2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A — MOT failures & pass rate
323 MOT tests on the 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A are in this dataset, and 75.8% of them passed. That is 1.1 percentage points better than all cars of a similar age, which fail at 25.2%. Failures cluster in lighting & signalling, brakes and suspension.
What the MOT record shows
Lighting & signalling dominates the failure mix at 14.9% of all tests — 5.3 points clear of brakes, so it is the first thing to check.
At component level the recurring items are position lamp, rear fog lamp and ball joint — position lamp alone was recorded 21 times.
Mileage matters less than usual here: the 2009 Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A fails 23.9% of the time in the 60-90k band and 20.0% at 150k+, a spread of only 3.9 points.
Advisories point at the next bill rather than this one: suspension was flagged on 35.6% of tests without failing them.
The trend is worsening — 19.2% of tests failed in 2021 against 22.2% in 2025, the usual pattern as a fleet ages.
How it compares
Top failure categories
| # | Category | % of tests affected | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lighting & signalling | 14.9% | 48 |
| 2 | Brakes | 9.6% | 31 |
| 3 | Suspension | 7.7% | 25 |
| 4 | Emissions & environmental | 5.6% | 18 |
| 5 | Body, structure & corrosion | 4.6% | 15 |
| 6 | Visibility | 3.7% | 12 |
Most common specific failures
The exact components most often recorded as failures — more specific than the categories above.
| # | Failure item | Times recorded |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Position lamp | 21 |
| 2 | Rear fog lamp | 16 |
| 3 | Ball joint | 15 |
| 4 | Stop lamp | 11 |
| 5 | Service brake performance | 10 |
| 6 | Flexible brake hoses | 10 |
Top advisory categories
Advisories aren't failures, but they flag work likely needed soon — useful when budgeting.
| # | Category | % of tests with advisory | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Suspension | 35.6% | 115 |
| 2 | Brakes | 27.6% | 89 |
| 3 | Emissions & environmental | 16.1% | 52 |
| 4 | Tyres | 15.2% | 49 |
| 5 | Lighting & signalling | 13.0% | 42 |
| 6 | Other defects | 8.7% | 28 |
Failure rate by mileage
Higher-mileage cars tend to fail more — often the most useful guide to real condition.
| Mileage band | Tests | Fail rate |
|---|---|---|
| 60-90k | 88 | 23.9% |
| 90-120k | 105 | 19.1% |
| 120-150k | 81 | 30.9% |
| 150k+ | 30 | 20.0% |
Failure rate by age
Trend over time
| Dataset year | Tests | Fail rate |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 78 | 19.2% |
| 2022 | 86 | 29.1% |
| 2023 | 54 | 20.4% |
| 2024 | 60 | 28.3% |
| 2025 | 45 | 22.2% |
What to check before buying a 2009 Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A
On a 2009 Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A, lighting & signalling is what the MOT record says goes wrong most — it appeared in 14.9% of tests. Check these areas before you commit.
- Lighting & signalling (14.9% of tests): Often a cheap bulb, but persistent issues can mean wiring or corrosion in the units. Typical repair: £10–£150.
- Brakes (9.6% of tests): Pads/discs are routine wear; binding, imbalance or corroded pipes are more serious — test for pulling under braking. Typical repair: £100–£350 per axle.
- Suspension (7.7% of tests): Worn drop links, bushes, springs or shocks — listen for knocks over bumps and check for uneven tyre wear. Typical repair: £150–£450 per corner.
Repair costs are rough UK ballpark ranges to set expectations, not quotes — actual prices vary widely by car, parts and garage.
Frequently asked questions
How many 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd As pass their MOT?
75.8% of the 323 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A MOT tests in this dataset passed — a 24.1% fail rate.
What is the most common MOT failure on a 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A?
Lighting & signalling, recorded in 14.9% of tests, followed by brakes (9.6%).
Does the 2009 Grand Cherokee Crd Ltd A get worse with mileage?
Its MOT fail rate rises from 23.9% in the 60-90k band to 20.0% in the 150k+ band.
Methodology & source. Based on 323 MOT tests. Dataset: DVSA MOT testing data (2021,2022,2023,2024,2025). Data last updated 2026-07-27. Figures reflect MOT-testable defects only — read the methodology for how these are calculated and what they don't measure.