These days most compact SUVs are loosely based on front-wheel-drive sedans. While this endows them with a relatively good on-road ride and more car-like on-road handling, it limits their performance off-road. This makes perfect sense for most compact SUV buyers, as they will never venture off the pavement. But when Jeep decided to create a vehicle for this increasingly popular segment, its leadership felt that only a vehicle fully capable of off-road driving would be worthy of the brand. (Recently this leadership has had a change of heart. Some future Jeeps will not be “trail rated.”) And so the Jeep Liberty despite its cute sheetmetal differs from the segments most popular members in having dual-range transfer case and a suspension fully capable of handling and enduring the rough stuff.
When I last drove a Liberty two years ago I was impressed. It handled far better than any Jeep I had ever driven, rode well, and possessed a higher quality interior than I had come to expect from Chrysler. Last year a Renegade model was added that lent the Liberty a tougher look courtesy of a roof-mounted light bar, tow hooks, and the like. I recently drove a 2004 Liberty Renegade. I was less impressed this time around, but for some people this remains the compact SUV to buy.
Jeep Liberty Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Jeep Liberty rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
Although the Liberty replaced the 1980s-era Cherokee, its styling was based on that of the iconic Wrangler, today’s version of the classic military Jeep. At one point Jeep displayed a four-door Wrangler at the auto shows, but this vehicle never came to be. My guess: the Wrangler rides too roughly and is altogether too uncivilized to perform the tasks four-door SUVs are generally called upon to do. Alter one enough that it is suited for such tasks, and you end up with the Liberty.
Even though it lacks some of the character of the Wrangler, the Liberty is still a sharp-looking SUV. I personally find it the most distinctive non-Wrangler SUV on the road. Even the most car-ignorant person can probably tell this is a Jeep. It manages to look cute, rugged, and refined all at once, especially in the monochrome “Limited” trim. The off-road bits that attend the Renegade trade some of the Limited’s glitz for an additional dose of ruggedness, no bad thing since this after all a true SUV.
That said, many people do not care for its styling. For them, the Wrangleresque front end does not work well with the Liberty’s sleeker, more modern body. I can see where they’re coming from. Like the new Durango, the Liberty’s body’s round contours possess an overinflated look not entirely suited to a rugged, off-road vehicle, especially in bright colors. Me, I’d just avoid the bright colors. The Liberty looks best in earth tones and grays anyway, especially in Renegade form. (Wisely, the Renegade is only available in black, green, khaki, and silver.)
The Liberty’s interior is equally well styled. The dash has the very shallow dimensions of the Wrangler dash, refreshing in an age when the top surface of some car instrument panels must be measured in acres. The unique styling of bits like the air vents and door handles and the use of interesting textures and faux metal finishes lend the interior more character than others in the class.
All is not perfect, however. Nearly all of the plastics are of the inexpensive, hard-to-the-touch sort. Two years ago I didn’t mind this. The plastics looked much more expensive than they feel, and even the touch didn’t seem out of character for an off-road SUV. It also helped the Liberty that the more expensive Grand Cherokee looked and felt cheaper inside. This time around I did mind. Vehicle interiors have been improving at a very rapid pace, and the Liberty’s materials are no longer competitive.
I drove the base “sport” model last time, and found its cloth upholstery in line with the character of the vehicle. I did not like the cloth in a 2004 sport I sat in as much—did they change it? It seemed more downscale than rugged. The Renegade’s combination vinyl and cloth upholstery is somewhat better. Leather is optional in the Renegade and luxury-oriented Limited. It might not be a bad way to go. I found the high-contrast two-tone leather interior striking two years ago. Now I find myself wondering if this look is suited to an off-road vehicle. Jeep sells a number of vehicles in flashy luxury garb, but something about this just doesn’t seem right. It’s just too pretty. The more conventional monotone interior seems a better fit.
Accommodations
Any compact SUV has a much higher driving position than a conventional car, but the Liberty’s is a few inches higher still. This even though the Liberty was lowered an inch later in the 2002 model year to improve stability. Jeep denied this was because one of the magazines managed to roll one. Right. The Liberty’s relatively high seating position is enabled by its Wrangler-like 70-inch height. It’s about four inches taller than a Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Mitsubishi Outlander, or Saturn VUE. (On the other hand, a Ford Escape is nearly as tall, and its driving position is almost as high.) Together with tall windows and unobtrusive pillars, the Liberty’s extra-high seating position provides excellent visibility all around, a primary reason many people buy SUVs. Even compared to other compact SUVs the Liberty’s interior feels airy, a characteristic that appeals to me.
The chair-high driver’s seat is comfortable, though not remarkably so. A slightly larger cushion would be welcomed by larger adults, and even some my 5-foot, 9-inch height. If I were ever to take a Liberty off-road I’d wish for more lateral support. For around-town use, though, support is adequate given the relatively low cornering speeds prudent in such a tall vehicle.
The generous height of the seats off the floor provides welcome thigh support in the rear seat, much like that found in the Escape but lacking in many other SUVs, including Ford’s Explorer and Jeep’s own Grand Cherokee. Combined with room for toes under the front seat—missing in the Grand Cherokee with power seats—the rear seat of the Liberty is considerably more comfortable than that of its more expensive sibling despite a marginal amount of knee room.
The height of the package cannot similarly help the cargo room. Here the fairly short length of the Liberty—the Honda, Saturn, and Mitsubishi are four to seven inches longer—has an effect. (Here as well the Escape resembles the Liberty more than the others—it’s an inch shorter than the Jeep.) There is a useful amount of space behind the Liberty’s rear seat, especially since the spare tire is attached to the outside of the tailgate. And the rear seat folds to roughly double the available volume. But anyone who needs mucho cargo space may need to find the cash for a mid-sized SUV. This is one of only two areas where the Grand Cherokee has a significant advantage in my mind.
On the Road
The true test for the Liberty was on the road. The Cherokee was fairly rough, the Wrangler even rougher. Since most people buying compact SUVs want a car-like feel, that just would not do. After all, that’s why Jeep didn’t just go ahead and build the Dakar, essentially a four-door Wrangler. (I do wish they’d used the name, though.)
Here the Liberty surprised me two years ago. The steering, throttle, and handling of Jeeps have tended to have a slow reacting, loose feel to them. Supposedly this was because overly sharp reactions harm off-road performance, where you sometimes want just a touch more speed or the slightest movement to one side. Well, with the Liberty Jeep finally gave in to the needs of most SUV buyers. The Liberty was the first Jeep with rack-and-pinion steering and an independent front suspension. And that’s just the spec sheet. On the road, the Liberty’s steering, handling, and overall controls have a firm, precise feel to them. I vastly preferred this to that year’s Grand Cherokee. (For 2003 Jeep similarly firmed up the Grand Cherokee’s brakes and steering, though not quite as much.) But then I’m a die-hard car buyer.
Actually, I felt the Liberty drove better overall than any other SUV I’ve driven, including some that are far more expensive. It feels much more solid and substantial than the then new Ford Explorer. The steering is much firmer and responsive than that in the also new that year GM mid-sized SUVs, including the Chevrolet TrailBlazer. Noise levels and overall refinement were competitive with those GM SUVs as well, and approached that of the Toyota Sequoia. Like those vehicles, its ride had the luxurious, liquid yet controlled feel pioneered by Lexus. This even though the Liberty I drove had Eagle SR-A off-road tires. Suffice it to say that the level of refinement is light-years better than that of the noisy Ford Escape. Though this is still a tall vehicle with a fair amount of roll in corners, and I wouldn’t think of taking turns fast in it, the Liberty simply felt great on the road.
Since that initial review I’ve driven a number of other compact SUVs, including the Honda CR-V, Saturn VUE, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe, Mitsubishi Outlander, and BMW X3. Driving the Honda made me realize just how high off the road the Jeep is, and how much of a heavy, trucky feel it retains despite its admirable level of refinement. In my test drive of the 2004, I was not even as impressed by this level of refinement; others are catching up, most notably the surprisingly slick Hyundai. The underpowered Mitsubishi and oddly-styled-and-packaged BMW also feel considerably more car-like than the Jeep. So if a car-like feel is your top priority in an SUV, the Liberty probably is not your best choice.
That said, the Liberty’s handling remains quite an achievement, because aside from the changes to the steering and suspension this is still a real Jeep. Unlike its competition, the Liberty is not based on front-wheel-drive car parts. The engine is mounted north-south and, with four-wheel-drive, ties into a real transfer case. In two-wheel-drive form, the rear wheels are the ones driven. The suspension and body have been designed so that ground clearance and the various angles (approach, breakover, departure) are very off-road friendly, I suspect best in this class. A limited slip rear different is available, adding to the Liberty’s off-road capability. So if you want to go off-road, I suspect you can. Just beware of the quicker responses!
Of the above vehicles, only the Kia possesses a similar conventional SUV configuration, and it does not ride or handle as well as the Jeep on road. I suspect it also is less capable than the Jeep off-road. If this is important to you, there are off-road tests out there. One other possibility is the Land Rover Freelander, which though configured like a car-based SUV without a low range should be capable off-road given its brand.
Two four-wheel-drive systems are offered on the Liberty, one part-time (not for use on dry pavement) and a $395 more expensive system for full-time use. The vehicle I drove two years ago had the former, so I kept it in two-wheel-drive. If I were buying a Liberty, I’d think seriously about spending the extra for the full-time system that graced the 2004. Engaging four-wheel-high on dry roads did not noticeably affect the vehicle’s handling aside from enabling quicker acceleration in hard turns. Even with the full-time transfer case the Liberty lacks the “auto” setting common in the competition, where the second axle is only engaged, and then automatically, when the first pair of tires slips. On the up-side, there is a low-range option in four-wheel-drive, a serious off-road feature not found elsewhere in this class except on the Kia.
Last fall I had the opportunity to drive both a Liberty Renegade and a Wrangler Rubicon around a simulated off-road course composed of obstacles and ramps. Some of the latter were set up to fully articulate the axles in opposite directions, others to demonstrate the vehicles’ ability to climb and then descend extremely steep terrain. I enjoyed it, but many people at the event justifiably passed. When climbing the especially high, steep, fairly narrow ramp all you see is sky, and driving the vehicle off either side would have been, well, unpleasant. Even the Liberty was impressive over this surprisingly challenging course. But it was clearly a far different animal from the Rubicon. The Renegade is styled to look like a hardcore vehicle, the Rubicon, with its Dana 44 axles, is one. I felt like I was steering serious, purpose-built machinery around the course in the Rubicon. In contrast, the Liberty Renegade felt like a pretty pretender, dude ranch instead of real ranch. Sure, the Liberty is still very capable, but the feel from behind the wheel is not at all comparable. Of course, a Rubicon would make an awful daily driver. What the Liberty represents is an excellent compromise between on- and off-road, but a compromise nonetheless.
All is not excellent with the Liberty. That refined feel combined with true off-road capability comes with a price attached: like the similarly refined new GM mid-sized SUVs, the Liberty weighs quite a bit more than its competitors. At about 4,200 pounds with four-wheel-drive, it is over a quarter-ton heavier than a Ford Escape, which in turn weighs more than the Honda and Toyota. (A Kia Sorento weighs a bit more than the Liberty, though, no surprise given its similar architecture and slightly larger size.) Where this mass hurts the Liberty is acceleration and fuel economy. Though a class-leading 210 horsepower, 3.7 liter six (based on the Grand Cherokee's eight) is available, and was installed in all three I have driven, this engine provides just adequate power for a two-ton vehicle. Around town this fairly large six feels torquey, but when pushed, say beyond half throttle, it goes soft. Performance at highway speeds is especially underwhelming. If you really want some muscle, I suggest tracking down one with a stick. Especially if you prefer a stick, like I do. You might have to special order such a vehicle, though, because dealers might only stock the automatic. Forget about the base four-cylinder.
Since the Liberty weighs nearly as much as the average mid-sized SUV, it has fuel economy to match. If you regularly want to see fuel economy out of the teens, you should probably shop elsewhere. A shame, since the rest of the vehicle is so good.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
There are only two other compact SUVs that offer a low range: the Kia Sorento and Suzuki Grand Vitara. For the 2006 model year the Kia costs about the same as the Jeep, and the Suzuki is about $4,000 less than either.
Last Words
For a true SUV the Liberty remains a surprisingly good vehicle. Its exterior and interior styling possess a great deal of character, it has the off-road capability expected of a Jeep, it seats four comfortably, and it possesses the ride and handling of a much more expensive vehicle. All this, and it’s affordable. If you want a daily driver that can also acquit itself well off-road, and you don’t need a huge amount of interior volume, this is the one to buy. A Grand Cherokee is plusher and, with the optional V8, much quicker, but also far more expensive. Though it acquits itself better following the 2003 tweaks, I continue to see the Liberty as the better buy for those who do not require quick acceleration.
But what if you will probably never venture off the pavement? Then it’s harder to make a rational case for the Jeep. Sure, you might like the image of a true off-road-capable SUV. If so, especially in Renegade trim the Liberty looks and acts the part. But compared to a car-based SUV the Liberty is less quick, less nimble, and thirstier. Those who seek a compact SUV for strictly on-pavement use will likely be happier in something else. For purely practical transportation the Honda CR-V is hard to beat. Those seeking a plusher, torquier SUV will likely be happiest in the Hyundai Santa Fe, if they can stand the odd styling, or perhaps the 2005 Ford Escape or Chevrolet Equinox. I hope to drive both 2005s this spring. Finally, I did recently drive the Honda-powered Saturn VUE. It handles soggily for a car-based compact SUV, and could benefit from richer interior fittings, but it’s the quickest of the bunch. Finally, the Subaru Forester XT is not quite an SUV, but at least as quick as the Saturn and is nicely finished (if tight) inside. It’s likely the best for those who should be buying a high-performance compact car but for some reason are buying an SUV instead.
Update: The new 2006 Suzuki Grand Vitara is much less expensive and well worth a look.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.