Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The Blazer name didn't have that much heritage with it, it didn't come up until what the early 70's and has been gone for over a decade? Not exactly a ton of history behind the name. As much as I want to see it be a BOF off road beast those don't sell (regardless of what a small majority says on a forum or site), they are in the business of building what sells. A off road beast would bring some buzz and probably be around for 3-5 years before sales start tanking, the newness wears off and they have to axe it like others before (FJ anyone?).

 

This fills a gap they needed, they had nothing mid size. If they brought the Colorado SUV here it would just lose comparison tests that are mostly on road to the competition except the 4runner (which it would probably fall short off road to) so it would come up short in reviews, eventually sales and then be dropped again. Maybe they will bring a special toy type off roader down the road if this sells well enough and makes them enough money, but I have my doubts. They will see how the Bronco sells first, this isn't a competitor to it off road (ditto the jeeps) but instead it is to go against the Murano, Edge, outback and other on road cuv's.

 

As nice as it would be for this to be built here they had some legitimate reasons it couldn't (mainly capacity) but also look at the costs. The line workers in Mexico make about $5/hr where workers here are somewhere north of $25 last I heard on average. That is one reasons why vehicles are getting expensive, we are paying hourly rates like that to screw in dash boards and put doors on. Unions were great back in the day when working conditions and pay were rubbish, now it is just gready and they wonder why manufacturers keep trying to get production to cheaper countries. When payroll and benefits are your biggest expense they find ways to cut those back and they start with pay and automation to reduce their worforce.

 

All in all it is a nice CUV, one I would consider in that size range. Certainly has a little more style, will be nice to see it in person and take it for a drive and see all the options and styles. Think GM did well with it on paper and in pics, we will see how it does in comparison tests and in the real world for the final judgement.

 

Tyler

Edited by amxguy1970
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2018 at 5:27 PM, Daly said:

Chevy didn't need a middle ground between the Equinox and the Traverse, they needed something different from left field (left field for GM anyway). With the Blazer nameplate they had a chance to do something worth while and built a JL Wrangler competitor. If this had been a 2 door, front engine, rear drive based SUV, on a Colorado chassis and had an optional removable roof, they would have hit this out of the park. But in typical GM fashion, as of late, they've taken something that could have been awesome and made it dull. They made another Crossover, Sport Utility wannabe, in a market already saturated with other look-a-like wannabe Sport utilities. 

 

Ford's aspiration for the days before the fuel price spike (of 2005) is going to be their undoing and GM is playing it smart by not following them down that road. To me, GM seems to be following a strategy closer to that of Toyota: fuel efficiency first, performance 2nd, off-road worthiness last. It sucks that the Blazer isn't a RWD SUV but if it were, it'd be priced out of reach of most of the public. The 2020 Bronco is going to be equally overpriced and disappointing. Now that Ford is killing off their sedans, they'll need to compensate for their shift in CAFE average. The Bronco might have a low base price, but the stuff that 99% of buyers will expect as standard features will push the price well above $40k for a moderately sized SUV. The off-road worthiness will be disappointing and Ford will cut corners to keep weight+cost in check. The Bronco will easily hit $50k in the upper trim level.

Edited by HondaHawkGT
  • Like 1
Posted
 
Ford's aspiration for the days before the fuel price spike (of 2005) is going to be their undoing and GM is playing it smart by not following them down that road. To me, GM seems to be following a strategy closer to that of Toyota: fuel efficiency first, performance 2nd, off-road worthiness last. It sucks that the Blazer isn't a RWD SUV but if it were, it'd be priced out of reach of most of the public. The 2020 Bronco is going to be equally overpriced and disappointing. Now that Ford is killing off their sedans, they'll need to compensate for their shift in CAFE average. The Bronco might have a low base price, but the stuff that 99% of buyers will expect as standard features will push the price well above $40k for a moderately sized SUV. The off-road worthiness will be disappointing and Ford will cut corners to keep weight+cost in check. The Bronco will easily hit $50k in the upper trim level.


Ford charges nearly $50K for their NEXT TO BOTTOM trim level F150; you will pay nearly $50K for just the privilege of having a V8 Mustang, they want nearly $80K for an Expedition Max, and the biggest Super Duty has cracked the Six Figure Barrier! Something tells me that Ford is going to go into a panic when gas prices spike again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted (edited)
On 6/26/2018 at 10:33 AM, truckofwinandawesome said:
On 6/26/2018 at 10:33 AM, truckofwinandawesome said:

Ford charges nearly $50K for their NEXT TO BOTTOM trim level F150; you will pay nearly $50K for just the privilege of having a V8 Mustang, they want nearly $80K for an Expedition Max, and the biggest Super Duty has cracked the Six Figure Barrier! Something tells me that Ford is going to go into a panic when gas prices spike again.

 


I think your quite mistaken in your Ford prices.   You can find new 2018 Mustang GT for around $30-35K all day long, even seen a few below $30K with the V8, but they are the base GT model.   Granted, if you wanted the Performance pack 2, with Leather and all the goodies, you are getting to the $50K mark on the sticker.   Bang for the buck the Mustang is a better deal, but the Camaro is a better car, if you can stand the awful seats and the view out of the camaro.  The thing about the $50K next to the bottom Pickup is they are giving huge huge discounts on those, I just had a friend pick up a F150 XLT which stickered for $52K for $38K new off the lot.  It is a pricing game with Ford, they over inflate their sticker price and give you a huge discount to let you think you are getting a deal.    My friend has buyers remorse, wishes he got the GMC with Leather for about $4K more, even with the Chevy/GMC "frame shake" people are complaining about.   

 

 

Edited by okfoz
Posted
On 6/24/2018 at 8:03 AM, michigan2500hd said:

Just looking at this is embarrassing. It's not a "Blazer" type vehicle. No frame, no ruggedness, just another car based "SUV". I say SUV because that's how people are referring to these crossovers now. I still correct them but it's a losing battle.
So Ford is bringing back the Bronco and Chevy is making another car and giving it a truck name. Brilliant.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

You and I have completely different memories of what a Blazer is.

 

1193331998.jpg

 

I saw far more Blazer Xtreme's (which the RS reminds me of more so) than ZR2's

 

Motortopia_003.jpg

 

I rather like the new Blazer, a lot.  Same with the Traverse.  Equinox was a miss though.

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, shift_grind said:

You and I have completely different memories of what a Blazer is.

 

1193331998.jpg

 

I saw far more Blazer Xtreme's (which the RS reminds me of more so) than ZR2's

 

Motortopia_003.jpg

 

I rather like the new Blazer, a lot.  Same with the Traverse.  Equinox was a miss though.

My uncle had a 70's K5 Blazer when I was young.. It was rugged, solid front axle, could off-road decent from the factory and was body on frame. 

Then early 80's produced a smaller, IFS Blazer. I liked it though, cool truck styling but in a smaller package. It fit places the previous Blazer couldn't but the weak link was the independent front suspension. 

I paid cash for a 2003 ZR2 in 2006. Awesome looking truck, still body on frame, decent running gear but build quality was questionable. 

Now they're giving us yet another car. Cross overs are cars. Not a truck like all the previous Blazers. 

I'm disappointed they didn't do something more off-road and utility minded with the Blazer name. In Michigan there are far more ZR2 Blazers than Xtreme's. On that note the Typhoon and Syclone were awesome but again, body on frame. 

There are so many crossovers today and the body on frame technology is going by the way side just for a little mileage increase. Don't get me wrong, they have their place... Just not using iconic vehicles names. 

 

 

 

Posted

I remember years ago while attending the Auto show in Texas I saw an advertisement from Dodge raving about the Durango, saying it’s a big badass 4x4 taking on everyone. I thought wow! Couldn’t be farther from the truth disgusting pc of [emoji90] Crossovers do nothing for me, bet it’s garbage like most of the other crossovers on the road. Crossovers are a mixture between minivans and s10 blazers, unibody construction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted
2 hours ago, michigan2500hd said:

My uncle had a 70's K5 Blazer when I was young.. It was rugged, solid front axle, could off-road decent from the factory and was body on frame. 

Then early 80's produced a smaller, IFS Blazer. I liked it though, cool truck styling but in a smaller package. It fit places the previous Blazer couldn't but the weak link was the independent front suspension. 

I paid cash for a 2003 ZR2 in 2006. Awesome looking truck, still body on frame, decent running gear but build quality was questionable. 

Now they're giving us yet another car. Cross overs are cars. Not a truck like all the previous Blazers. 

I'm disappointed they didn't do something more off-road and utility minded with the Blazer name. In Michigan there are far more ZR2 Blazers than Xtreme's. On that note the Typhoon and Syclone were awesome but again, body on frame. 

There are so many crossovers today and the body on frame technology is going by the way side just for a little mileage increase. Don't get me wrong, they have their place... Just not using iconic vehicles names. 

 

 

 

Cherokee and Grand Cherokee are unibody.  

 

Maybe they have a zr2 in the works for year 2. Or perhaps there will be a Trailblazer option or model.   While these two models are not off-road, they don't pretend to be.  Perhaps something that is off-road is in the works.  

 

This and the Traverse are the only Crossovers I'd want to drive and that's not because of brand loyalty.  I like some of the Mazdas, but find them to be a bit feminine.   

Posted

This was the style of full size Blazer I liked best. 

1992-chevrolet-blazer-rearside_ctblz923.

  • Like 1
Posted
This was the style of full size Blazer I liked best. 

1992-chevrolet-blazer-rearside_ctblz923.jpg

Awwww, I had the 1996, first year of the new vortex motor, two door, sport package, black 4x4 Z71.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted
18 hours ago, Colossus said:

This was the style of full size Blazer I liked best. 

1992-chevrolet-blazer-rearside_ctblz923.

I always wanted one of those.   I’m not sure what I think of the new one. 

Posted (edited)

I got to drive a few white ones.  The Sheriff's Department I worked for had K5 Blazers, 80s-95 and then went to the 4-door Tahoe.  They were all great.  I was assigned an 89 GMC Jimmy K5 after it was retired from patrol use.  Had the skinny tires though and not the wider type.  That was my only gripe.  All were great vehicles.  The Broncos always got stuck.. Ford's 4X4 system sucked compared to GMs for whatever reason. 

Edited by Colossus
Posted (edited)

I really wish they didn't use the Blazer name on this new crossover.  I have fond memories of my '81 K5 Blazer with a manual 3-speed and a granny gear.  It was a great truck that was both tough and capable. 

81Blazer.jpg

Edited by SnowGoAK
Posted

I can relate. That’s the way I felt about the Impala. I’ve had 13, some SS. Even had two at once wife had the 69 I had the 68 fast back. Last one was the 94 SS had it 8 years. Then they went front wheel drive. Probably good cars, just can’t do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Progress... sort of.   Intake is disassembled, spider is out, fuel lines removed. Used a torch on the stripped screw with the lower intake off, much easier when I've got the intake sitting on my workbench, I made it talk. Walked right out with a pair of vice grips once it was nice and toasty hot.   New parts are piling up on my service cart waiting to be installed. Distributor, temperature sensor, new gaskets, fuel line kit, themostat, water neck.   My new pickle is I don't want to spend $600 on a replacement spider. I'm not sure IT is bad. I'm probably splitting hairs. Or it's $300 to send mine away and another 3 weeks of the truck just sitting. I have half a mind to assemble everything with the old spider to see if I can get away with just replacing the fuel pressure regulator to be safe. The obvious issue was the gushing high pressure fuel line which will be replaced. Getting to the spider really isn't that hard, and now I know what I'm doing , swapping it would be a breeze should it absolutely need one. Stupid, or smart?   The part that gives me pause is replacing the distributor. Well, it's already out. And I didn't mark it, whoopsie! Engine was at TDC when I removed it, I know that, so upon correct reinstall the metal tip on the rotor should point to the TDC mark on the distributor because that's where it was pointing on the old distributor. Worst case I'm a tooth off and have to re-stab it.   But then, what? I assume the truck will start. It doesn't appear the timing can be set. Here's the problem: These distributors can't be rotated but a degree or two, by design. What I read is Cam ****** needs to be -2 to +2 degrees, ideally at 0 (and checked/set above 1000 rpm). There should be enough wiggle to get that properly set, but checking the reported value is another potential issue. My Actron 9185 scanner says it supports enhanced GM PIDs and Cam ****** is one of them but it's unclear that I'll be able to correctly see it over OBD 1.5. I can see why people end up junking these things with life left in them. They're an absolute nightmare with tweener-year diagnostics/electronics and unobtanium parts.   Fingers crossed it starts and idles nicely. There can be hope, right? I'ma buy a lottery ticket the same day just in case.   Next steps..DO IT. I have not installed an intake before so I've been reading and watching a lot. Some say NO RTV except on china walls, some say DO RTV on water ports but not fuel/air intake. 1/4 or 3/8 bead on China walls? I think my strategy will be, obviously, RTV china walls with overlap on the gasket corners. Chapstick-style RTV the water ports. Leave intake ports dry. The only set of intake gaskets I could find locally are Edelbrock performance gaskets (uh...for an asthmatic 190hp V6? LOL) so we'll see how they do.   #NoToolLeftBehind. It took an hour, but my recovery mission for my deep 10mm socket was successful. It had rolled down the bellhousing and wedged itself between what I think are the fuel lines? I couldn't see it at all, but with a junk antenna I had laying around, I blindly went poking/sweeping for it, heard it clink, raised the truck, and caught a sliver glimpse of chrome with a flashlight way up there in Narnia. I had pushed it farther along the lines holding it captive, but within access of severely improvised tools, poking and cursing at it to finally knock it free to where I could get a fingertip on it to bring it home.    Not much to see.      
    • Thats crazy considering im right next door (Indiana)
    • For a limited time, retail and commercial accounts receive an AMSOIL Vinyl Tool Tray with their order of $500 or more when they use code TRAY726 at checkout. The promotion runs through July 21, 2026.   Order at https://syntheticadvantage.com   Want to use AMSOIL in your business or sell at your store, apply here.  https://www.amsoil.com/business-opportunities/?zo=521390  
    • It wouldn’t have happened if the government hadn’t mandated outrageous fuel mileage standards. It does very little for the consumer. It adds cost. Back during Covid there was a chip shortage. They gave a rebate for your truck if it didn’t have the chip to turn on cylinder deactivation. It was 50$ because at best you may see 1/2 a mile increase per gallon. Splitting hairs each fuel mileage trick wasn’t mandated. The government doesn’t do the engineering work and say use this until it’s already in use and they like it. The fuel mileage was mandated. And those add ons the results. There’s a mandate and they are the results.
    • It was never mandated.  Ever.    Automakers were incentivized to install it by getting CAFE credits to help with their vehicle fleet fuel economy scores.  They were being handed money/CAFE credits to install it.  Which is NOT a mandate.       The current admin removed the incentives that were behind them installing it.       
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...