Chevrolet dusted off another historic nameplate on Wednesday, resurrecting the Trailblazer name after a decade-long (U.S.) absence and applying it to a tweener crossover bound for the narrow ground between the subcompact Trax and compact Equinox. V8 and inline-six motivation will not be part of this package.
While GM’s reuse of the Trailblazer name isn’t likely to anger as many diehard Bowtie fans as the reborn 2019 Blazer, the emergence of yet another Chevy-badged crossover makes one wonder about just how well-stocked a lineup can be.
Chevrolet, like rival Ford, clearly felt there was room to grow. Come next year, the brand’s utility vehicle lineup will span five crossovers and two body-on-frame SUVs. Across the automotive landscape, automakers are scrambling to add new utility models, bridging segments and, in the case of Hyundai’s Venue, creating new ones.
Ford decided to twin its Escape for 2020, launching a city-focused crossover for the mainstream masses while promising a similarly sized “baby Bronco” variant based off the same vehicle.
The proliferation of crossovers across all segments and the emergence of a crop of vehicles designed to take on Jeep’s Wrangler (Ford’s upcoming Bronco; a possible GMC model) lead us to ask: has Chevrolet’s light truck lineup finally topped out? Has the number of nameplates reached its peak, or can you see white space that Chevy won’t be able to leave unfilled?
[Image: General Motors]
One pie and the slices are getting narrower. We just had the post about Mercedes removing models that are redundant and aren’t selling. There’s only so many buyers in a certain price range for each model.
It’s overkill and time to start putting models on a Death Watch because when the inevitable crossover backlash begins, it will be epic.
How about a 2-row unibody RWD crossover with an on-road focus? I’m thinking something like a 3.6L (or 6.2L) Stelvio.
Granted, not likely a giant market, but during CUV mania it would probably do fine.
If GM won’t go for it, maybe Ford will Torino-ize the Explorer.
Not too long ago there was just that.
The Mighty Mercedes GLK-350
Criminally underrated
It would make sense on the Mustang or Alpha (or whatever platform Cadillac are building the new CT4) platforms.
I feel we will get RWD crossovers, but not powered by ICEs.
I would have thought so not too long ago, but then I read a story that in 1972 Ford offered over 40 variations of cars including sedans, coupes, convertibles and wagons, all on just a small handful of platforms. I don’t remember anyone thinking Ford had saturated the market with cars. Most people were happy with the abundant choices. So, what’s different today? The more choices a car company offers the more likely someone will find the vehicle that’s just right for them
I understand what you are saying, but it’s a different automotive industry now. The sheer cost of planning, designing, testing, retooling, marketing, selling, and maintaining so many models is sky high, and I think we’re seeing that with the Germans and the need to scale things back. I think with platform sharing being the norm that the automakers saw that as the cheap way to enter each market. After all, the expensive tooling, plant space, and a lot of the engineering has already been done. But the sustained costs of keeping so many models going and on people’s radar is substantial.
Plus, how many $28,000 to $45,000 crossovers does each automaker need? If they are similar size with the same corporate engines, transmissions, technology, and corporate body language, what separates it from the stablemates? That’s where I see Honda running into a wall with the Passport vs. Pilot. And now Chevy is doing it with the Equinox vs. Blazer vs. Trailblazer. In the end, it will likely come down to how much cash is on the hood. And if GMC gets their version, that muddies the water even more.
This narrowing of the slices has CRASH written all over it. It has all of the signs of a bubble ready to pop with hyperinflated prices, subprime loans, too many models, slowing sales overall, and a new generation that doesn’t value driving as much. I’m thinking that Chevy, and others, might want to start focusing on what’s next instead of another round of the same old stuff.
How is offering a Equinox, Trax, Blazer, & TrailBlazer today any different than in 1994 showing up at the Chevy store and looking at a Lumina, Monte Carlo, Cavalier, or Berreta? Other than the 2 door is no longer a thing how different were these cars? I respectfully submit, not very.
Exactly, 87 Morgan, today’s crossover is yesterday’s Cutlass Supreme, Calais, Vista Cruiser, 442…
You’re right. I mean, nobody bought them then either.
You articulate my thoughts as well. I also wonder if the actual cost of an individual model is less than we believed.
Starting to shoehorn models where not required in my opinion.
But if that’s what the people want, who am I to judge.
I think this is inevitable as automakers search for volume. If they can offer something sufficiently different and steal some market share while using existing platforms and excess capacity….why not. If they make money on the models and dont dramatically cannibalize sales from existing models, they should definitely pursue it.
Plus, I feel that saturating the market will be good for consumers in the end. The sooner we hit peak crossover, the sooner ridiculous markups for high riding hatchbacks (aka crossovers) will start to fall.
I’ll bet these sell in large numbers. It is the right size for urban and suburban markets and I’m sure it will be relatively cheap, in more ways than one.
I was behind a Blazer RS yesterday and was stunned someone actually bought one. With options the MSRP is like $47,000.
That’s INSANE.
d4rk….
And it s made in Mexico with about 40% USA/Canada content.
54% is not “about 40%”. That’s far higher than the South Carolina-assembled BMW X3 and X5 (30-35%). More American workers contribute to the Blazer than they do the BMWs.
If the Trax cargo space is poor, and the Blazer rates average, what’s the real value of an in-between (below average) addition to the lineup?
Unless they are dropping Trax, which I doubt, since it’s Buick cousin is still perking along.
I don’t get it either.
looks like a damn Lexus, youck!
I think it looks like a Jeep Compass
I think the automakers are still trying to find the top of the crossover market, and trying to figure out what will sell. Many of these vehicles won’t see a second generation.
I agree, I think this whole crossover thing really caught the industry by surprise and they’re still trying to figure out a sustainable formula for selling them
Wait, what? S/CUVs have been hot for at least 25 years. This era reminds me very much of the high Brougham era. Every car was getting a landau roof and opera windows. Now, everyone gets a big grille and AWD. That, and as someone else mentioned further up the string, every car company seemed to have four car lines. Now we just have four S/CUV lines instead.
Nothing new under the sun.
Wait until they start adding “coupe” versions of these things….
maybe some Envoy XUV versions to go with them.
I would have called the little SUV the Tracker and saved TrailBlazer for a potential Ford Bronco competitor.
That was exactly my idea on the other article about the Trailblazer.
Maybe, if GM does a Wrangler/Bronco-style SUV, it will be a GMC model, and they can call it Jimmy.
I think the TrailBlazer name doesn’t have as much value as the Blazer name had until Chevrolet stuck it on a CUV that only Motor Trend could love.
Buick is rumored to bring a euro-style CUV “coupe” to market in a couple of years. That means there’s a good chance a cheapo Chevy version will slice the Crossover pie even thinner.
I dont have an issue with automakers filling gaps, even if they’re only perceived gaps. As others mentioned, a few decades ago, there were many different car models, most not terribly different from one another, from the same brand, often overlapping in price and so on. Nobody threw up their hands and yelled about it then. It’s just that the majority of B&B despises crossovers, especially small ones.
I am agnostic on most crossovers. I wouldn’t choose an Escape or CR-V, but I like my Element just fine.
Is it a sporty, fun-to-drive Civic Si with more cargo space? Hell no, and I knew that going in. I wanted something utilitarian that was a little more unique than your average vehicle of this type. Having an Element with a manual transmission certainly qualifies, as it stands out in a sea of Rav4s and such. The rubber floors and slightly increased ground clearance are useful in the awful contractor parking lots (really just fields that look something like WWII battle field) and when I go camping.
My second choice was a Ford F-150, so even though the Element isnt terribly good on fuel compared to my Taurus, for example, it is more economical than the truck would’ve been. It’s also pretty easy to park, I can squeeze it into parking spots that Silverados and Tundras have to pass by. The clamshell rear doors are perfect for accessing my lunchbox, hardhat, etc rather than having to walk around the rear door as I did with the Taurus. Of course, it’s easier to get in the Taurus’ back seat to ride back there, but most of the time, itll be just me in the Element, unless I meet someone and we use it to go camping and/or fishing, etc.
I guess if I had a family, a proper 4 door crossover might be more appealing, but for now, this one suits my needs just fine. As I said, I probably wouldnt have bought a CR-V, even though they’re not terribly different in terms of size, chassis and drivetrain.
Sum it up to say: different strokes for different folks. Live and let live.
“As others mentioned, a few decades ago, there were many different car models, most not terribly different from one another, from the same brand, often overlapping in price and so on. Nobody threw up their hands and yelled about it then.”
This simply isn’t true. Plenty of people sounded the alarm that car companies were wasting effort and acting as their own worst enemies when they were competing with themselves. Then the companies who did it the most had to shed brands and declare bankruptcy. I get it that learning from history is anathema to people brainwashed by socialists, but it still makes sense in anything resembling a free market.
Chevy sold a Cavalier (several versions), Corsica and Beretta all at the same time and pretty successfully.
I wasnt talking about different brands, and nobody here is talking about that. This isnt Oldsmobile v. Buick v. Pontiac
We are talking about different sizes overlapping to be “just right” for a given customer under one brand. For example, I would’ve bought a Corsica, not a Cavalier, just like I bought an Element and not a CR-V.
Besides, when has the truth ever concerned you? With such gems as “no F-150 will outlast its first set of tires” and “BMW is a less sporty automaker than Toyota”?
Even brainwashed socialists can see through that pile of crap.
Show me the posts where I said either of your lies. The truth is a stranger to you. There’s no other way to hold your views.
Can you leave your hysterical political screeching out of any conversation at all, Todd? Come on, man. The topic today isn’t socialism. It’s whether red-blooded American capitalists are doing stupid sh!t or know their market better than we do. We’re all talking out of our behinds on this either way, so for god’s sake, lighten up and stay on topic.