Chevrolet’s Blazer, a resurrected midsize crossover many claim fails to uphold the prior Blazer’s memory, will gain a new powerplant for 2020, but naysayers could easily find a problem in GM’s decision-making here, too.
Thanks to order guides, we now know what you’ll pay to get behind the wheel of a 2020 Blazer outfitted with the tweener turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder.
According to Cars Direct, the turbo Blazer starts at $33,995 after destination, offered only in mid-level 2LT and 3LT guise. It’s a climb from the base Blazer L, which starts at $29,995 and finds motivation from a more tepid 2.5-liter four.
The 2.0T engine makes 230 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque, a definite power bump from the base mill’s 193 hp and 188 lb-ft. All Blazers share the same nine-speed automatic. However, the cheapest turbo Blazer’s price starts just $500 below that of the cheapest V6-powered Blazer, a model that starts at $34,495. (These are all front-drive prices; the base 2.5L isn’t offered with AWD.)
The same engine price gap exists when you opt for a 3LT model.
Going the V6 route nets a buyer 308 hp and 270 lb-ft without too much of a fuel economy penalty. The EPA rates the V6 Blazer at 21 mpg combined for both FWD and AWD variants, whereas base four-banger buyers can expect 23 mpg. While the currently unrated turbo model will undoubtedly beat the V6’s highway figure, the Blazer isn’t a featherweight, and turbo crossovers usually suffer in city economy, pushing overall gas mileage southward. A hybrid it is not, so expect only a slight improvement on the 2.5L’s combined fuel economy, if anything.
A brand spokesperson contacted by Cars Direct says the engine addition delivers “more choice” (no argument there) and offers greater power and efficiency than the 2.5-liter. We’re all for freedom of choice, but the narrow price gap between the lowest-rung turbo and V6 models will surely offer food for thought for prospective buyers. Add to that the fact that the turbo engine drinks premium fuel (the V6 is fine with 87 octane) and that max towing capacity (4,500 pounds) can only be reached with the 3.6-liter.
[Images: General Motors]
V6, FTW.
Nice job handicapping the 2.0T to make the V6 look good.
Blazer RS AWD with the “old” GM Ecotech 2.0T making 259 hp and 290 lb ft would be just the ticket for the Rocky Mountain West.
Still not sure who the Blazer’s for. By all rights it should be a counterpoint to the upcoming Bronco — a capable off-roader with great throwback looks. Instead, we get a tweener of a soft-roader CUV with no clear mission other than to add yet another pancake on top of GM’s SUV/CUV stack.
Maybe that’s all GM needs. Perhaps the Bronco will only appeal to internet off-roaders.
It’s not for you, but it’s popular (at least in my area it is). There’s a big size gap between the Equinox and Traverse. The value may not be there, but it’s right-sized.
West Coast, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the wild. Yet both Equinoxes and Traverses are reasonably common.
“Still not sure who the Blazer’s for. ”
Sexy Moms. Didn’t you see the commercial?
Hydromatic
Most of the midsized crossovers on the market are FWD. (eg. Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Ford Explorer, Edge, Flex, Toyota Hylander, Honda Passport, Pilot, Nissan Pathfinder, Morano, Subaru Forester, Outback, Hyundai Santa Fe, Palisades, KIA Sorento, Telluride, VW Atlas, Mazda CX-9)
Just think of it as an Acura RDX V6 with torque vectoring AWD and handling that bumps Stelvuo Ti 2.0T in Blazer RS trim.
It’s an Equinox that doesn’t rely on the UAW for production.
It’s a troll throwing out B.S. hoping some of it will stick.
If I was given one of these things, the first thing I’d do is take dental floss to the stupid door name badges.
Cheapskates everywhere are rejoicing that their horrible looking crossover can now be had with a turbo.
$500 savings to be stuck in a turbo 4 where can I sign up!!!/saidnooneever
If they had any brains they’d dump the 2.5 and make the turbo the base powerplant.
But you know, because GM…
Blazer is built on a shortened P2XX platform, that the LaCrosse was on and employs the same V6, 9-speed, and AWD system. The Blazer is smaller, incrementally lighter, but not as aerodynamic.
Not a big leap to ass-u-me highway MPG will be around 28-29 FWD (the LaCrosse FWD was 30 MPG and crushed the number consistently) and around 26-27 with AWD (the LaCrosse AWD was 29 MPG and struggled to achieve it).
Handicapping for the lesser aerodynamics and higher profile.
My TourX 2.0T with torque vectoring AWD can see 30 mpg with a mix of city and highway. Almost 40 mpg at.65 mph highway speeds.
New hypothesis for the “visibility thing” (as exemplified by the rear 40% of the vehicle in the second picture above):
– The youngsters “styling” these things grew up eating at the newer “prison-style” McDonald’s restaurants which feature few to no windows.
Chevy’s “got you covered” commercial that starts with the Trax and ends with the Traverse illustrates the Blazer’s problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9JKw70Tk18
The entire design language is “same sausage, different lengths”.
Sure, there are slight differences between the vehicles, but not enough to matter. What’s worse – they are all equally forgettable.
Chevy needs to go back to the drawing board. Their entire lineup looks stale.
“According to Cars Direct, the turbo Blazer starts at $33,995 after destination, offered only in mid-level 2LT and 3LT guise. It’s a climb from the base Blazer L, which starts at $29,995 and finds motivation from a more tepid 2.5-liter four.
However, the cheapest turbo Blazer’s price starts just $500 below that of the cheapest V6-powered Blazer, a model that starts at $34,495. (These are all front-drive prices; the base 2.5L isn’t offered with AWD.)”
Ok so we have the Blazer at 29,9 for 2.5 no AWD, 33,9 for 2.0 and 34,4 for a V6 and I’m not sure on AWD for the latter two.
“Prices for the 2019 Toyota Highlander are about average for the midsize SUV class. The entry-level Highlander LE starts at $31,830. Prices jump to more than $35,000 if you equip the LE trim with a V6 engine and all-wheel drive. The Highlander XLE ($39,720) and the range-topping Highlander Limited Platinum ($46,050) both come standard with a V6 engine. ”
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/toyota/highlander
Then we have the Highlander at 31,8 with unspecified drivetrain, and 35,0 for the V6 and AWD. Now even if we grant the two upper Chevys AWD, I’m still struggling to see why anyone is buying the Blazer turbo for 33,9 [!] or the V6 for 34,4 when they can have the Highlander V6 for 35 even. Maybe if GM plays fast and loose with the cash on the hood, i.e. 5K off msrp, but even then the smart money spends the bit and buys the superior product. Does GM really believe its products are in the same zip code as Toyota’s? I guess the “real people” lack critical thinking skills.
28-cars-later
Because Chevy is yoga pants, and Toyota is mom jeans.
At highway speeds:
Chevy has a very comfortable no frills driving experience. Just point the vehicle in the right direction brake as needed, and it almost feels like the vehicles drive themselves. Plus you get a high quality Bose infotainment system. With great connectivity and high fidelity sound.
Toyota’s tend to wobble on the highway, and come with sub-par brakes. Meaning the driver constantly has to keep making minor adjustments to keep the vehicles in their lane. While maintaining a larger than normal space cushion between themselves and the vehicle in front of them. Then there’s the crappy Entune infotainment system which constantly drops calls, and makes everything sound like AM radio. When you do finally arrive at your destination you feel mentally drained.
Bottom line I would say the Chevy is a far superior product.
Great Chevy commercial.
LOL. Not even close to the truth.
Fliggin_De_Fluge
Millions of Chevys and Millions of Toyotas are sold in the U.S every year.
You can’t make this stuff up. Too many people have driven vehicles from both brands.
Which is why Toyotas are worth more new and ever so much more used. Was that your point? Because that’s what you pointed out.
Peter, you must be one of those “real Chevy owners” they hire for their commercials!
Peter, you’re right that too many people have driven vehicles from both brands — to believe the garbage in your comment.
As a matter of fact, I own one of each, and they both drive fine.
The Toyota is a Highlander and it’s one of the most comfortable highway cruisers I’ve ever owned, and the most comfortable one that had a MSRP under $75k when new.
I don’t think I’m hip enough to understand your comparison but I’ve owned four GM products since 2006 and currently am driving a 2018 Toyota. My IM has no wobbling issues and its only got 8K on the clock so I haven’t had to change my brakes yet. I wish it has a CD player but I haven’t had any issues with the radio and I’m not sure what Entune is exactly. I haven’t and won’t be sampling either the Highlander or Blazer we’re talking about but I highly doubt all of that first grade Chinesium and assembly by Juan Valdez are doing the Blazer any favors, but I suppose all of the expected GM creaks and road noise will be drowned out by the Bose system.
Dal20402/28-Cars-Later
In most of the U.S. between the big cities. Traffic usually moves along between 75 & 80 mph. At that speed the Highlanders wobble is very noticeable.
28-cars-Later
I take it you have heard of Bose audio systems. Entune is the crappy alternative that Toyota fished out of a flee market garbage dumpster.
Having said that however, the Capacitors used in the Delco/Bose amps in those systems have traditionally not held up over the long haul.
Well, you are correct about the infotainment suites offered in the 2 vehicles, but other than that I don’t see it.
So Chevy is offering a less powerful turbo Blazer for a few hundred bucks less than its V6 sibling but requires higher maintenance, and is barely more fuel efficient while sucking premium fuel costing at least an extra $10 per tank? Sounds like a recipe for success.
The V6 should be standard across all trim levels even if it raises the base price.
The 3.6L is probably going to be phased out in the next 3 years so GM is just giving themselves a head start on working out the kinks of the HT2000.
Good point from a cost/efficiency stand point. Not sure how knuckle draggers will accept a 4-cylinder as their only choice.
“only choice”
Doesn’t sound like much of a “choice”. As a proud “knuckle dragger”, I hope they reject it.
Classic Detroit “what, the dogs don’t like the dog food ?” moment.
What’s sad is you believe a complex I4 sipping premium gas while returning similar mileage is somehow acceptable for something at this price point. Maybe the “knuckle draggers” are more with it than you think?
At least this is a good looking GM SUV. The interior is a bit on the cheap side, but like the exterior it is at least handsome.
I would like to see an even smaller version of the Blazer. Reducing the size would give the Blazer a better turn rate.
The RS models I’ve seen are really shrap looking!
Shrap! That’s the perfect word to describe a Blazer; a portmanteau of two words that are likely to be censored.
Chevrolet Blazer, such an iconic badge, all American Star:
Now Built in Mexico (Hecho En Mexico, Si), with over 50% foreign parts content (lots of Chinesium Grade parts in the Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motor Blazer).
Donde esta Chevrolet Blazer?
You can call it an iconic badge all day long, but the S10 Blazer was shrap, and the Trailblazer was worse.
Most of the Blazers I see are V6 models. Sadly for GM they are of the 2.8 or 4.3 variety and reside in S-10 blazers I see more of them than the Trailblazers, which I see more of than this. I have seen these in the wild on one occasion…emerald aisle at National Car rental at LAX. That is telling.
I almost got it BTW, but it was a solo trip and I was going to drive the 101 up to Lompoc so I grabbed a Camaro convertible.
I have a 3.4L Blazer, parts of it are 60V6 derives (2.8L) and parts of it are 4.3L derived.
Holden Commodore 2.0T gets 32 MPG, the V6 (fwd) gets 26 MPG.
6/32 x 100 = 19% higher fuel consumption.