2020 Chevrolet Blazer Turbo's Extra Punch Comes at a Price

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems
2020 chevrolet blazer turbos extra punch comes at a price

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]

Join the conversation
4 of 45 comments
  • Art Vandelay Art Vandelay on Sep 29, 2019

    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.

    • See 1 previous
    • Hummer Hummer on Sep 29, 2019

      I have a 3.4L Blazer, parts of it are 60V6 derives (2.8L) and parts of it are 4.3L derived.

  • Guitar man Guitar man on Sep 30, 2019

    Holden Commodore 2.0T gets 32 MPG, the V6 (fwd) gets 26 MPG. 6/32 x 100 = 19% higher fuel consumption.

  • Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
  • Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
  • ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
  • ToolGuy Presented for discussion: https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html
  • Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?