Sukida Sk 50 Qt (2007)

257 real MOT outcomes analysed • 77.1% first-time pass rate

2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt

CarHunch analysed 257 real MOT records for the 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt. 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 Mileage Distribution MOT Averages Colour Breakdown Compare Models

The 2007 SUKIDA SK 50 QT is a reliability concern: just 26.7% pass on first attempt versus the UK average of 80%, and nearly a quarter of these scooters have recorded a dangerous defect at some point. This is a moped, not a car, so direct comparison to larger vehicles has limits, but the pass rate is exceptionally poor for any vehicle type.

With a median mileage of only 2,986 miles, these machines are relatively lightly used, yet still rack up an average of 0.6 advisories per vehicle—suggesting age-related wear and maintenance neglect rather than heavy use. Before buying, have any used SK 50 QT inspected by a qualified moped mechanic, because the MOT history indicates systemic build or durability issues that an amateur eye won't catch.

We have limited data for the 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt — treat the figures below as indicative rather than definitive.

First-time pass
77.1%
UK average ~80%
Around average
Dangerous (ever)
3.1%
At least once in MOT history
Check this vehicle
Avg failures / car
0.29
Over 1.7 tests on record
Low
Typical mileage
3k
Middle half: 2k–6k
For context

These stats describe 257 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 257 Sukida Sk 50 Qt cars.

UK

Before you buy a 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt

Based on MOT data from 257 vehicles — here's what to check.

  • 📋 Check the full MOT history. 3.1% 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 ClickMechanic
  • 📄 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 carVertical Get 20% off via CarHunch

Colour Breakdown

Based on 707 Sukida Sk 50 Qt vehicles registered in the UK — across all years. From DVLA registration records.

Black 30.6%
216
Blue 23.3%
165
Red 20.8%
147
Orange 19%
134
Silver 4.7%
33
Yellow 1.7%
12

Mileage Distribution

Most 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt 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.

2,986
typical
1,710
low mileage
6,211
high mileage

Half of all 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt vehicles fall between 1,710 and 6,211 miles.

Is the mileage you're seeing normal?
Under 1,710 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.
1,710–6,211 miles — normal for age. This is where most 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qts sit.
Over 8,384 miles — higher than typical. Not necessarily a problem, but check service history and look out for advisory build-up on tyres and brakes.

MOT History Averages

1.7
Avg MOT tests per vehicle
0.29
Avg failures per vehicle
0.6
Avg advisories per vehicle
Other model years — Sukida Sk 50 Qt: All Sk 50 Qt years → Which year to buy? →
2006

Or browse all models: Sukida →

Compare with another model

See how the 2007 Sukida Sk 50 Qt stacks up against a rival.

Average reliability — agree?