Should I check the MOT history before buying a 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0?

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 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0?

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 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0?

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 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 reliable?

Based on MOT data from 112 vehicles, the 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 has a first-time MOT pass rate of 90.7%, 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 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0?

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

Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 (2009)

112 real MOT outcomes analysed • 90.7% first-time pass rate

2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0

CarHunch analysed 112 real MOT records for the 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0. 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 Compare Models

This 2009 Suzuki GSF 1250 is marginally more reliable than the UK average, with an 81.8% first-time pass rate versus 80%, though nearly one in five have experienced a dangerous defect—a concern worth taking seriously on a motorcycle of this age. The median mileage of just over 18,000 is relatively low for a 15-year-old bike, suggesting many examples have been well looked after or ridden infrequently.

With an average of 1.04 failures per test, most issues are manageable, but the 4.2 advisories per vehicle indicate routine wear items are cropping up—chains, brakes, and lighting are typical culprits on bikes this age. Before buying, have a pre-purchase inspection focus on the electrical system and frame condition, as these tend to be expensive fixes on older sports bikes.

We have limited data for the 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 — treat the figures below as indicative rather than definitive.

⚠️ Around 1 in 8 of these vehicles have had a dangerous MOT failure at some point — usually tyres or brakes, and often a one-off issue rather than a persistent problem. The group stats won't tell you which one you're looking at.

First-time pass

90.7%

UK average ~80%

Better than average

Dangerous (ever)

19.6%

At least once in MOT history

Check this vehicle

Avg failures / car

1.04

Over 10.1 tests on record

High

Typical mileage

18k

Middle half: 10k–27k

For context

These stats describe 112 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 112 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 cars.

Before you buy a 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0

Based on MOT data from 112 vehicles — here's what to check.

📋 Check the full MOT history. 19.6% 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
Petrol (97%)	109	90.4%	1.06

Mileage Distribution

Most 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 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.

18,191

typical

9,880

low mileage

27,415

high mileage

Half of all 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 vehicles fall between 9,880 and 27,415 miles.

Is the mileage you're seeing normal?

✓ Under 9,880 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.

✓ 9,880–27,415 miles — normal for age. This is where most 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0s sit.

⚠ Over 37,010 miles — higher than typical. Not necessarily a problem, but check service history and look out for advisory build-up on tyres and brakes.

2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 — Still on the Road

Numbers are thinning — 61% of 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0s are still active.

54 vehicles still getting MOTs in 2025 — 61% of the peak remain.

Based on vehicles from this manufacture year that had at least one MOT test in each calendar year. Data from 2014–2025.
* 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

10.1

Avg MOT tests per vehicle

1.04

Avg failures per vehicle

4.2

Avg advisories per vehicle

Other model years — Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0: All Gsf 1250 SA L0 years → Which year to buy? →

2010

Or browse all models: Suzuki →

Compare with another model

See how the 2009 Suzuki Gsf 1250 SA L0 stacks up against a rival.

Average reliability — agree?