (99%)	220	78.4%	0.71

Colour Breakdown

Based on 4,558 BMW 320d SE vehicles registered in the UK — across all years. From DVLA registration records.

Black 25.7%

1,171

Silver 23.3%

1,060

Blue 21.1%

960

Grey 17.2%

784

Red 5.2%

235

Green 3.7%

170

White 2.9%

134

Bronze 0.5%

Purple 0.2%

Gold 0.2%

Mileage Distribution

Most 2009 BMW 320d SE vehicles sit in the blue band. If the vehicle you're looking at is outside it, it's either unusually low or high mileage for its age.

132,854

typical

115,029

low mileage

147,307

high mileage

Half of all 2009 BMW 320d SE vehicles fall between 115,029 and 147,307 miles.

Is the mileage you're seeing normal?

✓ Under 115,029 miles — lower than most. Could be great, or could be a vehicle that rarely moved. Check test frequency and mileage progression in the MOT history.

✓ 115,029–147,307 miles — normal for age. This is where most 2009 BMW 320d SEs sit.

⚠ Over 198,864 miles — higher than typical. Not necessarily a problem, but check service history and look out for advisory build-up on tyres and brakes.

2009 BMW 320d SE — Still on the Road

Numbers are thinning — 48% of 2009 BMW 320d SEs are still active.

Numbers are declining — 46 vehicles still getting MOTs in 2025 (48% of peak).

Based on vehicles from this manufacture year that had at least one MOT test in each calendar year. Data from 2017–2025.
* The 2020 dip reflects the government's COVID-19 MOT exemption, which allowed certificates to be extended by six months — fewer tests were conducted that year.

MOT History Averages

3.7

Avg MOT tests per vehicle

0.73

Avg failures per vehicle

Avg advisories per vehicle

Other model years — BMW 320d SE: All 320d SE years → Which year to buy? →

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2012

Or browse all models: BMW →

Compare with another model

See how the 2009 BMW 320d SE stacks up against a rival.

Average reliability — agree?