Used Car: 2009 Jeep Liberty Review
The 2009 Jeep Liberty has poor safety and reliability ratings, as well as coarse performance, leading it to be ranked near the bottom of the class.
The 2009 Jeep Liberty is ranked:
The 2009 Jeep Liberty maintains Jeep’s reputation for building rugged SUVs with excellent off-road capabilities, but it is less refined compared to rivals. If you’re looking for a compact SUV that will conquer mountains and streams, the Liberty is among the best in the class, according to reviewers. If you plan on sticking to the highways, the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 offer smoother performance. When it was new, test drivers disliked the Liberty’s truck-like handling, noting that body lean, squealing tires around moderate corners and numb steering were common. Most agreed that the Liberty isn’t the best choice for a comfortable family SUV. The Liberty also has poor crash test and reliability ratings for the class.
On the inside, reviewers disliked the Liberty’s interior and complained about the poor-quality materials. They also felt that the Liberty had adequate leg- and headroom up front, but the back seat was a bit cramped. Exit and entry is also complicated by the narrow rear door openings, though most reviewers said the Liberty had sufficient cargo space. On the other hand, several critics liked the optional features available on the Liberty, which include rain-sensing wipers, memory seats and Jeep’s Uconnect multimedia system.
Other Cars to Consider
The redesigned 2009 Subaru Forester offers better safety, reliability, performance, interior quality and fuel economy than the Liberty. The Forester also has standard all-wheel drive for added assurance in harsh weather.
If you’re seeking a capable off-road performer, the 2009 Toyota FJ Cruiser is a solid choice. The Liberty and FJ Cruiser have comparable fuel economy, but the FJ Cruiser produces 29 more horsepower from its V6. In addition, the FJ Cruiser has a great reliability rating and good safety scores, though reviewers said that back-seat room was sparse.