2019 Chevrolet Blazer

BuffettTruck

Well-Known Member
Honestly, not a fan. It's like they decided to respond to Ford bringing back the Bronco and saying, "Okay, we'll bring back the Blazer. Except it won't be a Blazer, it will be a slightly puffed up Equinox for people who think the Equinox is too small and the Traverse is too big."

Still, I can only imagine there must have been similar disappointment when the Blazer went from the K5 to the S10. They just didn't have an internet to vent on.
 

Mooseman

Moderator
Just found this video review of the "blechzer".


Be forewarned, these reviewers are easily impressed by Playschool cars.
 

northcreek

Well-Known Member
How do they even link that thing to the Blazer name ?
 

Mike534x

Well-Known Member
I see 0 reason to even buy one. After driving both the 19 Acadia, and the Blazer I see no point in going for it. It pretty much felt like the same crossover, no difference in how the suspension felt either. The V6 wasn't bad, but didn't feel much faster, maybe it was the gearing but it felt a bit slower then the Traverse/Acadia. The interior was nice, but felt no different aside from the "redesigned" dashboard and the recycled camero climate controls. The climate control was my biggest pet peeve, the knobs are just not that comfortable to grab and turn to adjust the air temp.
 

Kelly@PCMofNC

Well-Known Member
Ehhh no like. If anything they should have called the new Traverse a Trailblazer - it looks closer to its roots than that does.
 

Mooseman

Moderator
They should have called it the "SomomGrogetter" (soccer mom grocery getter)

We need a real mid-sized SUV dammit!
 

northcreek

Well-Known Member
A Colorado based SUV would be so much more deserving of the name but, hey! what do we know, we're just the people with the money....:deadhorse:
 

Sparky

Moderator
And give it the 4.3 (Colorado should have had it too).
 

Sparky

Moderator
That's never gonna happen. At least the 4.3 is plausible.
 

Mike534x

Well-Known Member
Would be nice to see the 5.3 find a home in the Colorado, at the very least it would be nice to have a mid-size pick up truck with decent power.

Ford seems to be getting their head in the game with the new Explorer. The RWD config caught my eye.
 

littleblazer

Gold Supporter
The 3.6 in the Colorado really isn't all that bad. The brief time I had with one it felt a little peppier than the 4.2 in our trucks but you had to spin it. The 4.3 is quite a bit bigger than the 3.6 because iirc one is 60* and the other 90* or something.
 

TollKeeper

Well-Known Member
The 3.6 is a 60* engine that is derived from the old 2.8, 3.1, 3100, 3400, 3500, 3600, and the 3900.

The 4.3 is a 350 shortened 2 cylinders. I dont know its opposing degree.
 

Mooseman

Moderator
I had the 60' 3900 in our SV6 and it hauled ass even in a FWD van. I remember the 2.8 carbed in my 82 s10 pickup and it was pathetic, even with a manual 5spd
 

Sparky

Moderator
The 4.3 i'm talking about is the new one, not the old 350 minus 2 cylinders. Although, it is still that sort of thing, being part of the new LT V8 engine family, just a 6 cylinder version lol.
 

northcreek

Well-Known Member
And give it the 4.3 (Colorado should have had it too).
The 4.3 i'm talking about is the new one, not the old 350 minus 2 cylinders. Although, it is still that sort of thing, being part of the new LT V8 engine family, just a 6 cylinder version lol.
Seems like every time the new(est) 4.3 V6 is mentioned many people automatically recall the old Vortec 4.3 which was the mainstay for GM trucks for a good while. I had one in a AWD Astro van and it was a great engine. I wonder if GM ever had an aluminum block or head version of that engine.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
18,756
Messages
569,447
Members
11,387
Latest member
MongoosC5

Latest posts

Top Bottom