Yamaha Xj 600 N (1999)

127 real MOT outcomes analysed • 83.6% first-time pass rate

1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N

CarHunch analysed 127 real MOT records for the 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N. 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 MOT Averages Compare Models

The 1999 Yamaha XJ 600 N has a first-time MOT pass rate of just 26.8%, which is drastically below the UK average of 80%—this is a serious warning sign that most examples fail their test. Dangerous defects are rare at 1.6%, so while the bike is unreliable on paper, it's not acutely unsafe.

The median mileage of 14,639 miles for a 25-year-old bike suggests most surviving examples are lightly used, yet they still fail MOT repeatedly, pointing to age-related deterioration rather than wear from hard riding. With 0.3 failures and 0.7 advisories per vehicle on average, expect corroded fuel lines, tired electrics, and brake wear—the classic problems of neglected vintage bikes. Before committing to one, get a pre-purchase inspection focused on the fuel system, wiring, and brakes; a low MOT pass rate at low mileage means deferred maintenance, not hidden gems.

We have limited data for the 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N — treat the figures below as indicative rather than definitive.

First-time pass
83.6%
UK average ~80%
Around average
Dangerous (ever)
1.6%
At least once in MOT history
Check this vehicle
Avg failures / car
0.3
Over 2.4 tests on record
Low
Typical mileage
15k
Middle half: 10k–32k
For context

These stats describe 127 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 127 Yamaha Xj 600 N cars.

UK

Before you buy a 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N

Based on MOT data from 127 vehicles — here's what to check.

  • 📋 Check the full MOT history. 1.6% 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 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

Pass Rate by Fuel Type

Fuel type Vehicles Pass rate Avg failures
Petrol (95%) 121 83% 0.3

Mileage Distribution

Most 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N 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.

14,639
typical
9,504
low mileage
31,711
high mileage

Half of all 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N vehicles fall between 9,504 and 31,711 miles.

Is the mileage you're seeing normal?
Under 9,504 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.
9,504–31,711 miles — normal for age. This is where most 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 Ns sit.
Over 42,809 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

2.4
Avg MOT tests per vehicle
0.3
Avg failures per vehicle
0.7
Avg advisories per vehicle
Other model years — Yamaha Xj 600 N: All Xj 600 N years → Which year to buy? →
1997 1998

Or browse all models: Yamaha →

Compare with another model

See how the 1999 Yamaha Xj 600 N stacks up against a rival.

Average reliability — agree?