QOTD: Room for Growth?

qotd room for growth

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]

Comments
Join the conversation
7 of 34 comments
  • MKizzy MKizzy on May 30, 2019

    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.

  • JohnTaurus JohnTaurus on May 30, 2019

    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.

    • See 4 previous
    • HotPotato HotPotato on Jun 03, 2019

      @ToddAtlasF1 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.

  • Johnster Not feelin' it. The traditional unreliability of turbo engines is a big turn-off, especially in a work truck that (I hope) you'd want to keep on the road for 200,000 miles or more without having major repairs.
  • ToolGuy Car audio is way overpriced.
  • Marty S The original Charger was a 2 door, as was the landmark 68 model. Its funny that some younger commenters are surprised that its not a four door. I never understood why modern Chargers have been four door sedans. I think the best looking Charger was the 68, absolutely perfect in its lines and proportions. This concept really emulates that and I think I think it looks great.
  • Master Baiter The D-bag elites like Al Gore demanding that we all switch to EVs are the type of people who don't actually drive. They get chauffeured around in black Yukon Denalis. Tesla does have a good charging network--maybe someday they will produce a car that doesn't suck.
  • MRF 95 T-Bird As a Challenger GT awd owner I lIke it’s heritage inspired styling a lot. There’s a lot of 66-67 as well as 68-70 Charger in there. It’s refreshing that it doesn’t look like a blob like Tesla, Volt/Bolt, Mach-e BMW I whatever etc. The fact that it’s a hatch makes it even better as a everyday driver thus eliminating the need for a CUV. If it’s well built and has a reliable track record I can see trading up to it in a few years.
Next