Chevrolet Blazer Bound for Mexican Plant, UAW 'Disappointed'

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The new Chevrolet Blazer is the hot-ticket auto creating the most buzz right now, but it’s also generating mild controversy. Many who remember the original were more than a little disappointed seeing the name affixed to a unibody crossover with front-drive origins. While mainstream shoppers aren’t likely to mind, former Blazer owners aren’t thrilled with General Motors’ decision.

It’s probably more financially viable for the automaker to do it this way. GM can definitely serve most customers for less money. But you get the sense that they’ve watered down the automotive broth to stretch the C1XX platform as far as it will go. At least it means more jobs for Americans, though, right? Well, not exactly.

According to Reuters, General Motors confirmed its earlier plan to manufacture the Blazer in Mexico. With the recent hubbub from the White House surrounding vehicles produced abroad, the possibility of new tariffs, and NAFTA negotiations going so poorly, there was a growing sense that GM would find a way to build the crossover stateside. There was even rumor that Lansing Delta Township Assembly, which is already close to full capacity, would shoulder some of the burden with the rest going to Spring Hill Manufacturing in Tennessee.

While that decision would have placed both facilities into perpetual overdrive, it seemed theoretically possible, considering the recent emphasis on American Made™ products. Both plants already work on the Blazer’s sister vehicles, too.

Other claims arose that the company might retool Lordstown Assembly in Ohio to prepare for the crossover. Due to declining Chevrolet Cruze sales, the facility has seen output drop and shifts cut. Frankly, this would have made the most sense if production were to stay in the U.S., due to the underutilization of manpower and space. But the equipment costs and prep-work needed would have been significant. Unfortunately, it was all wishful thinking. The 2019 Blazer remains Mexico-bound.

“We remain committed to working with the administration on a modernized NAFTA,” GM spokesman Pat Morrissey said, before adding that the factory decision was made years ago.

The automaker certainly could have tried to change its production strategy for the political climate, but reorganizing the logistics last minute would have been an incredibly messy affair. Like Morrissey said, these decisions are typically made long before assembly kicks off.

The United Auto Workers union called the decision very disappointing. “This is all happening while UAW-GM workers here in the U.S. are laid off and unemployed,” the union said in a statement.

[Image: General Motors]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 44 comments
  • IMatt IMatt on Jun 25, 2018

    Why isn't the union aggressively trying to develop a presence in Mexico? There's already the CAW in Canada, why not a new MAW arm in Mexico? Would solve many outsourcing to cheap labour issues within NAFTA and even improve working conditions for local workers in Mexico. The union would get a boost in membership as well. Win-win for everyone except for those looking to buy discounted made in Mexico vehicles.

    • Bullnuke Bullnuke on Jun 25, 2018

      When I lived in Mexico some years back the members of "unions" were closely aligned with the wishes and directives of the PRI, the then-ruling party, and were allowed only to ask for and do as the PRI allowed. They were unions in name only. I wouldn't be surprised if that were still the case - a union such as the UAW would not be tolerated.

  • GM=Unreliable Chinese made JUNK

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next