By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I want something with vinyl bench seats and drain plugs in the floor you can clean out with a garden hose on Saturday morning.
If I want a stereo, I'll put in my own (better available for the same money or same available for less money).
AC just gives me a headache and the sniffles. Keep it!
ABS is for people who are asleep at the wheel (and I can also fall into that category sometimes, so I am not TOTALLY against it!)
-mike
There are a FEW people who buys Jeeps with the intention of using them only offroad.
From a marketing perspective, if competing with other light offroaders is important, ABS should be standard. I would bet every marble I have that the GC, percentage wise, is the least offroaded Jeep currently made. Hence few people to be upset. ABS is optional on both the JC and JW. It isnt even an option on the Wrangler if you get the beefy offroad axle.
Not all articles like the Liberty
I know a lot of amigo/rodeo and Trooper guys who have quick disconnects for their sway bars for off-roading purposes, once they get to the trail they disconnect the sway bars, and yank the abs fuse/relay. And these guys are hard core in fact later this week they will be @ Moab off-roading.
-mike
As for the the link you provided; I'm not surprised. In fact, I'll provide you with another mostly anti-Liberty site. Just follow some of the articles, and check out some of the reader responses. They must all be buddies of yours.
Bob
http://www.onetomany.com/jeepnews/indexnoflash.htm
This is a quote from the link above...It, more so than any other I have read, truly captures what the beef is with Jeep. Here they are making a "vehicle with true Jeepness" and it has grocery bag hooks...
I get it now. Finally!
Thanks for posting that article bblaha.
As far as the Car and Driver TV spot goes...It had high praise for the Liberty and called it "the most refined Jeep ever." It even cited a number of do-hickeys and thing-a-ma-jigs that sounded impressive and wonderful.... But, I would expect this and expect good things from this vehicle under these test circumstances. All of vehicles being tested by the press and TV were produced under limited production (50-100 a day) and looked over extensively for defects before being shown to the press and TV folks. Of course they are going to be flawless.
What happens when you crank that plant up to full bore capacity (400 a day) and then add a third shift (700 a day), as is reported to occur in January? Will quality be the same? Will the Liberty still be judged in the same vein?
If Jeep's SOP on launches is true to form, quality will be poor and reliability about the same. Jeep designing a Jeep has never been the problem. It's when you ask Jeep workers to build a Jeep that problems begin to arise.
And, yes, I will be the first to admit if I am wrong and the quality and reliability are good or very good.
Bob
http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b042601.htm
Who votes these clowns in anyhow? I think it is time to do away with some federal agencies.
What's happened to our free society? Why can't safety be optional? Thank the heavens the NHTSA has only been around a little while. We might still be traveling on horseback.
Bob
Most of these people want a foul-weather vehicle that requires little or no effort to operate, or figure out. They want a fully independent suspension for nimble on-road ride, and excellent handling. They want AWD, and don't want to be bothered with levers or buttons to shift in and out of 4WD. And, as I mentioned earlier—and using the Subaru Forester as an example (we own one)—they want high feature content that is "standard," not optional.
Don't get me wrong I like the Liberty. All you have to do is read my many posts here to see that I support it. But I do think they made a marketing error in terms of catering to the cute-ute audience, by making so many "desirable" items (that are standard on the Forester, etc.), optional on the Liberty.
Bob
I personally think the Liberty will be a decent truck if they don't have reliablility/build quality problems.
-mike
mike-Every vehicle has codes for their options don't they? Isn't that what you gave in your message. I think that no matter what you get you have to go through the packages. I mean if you want to be prepared and get what you want.
-mike
It came standard with heated seats, heated outside mirrors, heated front windshield wiper deicer, ABS, 6-disk in-dash CD changer, in glass radio antenna, cargo cover, full-size spare—I could go on, but you get the picture. It's the equivalent to the top-of-the-line Liberty in terms of market position.
We bought it at Fitzgerald Subaru in White Flint Maryland. Here's their link. They list all the vehicles they have in stock, vin#, stock #, options, MSRP, and two internet discount prices from which to choose from. We went with the cheapest price option. BTW, they also sell Jeeps too. I know they do a lot of out-of-state business. I know for a fact that they we're trying to sell a Subaru to an Edmunds viewer in Alaska.
Bob
http://www.fitzgeraldautomall.com/
Matt
I've got the Liberty brochure. I know, or have a pretty good idea, of what's standard and what's not.
The only thing the Liberty has on the Forester (that means anything to me) is more off-road ability and towing ability.
Bob
Once you've done that, the big area in which the Liberty loses to other "cute-utes" is in price.
Auto makers do things differently. Some, like Jeep, offer several different trim lines, with so many options you can basically configure another trim. US makers, as well as Toyota, do this. You have many options to choose from.
Other makers make the options "standard" in different trims, so each trim has relatively few options to choose from. Honda for example.
Matt
Bblaha is right though. Subaru gives you a very "complete" vehicle to start with. Even the entry-level Forester L comes with a full-size spare, air conditioning, power windows, cruise control, cargo cover, etc.
We really don't know what a comparably-equipped Liberty will go for yet. Nobody has seen one on the lot, as far as I know. There are many rumors floating around that a well-equipped Liberty Limited, will sticker somewhere between $26K and $27K. But at this point it's still a guess.
And... we all know a loaded Liberty Limited and a loaded Forester S (similar to my wife's) will not be directly comparable in terms of content. They may occupy the same "market position," but they will be equipped differently.
BTW... sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a Liberty vs. Forester topic.
Bob
If, however, my wife can be used as a good example of a "typical" cute-ute buyer, she's perfectly happy with the Forester. It meets all of her needs just fine. She's not going off road. She's not going to tow anything. It's a perfect, well-equipped, all-weather daily driver for her. It serves her needs better than a Liberty would. Besides, we usually get around 24-25 mpg with it. That helps in these days of $1.70/gallon of regular gas.
Bob
-mike
I'm from the eastern bit of Indiana (moving to upstate NY and hope to do some offroading there), and from Toledo, Ohio it shouldn't be TOO far to ship the Liberty here quickly.
-mike
Jeep needs those customers, as much as they need the no-frills Jeepers like yourself.
Bob
Any Front Wheel Drive with good snow tires is a perfect "daily driver". Heck, any Rear Wheel Drive with good snow tires or chains and a few bags of sand in back makes a decent all weather car. I don't buy that argument.
-mike
Why go through all the trouble, and just get an AWD vehicle (or Jeep) in the first place.
I can tell you for a fact, after having owned 5 Hondas in the past, that the foul-weather traction (rain, snow, etc.) of those vehicles was no where as good as that of our Subaru(s). My son also has a Subaru.
Bob
No, I think I said for RWD vehicle. If not, that is what I meant.
"Why go through all the trouble, and just get an AWD vehicle (or Jeep) in the first place."
Because, for the dozen or so storms we get in New England which require snow tires, it is worth it to have the choice in vehicles for the other 353 days of the year, without the added baggage of 4WD (decreased mpg, increased cost, maint, etc)
"I can tell you for a fact, after having owned 5 Hondas in the past, that the foul-weather traction (rain, snow, etc.) of those vehicles was no where as good as that of our Subaru(s). My son also has a Subaru."
I can tell you for a fact as a present Civic (1992) owner, that the thing will climb trees with tall narrow snow tires, a full tank, and another passenger. The only problem is when you get over a foot of snow, and it gets hung up (tires don't touch the ground).
That and the parallel lack of ground clearance for off roading, and the additional lack of towing (recommended to NOT tow with Civic in owner's manual), plus room for gear and new dog are why I am looking at SUV's.
As any owner of an AWD vehicle will tell you, you don't just benefit from it in snow. It's better in the rain, sandy roads, you name it. Under hard braking, when the weight shift moves forward, so does the power allocation—to the wheels with the most traction. Conversely, the same happens under hard acceleration—the power shifts towards the rear wheels. AWD is a year-round benefit, not just for snowy days.
As to decreased mileage, we rarely get below 24 mpg. Certainly not in the Civic range, but not bad for a 165 hp 2.5L automatic, and better than a Jeep.
A foot of snow (or more) doesn't bother the Subaru one bit.
As to increased wear and tear, no problems. In fact Subarus happen to be among the the most durable vehicles out there.
As to towing, the Forester is rated for 2000#. Not great, but certainly better than a Civic.
So, I don't buy your arguments either.
Bob
What is with driving on wet or sandy roads? Never ever had a problem with a real front heavy 78 Dodge Magnum. If you mean washouts, or driving in river beds, and on beaches, I can see your point. Regular roads with rain or sand on them, nah!
I think Subarus and Audis are really cool. If I was a road racer, or did rallys, I would probably get one for sure. More power going to all the wheels NEVER hurts. I am just being realistic in my own typical New England world.
-mike
:-)
:-)
:-P
it will give you a alphanum code, and the translation to what that means.
check the back archives in wrangler or ask.
good luck
Bob
Bob
They did mention a fair amount of brake dive, however (I had read that elsewhere too), and that it weighs almost 800 pounds more than a comparably equipped Cherokee. So, whatever advances that were made in terms of drivetrain efficiency, are eaten up by the extra weight.
Bob
Brakes. Yet another area the Liberty is open to criticism. Other than the 4Runner, what other comparable size SUV, particularly those of new design, use drums in the rear? The 4Runner is an old design. I understand the desire to keep costs down, but this is a 4000+ lb vehicle. Doesn't safety count?
count:"you have the horsepower/torque available thoughout the range"
Huh? HP goes up with rpm till its peak. By definition, its not "available throughout the range".
Torque is a different story. The Cherokee's 4l torque drops 3.5% from its peak at 3000 rpm (225 ft lbs), to 217 ftlbs at peak HP (4600 rpm). It loses 8 ft lbs over a 1600 rpm range.
The Liberty on the other hand, drops 6.4% of its torque from peak (235 ftlbs at 4000 rpm) to HP peak (220 ft lbs at 5000 rpm). It loses 15 ftlbs over a 1000 rpm range. This is a strong indication that the 3.7l engine has a much more "peaky" curve than the Cherokee's 4.0l
That said, I have yet to see a torque curve for the 3.7l engine. Anyone seen one?
Although the 3.7l makes more torque than the 4.0l, the Liberty is heavier than the Cherokee. The power to weight ratio for the Liberty is less than for the Cherokee. The Liberty will not be "quicker than its predecessor".
Rodeo has had 4wheel discs since before '96, maybe even as old as '92.
-mike