Spying: Chevrolet Blazer Fills the Gap Between Equinox and Traverse

Not a surprising move but giving the Blazer name to yet another CUV is just insulting to the name. 

9 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Not a surprising move but giving the Blazer name to yet another CUV is just insulting to the name. 

I agree, I think someone took the easy way out of branding another auto.

An Acadia with a more sloped rear glass and a Traverse front clip.

No brainer move, they need another crossover, and mid-size crossover is a huge segment.  I think they could get another crossover in between Traxx and Equinox if they really wanted to.  

Justa buncha wagons

GM is really missing out on carlike crossovers.  If this is just a new Acadia clone with a truckish demeanor, some folks will dig it, but GM needs to make a true tall car offering.  More Edgelike but even sportier.  Blazer will sell ok but i think if its too trucky it won't sell in big volume.

we don't need more of these

Funny how the source article mentions Honda also working on s similar vehicle when the Pilot is basically haklf way between an Equinox and Traverse in size.

Pilot is sorta big, they need something in between CRV and Pilot.  Or to downsize the Pilot and do a 3 row full sizer.

When you look at Ford they have Ecosport, Escape, Edge, Explorer, Flex, Expedition, Bronco coming soon.  They could have 7 SUVs, and they all sell pretty much.

Pilot was the largest in the segment till the 2018 Traverse came out. Honda could fit another crossover between Pilot and CRV

4 hours ago, regfootball said:

GM is really missing out on carlike crossovers.  If this is just a new Acadia clone with a truckish demeanor, some folks will dig it, but GM needs to make a true tall car offering.  More Edgelike but even sportier.  Blazer will sell ok but i think if its too trucky it won't sell in big volume.

we don't need more of these

 

 

 

 

 

 

When has it ever been a good idea for a GM to be more like a Ford (and vice versa)? More people are actually like the more truck like look of the Acadia. The Traverse seems to be getting a similar reaction. If I have to pick my poison with a CUV (since I really don't care for any CUVs), I would actually take one that didn't look a like tall car. 

chevy / gm needs to have a few products that look less like a wagon / truck and more rakish (for a crossover)

Already knew it was coming...

All I can say is....this thing better be at least somewhat badass offroad. (Or at least offer it) I get the feeling getting jeepish is going to improve sales as more folks but bigger trucks...

8 hours ago, regfootball said:

chevy / gm needs to have a few products that look less like a wagon / truck and more rakish (for a crossover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So not only should they look like everyone else, but they should mimic the equal amount of uselessness that is inherit in these "rakish" designs (i.e. Compromised cargo room)? Yeah, I'll pass and so should GM.

8 hours ago, regfootball said:

chevy / gm needs to have a few products that look less like a wagon / truck and more rakish (for a crossover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree, those are all butt ugly auto's with terrible interior space and limited real world use. Especially for big people these auto's are complete fails.

Those are also good sellers (except the ZDX)... so just because you don't fit in one doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold.

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Those are also good sellers (except the ZDX)... so just because you don't fit in one doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold.

He made a clear distinction that they are not good for big people, not that they shouldn't be sold at all.

My bigger issue with them is the compromised cargo room in the back and the tall car look that is simply boring to look at and honestly, fairly unoriginal at this point. 

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

He made a clear distinction that they are not good for big people, not that they shouldn't be sold at all.

 

My bigger issue with them is the compromised cargo room in the back and the tall car look that is simply boring to look at and honestly, fairly unoriginal at this point. 

We're enthusiasts, these vehicles aren't meant for us. These are for people who get excited over daring shades of beige on beige.  There are a lot of people out there who buy them. 

22 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Disagree, those are all butt ugly auto's with terrible interior space and limited real world use. Especially for big people these auto's are complete fails.

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

7 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

We're enthusiasts, these vehicles aren't meant for us. These are for people who get excited over daring shades of beige on beige.  There are a lot of people out there who buy them. 

Not disagreeing there but you said he stating that they should not be sold when he never said that. That was my point. It was also meant to highlight the fact that they all need not be the same basic shape (as Reg suggests). While I hate CUVs, at least GM is bucking the tall car trend a bit and putting out something that won't be confused with every other CUV in the mall parking lot.

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

Once a year doesn't sound like a big deal until you need that extra space that ONE time. Not everyone needs the bed of a pick up but just one use makes it worth the price of admission for a lot of folks.

2 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Once a year doesn't sound like a big deal until you need that extra space that ONE time. Not everyone needs the bed of a pick up but just one use makes it worth the price of admission for a lot of folks.

Personally, I prefer the boxier SUVs...they can look stylish without compromising cargo space..the Grand Cherokee is stylish but still upright with decent cargo space..I've used every square inch of that cargo space a few times....

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

Exactly... these aren't being sold to people going camping for a week, people who do that will buy an Explorer over the Edge, Pathfinder over the Murano, etc..  These are for urban warriors who "need" an SUV to go to Ikea once a year. 

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Not disagreeing there but you said he stating that they should not be sold when he never said that. That was my point. It was also meant to highlight the fact that they all need not be the same basic shape (as Reg suggests). While I hate CUVs, at least GM is bucking the tall car trend a bit and putting out something that won't be confused with every other CUV in the mall parking lot.

Well, he called them a fail when they are not.  That was my point of contention.   Going to disagree with you on GM producing something unique here.  Even under the Camo it looks like it's going to have the same general silhouette as the Edge or Murano. Aside from the likely Traverse face, it will blend right in with the others.  Heck, it might even get a "floating roof".

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Once a year doesn't sound like a big deal until you need that extra space that ONE time. Not everyone needs the bed of a pick up but just one use makes it worth the price of admission for a lot of folks.

Yup, then the mid-size SUV isn't your jam anyway. 

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yup, then the mid-size SUV isn't your jam anyway. 

Says you because not everyone needs a Suburban. Going midsize doesn't mean you should have to compromise on room just because the lastest design fad is a sloped roofline. The GC and Durango are perfect examples of midsize design and utility done right in a midsize. 

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Says you because not everyone needs a Suburban. Going midsize doesn't mean you should have to compromise on room just because the lastest design fad is a sloped roofline. The GC and Durango are perfect examples of midsize design and utility done right in a midsize. 

That's why there are other choices in the GM showroom.  If that's what you need, they will happily direct you to the Traverse or GMC/Buick dealer for an Acadia/Envision.

But... just putting this out there on what everyone should expect to see.

22 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

The Nissan and Infinity versions are just as bad. Coworker has both, Infinity for his wife and Nissan for himself and I have been in both and the interior space sucks, none of these auto's without putting down the back seat can even hold a normal set of golf clubs. Plus as I said, big people these auto's fail to give the room they need and I am not talking about being Obese, but just talk, muscular people. The very norm in my family.

Funny enough the Edge has more space behind the third row than a Grand Cherokee, with its raked rear end.

The Durango isn't mid sized.. it's a three row-er. Isn't the Durango more of an Explorer/Traverse competitor? In which I was right, a mid size isn't what the buyer is looking for i they need that extra space. 

26 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Exactly... these aren't being sold to people going camping for a week, people who do that will buy an Explorer over the Edge, Pathfinder over the Murano, etc..  These are for urban warriors who "need" an SUV to go to Ikea once a year. 

Well, he called them a fail when they are not.  That was my point of contention.   Going to disagree with you on GM producing something unique here.  Even under the Camo it looks like it's going to have the same general silhouette as the Edge or Murano. Aside from the likely Traverse face, it will blend right in with the others.  Heck, it might even get a "floating roof".

I understand and respect your point of view, but to me I still see these auto's as a fail. I find many of them with low miles on the used auto lot. People who live an active life style find these types of CUV's to fail to provide them the room / space to haul people plus their gear. Many that play golf have ended up trading in these auto's due to the failed interior space. To me, you can have a sporty SUV like my Trailblazer SS that can still haul people plus handle 4 golf bags in the back. 

You and @ccap41 have hit the nail for those that want a CUV type look that has been cross bred with a Sports car, the small but sellable pool is showing this to replace the 2 door sports car for many.

Yet, if you expect to haul 4-5 people plus golf clubs for everyone or ski gear, you need a different tool as these fail to handle that based on my own real world experience.

Example of a fail on interior space but success in sales is the 2nd generation SRX from Cadillac. Talk about tight space inside, but sold crazy to people until that person needed said space and then off to something else.

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Funny enough the Edge has more space behind the third row than a Grand Cherokee, with its raked rear end.

The Durango isn't mid sized.. it's a three row-er. Isn't the Durango more of an Explorer/Traverse competitor? In which I was right, a mid size isn't what the buyer is looking for i they need that extra space. 

Durango is a 3 row midsize, as is the Explorer, Highlander, etc.....definitely smaller than full size models like the Expedition or Tahoe.. 

8 minutes ago, dfelt said:

The Nissan and Infinity versions are just as bad. Coworker has both, Infinity for his wife and Nissan for himself and I have been in both and the interior space sucks, none of these auto's without putting down the back seat can even hold a normal set of golf clubs. Plus as I said, big people these auto's fail to give the room they need and I am not talking about being Obese, but just talk, muscular people. The very norm in my family.

And that's why there is a Tahoe/Expedition for you.

A set of golf clubs has nothing to do with that raked look. That wouldn't change with a raked ceiling or a boxy ceiling. They either lay flat or they don't. 

Just now, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Durango is a 3 row midsize, as is the Explorer...definitely smaller than full size models like the Expedition or Tahoe.. 

Thanks, I thought so. 

Just now, ccap41 said:

And that's why there is a Tahoe/Expedition for you.

A set of golf clubs has nothing to do with that raked look. That wouldn't change with a raked ceiling or a boxy ceiling. They either lay flat or they don't. 

Sorry but have to disagree with you. The Nissan Murano is a perfect example of how the raked look and curve on the sides took away the interior space that is needed for a set of golf clubs in the bag from side to side. This raked look or Jelly bean look as I call it really eats up usable interior space compared to the Brick look of an SUV.

Just now, dfelt said:

Sorry but have to disagree with you. The Nissan Murano is a perfect example of how the raked look and curve on the sides took away the interior space that is needed for a set of golf clubs in the bag from side to side. This raked look or Jelly bean look as I call it really eats up usable interior space compared to the Brick look of an SUV.

Then buy a Pathfinder or Traverse if golf is that important to you.  That's why there are choices.  Most of these will go to soccer moms.

This is the only place that you lose interior volume with a raked or jelly bean style SUV.  While yes it's volume that has nothing to do with putting a set of golf clubs in there. If it's too short or not wide enough then you're looking st the wrong size vehicle but that little squares off part I marked won't gain or lose you a set of clubs. 

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

This is the only place that you lose interior volume with a raked or jelly bean style SUV.  While yes it's volume that has nothing to do with putting a set of golf clubs in there. If it's too short or not wide enough then you're looking st the wrong size vehicle but that little squares off part I marked won't gain or lose you a set of clubs. 

And the difference in cargo area width between the Murano and Pathfinder is a massive 0.9 inches in the Pathfinder's favor.

31 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's why there are other choices in the GM showroom.  If that's what you need, they will happily direct you to the Traverse or GMC/Buick dealer for an Acadia/Envision.

But... just putting this out there on what everyone should expect to see.

GM is not guilty of what I'm saying though Drew and I thought I made that pretty clear. 

20 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Funny enough the Edge has more space behind the third row than a Grand Cherokee, with its raked rear end.

The Durango isn't mid sized.. it's a three row-er. Isn't the Durango more of an Explorer/Traverse competitor? In which I was right, a mid size isn't what the buyer is looking for i they need that extra space. 

Way to miss the point entirely. 

46 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Exactly... these aren't being sold to people going camping for a week, people who do that will buy an Explorer over the Edge, Pathfinder over the Murano, etc..  These are for urban warriors who "need" an SUV to go to Ikea once a year. 

Well, he called them a fail when they are not.  That was my point of contention.   Going to disagree with you on GM producing something unique here.  Even under the Camo it looks like it's going to have the same general silhouette as the Edge or Murano. Aside from the likely Traverse face, it will blend right in with the others.  Heck, it might even get a "floating roof".

Speaking more along the lines of the new Traverse and the GMC twins. The Traverse got rid of the sloped minivan look for a much more utilitarian look (and a better look IMO). The Acadia is much the same here. Whatever the Blazer turns out he will be the exception here and I've already made it clear that this new model should not carry the Blazer name for reasons already stated. 

Calling another lame FWD based CUV a Blazer is a disgrace. GM has no shame. 

I guess it wasn't clear because I don't understand what the issue is with choices in the same showroom.  If you want upright, go for a Traverse, Acadia, Terrain, or Enclave.  Traverse, though the largest in the segment, is still considered in the mid-size category since it competes on price with Explorer, Durango, and Pilot.   As the title to the article says, this is filling a gap between Traverse and Equinox that Chevy has currently that some of the competition already has filled (Ford, Nissan, VW, Lexus, Lincoln) or will be filling (Honda, Acura)

11 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

This is the only place that you lose interior volume with a raked or jelly bean style SUV.  While yes it's volume that has nothing to do with putting a set of golf clubs in there. If it's too short or not wide enough then you're looking st the wrong size vehicle but that little squares off part I marked won't gain or lose you a set of clubs. 

Again, reference my "just one time" remark. Load something big and boxy in that Murano and see how that works out when you can't close the lift gate. There are others that do a much better job of having usable space all the way around and not just for laying your golf clubs in. Hell I can do that with a Chevy Sonic sedan so maybe that's not the best comparison here. 

As far as the name, I'm "meh" about it.... names don't matter or mean anything anymore outside of pony cars. 

Also, even though the XT5 hasn't done anything to wow me, I will give it this:  It feels very very spacious for that class of vehicle and the 3.6 will be stupid fast in this Chevy. 

Random anecdote--I had a coworker w/  a Murano in Scottsdale, went out to lunch in it a few times a week over the last 2 years...good passenger space in the back, though the cargo space seemed compromised by the roof shape as did the rear/side visibility (the backup camera is a must).   

Anyway, the CUV/SUV market is hot right now, plenty of room for lots of models in the midsize space, both 2- and 3- row models... the Blazer can only help Chevy and GM's market position... 

As far as the name goes, I'd like to see Blazer used on a midsize BOF SUV based off the Colorado like Ford is doing w/ the Ranger-based Bronco, but I can understand getting something to market fast using an existing CUV platform...

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I guess it wasn't clear because I don't understand what the issue is with choices in the same showroom.  If you want upright, go for a Traverse, Acadia, Terrain, or Enclave.  Traverse, though the largest in the segment, is still considered in the mid-size category since it competes on price with Explorer, Durango, and Pilot.   As the title to the article says, this is filling a gap between Traverse and Equinox that Chevy has currently that some of the competition already has filled (Ford, Nissan, VW, Lexus, Lincoln) or will be filling (Honda, Acura)

I was speaking, more or less, of my disdain for the sloped roof tall cars calling themselves "utility" when my old Magnum was more versatile. I do agree that it is good to have choices though so don't think I'm poopooing the idea of them. I just think most of them are fluff over function. 

10 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I was speaking, more or less, of my disdain for the sloped roof tall cars calling themselves "utility" when my old Magnum was more versatile. I do agree that it is good to have choices though so don't think I'm poopooing the idea of them. I just think most of them are fluff over function. 

Like the Merc GLE 'coupe'...damn sexy, but not as practical as it's upright GLE sibling... though I can imagine a GC 'coupe' could be fun... 

Thinking outside the box, if Chevy wants to get in on the CUV 'coupe' market, how about a sporty, 'personal' luxury fastback version of this new Blazer, name it Monte Carlo?  Now that would be fun... 

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

I was speaking, more or less, of my disdain for the sloped roof tall cars calling themselves "utility" when my old Magnum was more versatile. I do agree that it is good to have choices though so don't think I'm poopooing the idea of them. I just think most of them are fluff over function. 

Most cars are fluff over function, crossovers of all shapes in particular, LOL. 

If all you're looking for is function and little fluff, the best value in this segment is actually the Mitsubishi Outlander. 

20 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

And the difference in cargo area width between the Murano and Pathfinder is a massive 0.9 inches in the Pathfinder's favor.

HOLY BUCKETS THATS A LOT OF EXTRA SPACE! 

5 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Like the Merc GLE 'coupe'...damn sexy, but not as practical as it's upright GLE sibling... though I can imagine a GC 'coupe' could be fun... 

Ugliest vehicle on the market next to the X4, X6, and GLC Coupe. 

#utility #space

CUV buyers don't really care about space, they care about sitting higher up and having the image of driving an SUV.   Toyota is going to sell 450,000 RAV4 this year, and it isn't like the Rav is winning any cargo capacity or hip and leg room competitions.  

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

CUV buyers don't really care about space, they care about sitting higher up and having the image of driving an SUV.   Toyota is going to sell 450,000 RAV4 this year, and it isn't like the Rav is winning any cargo capacity or hip and leg room competitions.  

Absolutely. I mean I hear its packaging is done well but if it was for sheer space you'd see more base model larger SUVs rather than Titaniums and Premiers. 

31 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

#utility #space

And one doesn't pretend to be something it is not. That's the key difference here. I had a ton of floor space in my Magnum but height was an issue and it was long and body, the lliftgate was the issue (although the unique design of the loft gate mitigated most issues unlike the Muranos). However, the Magnum did this without having to increase its ride height and If I'm going to look for something with more top to bottom space, then a Murano is not the answer. A Durango, on the other hand, would fit the bill without having to go full size. For the record, the Magnum has seven more cubic feet of space with the seats down (74 vs. 67) so I rest my case about the fluff over function part of CUVs like the Murano. 

38 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Like the Merc GLE 'coupe'...damn sexy, but not as practical as it's upright GLE sibling... though I can imagine a GC 'coupe' could be fun... 

 

 

Thinking outside the box, if Chevy wants to get in on the CUV 'coupe' market, how about a sporty, 'personal' luxury fastback version of this new Blazer, name it Monte Carlo?  Now that would be fun... 

Going to disagree there because the GLE is hideous and a perfect example of its uselessness as far as utility goes. Coupe style CUVs need to go. 

And just so I am clear here, I am not taking a dump on anyone's preference here. You get what you like and shouldn't have to worry about what anyone else thinks about your buying decisions. I just have a general disdain for CUVs for many reasons. Peace all. 

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Going to disagree there because the GLE is hideous and a perfect example of its uselessness as far as utility goes. Coupe style CUVs need to go. 

The GLE is totally impractical,  but I'm oddly attracted to it..it's sort of a personal luxury coupe of CUVs... (another body style that was totally impractical when compared to a sedan),  Coupes--whether 2dr, 4dr, or 5dr hatchback CUVs---are about style more than function.   There is room in the world for both...