By on July 15, 2020

A certain inhabitant of the Renaissance Center finds themself the odd man out. A member of the prestigious (but often tumultuous) Detroit Three club, this storied car builder now has the misfortune of having two rivals with something very similar to sell — something our protagonist, whom we’ll call The General, can’t seem to rustle up.

You all know what we’re talking about: A dedicated, right-sized, off-road SUV.

With two out of three members now fielding such a product, it is necessary for The General to join the fray and attempt to compete, or, in this time of cost constraints and uncertainty, is it better to stay put and carry on, rather than field a latecomer?

When The General returned the Blazer nameplate to the company’s product lineup, Camaro-inspired styling couldn’t smother the groans of auto journos and former owners who saw the vehicle for what it was — a car-based crossover, not the rugged, body-on-frame, rear- or four-wheel drive SUV of years past. No external spare tire with this new Blazer; just a typical crossover experience. If the Blazer didn’t strike their fancy, a fan of the company could also look at a Traverse. Or an Equinox. Or a Terrain, or an Acadia, or a Trax, or a Trailblazer, or one of two Encores. Maybe an Envision? Or how about an Enclave? If the Blazer isn’t tony enough, there’s an XT4, XT5, and XT6 to consider.

Yes, the Blazer is just a face in the crowd, as Tom Petty once said.

Matthew Guy pointed out yesterday that the base Blazer (FWD L) holds the unfortunate distinction of costing exactly — to the dollar — the same sum as a base Ford Bronco. The two vehicles couldn’t be more different. One is exactly what longtime fans of The General had hoped to see, and the other is the Blazer.

Indeed, Twitter had a field day pointing out how the Bronco and unibody Bronco Sport overlapped with the Blazer price ladder. Individuals far funnier than your author piled on, sparing no feelings.

At this point, if there’s no, say, GMC-badged Bronco/Wrangler fighter in the works already (rumors have floated for years, but never went anywhere), it seems unlikely there’ll ever be one. If you were to trade places with The General, what changes would you make to the company’s product strategy? Would you spend precious dollars hacking down a next-generation Colorado/Canyon to suit the purpose (Jimmy? Envoy?), or just let the two crosstown rivals fight it out between themselves?

Keep in mind that all current economic realities apply.

[Image: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

82 Comments on “QOTD: What’s a General to Do?...”


  • avatar
    Matt51

    Fire Barra and Reuss.

    Sell everything in China to their joint venture partners. GM’s return on investment in China is too low.

    Close Buick, or merge it with Cadillac

    Upgrade the interiors on trucks to match RAM.

    Pull the plug on Camaro.

    Don’t cede anything in trucks or SUVs.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt51

      GM needs a new turbo 4 cylinder engine that can match the new FCA Wrangler engine, for sfc and torque.

      GM management is asleep at the wheel, ignoring inroads competitors are making into GM core products.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Fielding a vehicle in this segment requires effort. And that’s not something current GM management is interested in. Witness the company’s withdrawal from every market segment in which they have work harder to compete. They plan to survive by selling mediocre SUV’s and CUV’s, and selling our private information to third parties. Let GM fold up shop here and move to China – the market they really care about.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Barra and Reuss may be coming to the realization that they bet it all on the Chinese market, and lost. It’s going to take some doing to re-emphasize the American market, since their actions have reduced the company’s domestic manufacturing base.

      Buick needs to be making more conventional upscale vehicles on Cadillac platforms to provide the scale needed to keep/remake Cadillac as an exclusive nameplate – the original plan.

      GM needs to go upscale with interiors on all the vehicles it makes. Their design studios badly need new blood, and not just in interiors.

      With Pontiac and Oldsmobile gone, the Camaro is the only vehicle left that could compete with the Mustang and Challenger. Giving that model some muscle is required; dropping the model will yield that halo segment to Ford & FCA.

      GM trucks and SUVs are the only thing they’re doing semi-right. They need upgraded interiors and better powertrain options to compete.

      Barra and Reuss may need to be replaced, but they’re in charge now, and will determine GM’s first steps on the way to a return to relevance. If they screw up those first steps, their replacements will have an unenviable job.

      • 0 avatar
        Matt51

        Lorenzo,
        Camaro exists because it was Barra’s favorite car when she was young. The C8 is a true halo car. I would much rather see a budget, stripped C7 as a second halo car for Chevy. GM should strive to be the best, not just a follower to Ford and Dodge.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    I’ve always felt that the Blazer was rushed to market to get a storied name out there to capitalize on the up-coming Bronco. As predicted it was received with yawns and a “why bother” response.

    I know GM bashing is a favorite pastime here, but for good reason. GM does nothing but play “me too” with all their products, no innovation and little excitement. They are the “C” student of automobiles. They don’t care and neither do we

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      This new Blazer came to market 13 years after the Ford Edge and 16 years after the Nissan Murano, so it was hardly rushed. The Blazer’s biggest problem is that it’s simply overpriced. It also has no unique selling proposition vs the competitors.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I’m sorry I wasn’t clear, I should have said the Blazer NAME was rushed to market. It’s nothing more then just another overpriced crossover

        • 0 avatar
          Peter Gazis

          41,870 Chevy Blazers sold in the U.S. so far this year, and sales are growing. For those of you that failed basic math, that means a large number of people think the Blazer is very reasonably priced.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Ok, maybe it’s not overpriced, but it’s still just another crossover

            I would love to know the average transaction price of those Blazers

      • 0 avatar
        ttiguy

        The MSRP is out of whack but the actual transaction prices are much, much lower. I leased one for (for what I consider) dirt cheap and its perfectly fine as an appliance for shuttling around and serving its function. It also happens to drive pretty nice (RS) and look pretty good (IMO) as well. So if you look at sales data and see they are rising, know that people like me are leasing these cheaply due to high residuals. For comparison, my brother in law has a mid-level bland as can be Honda Pasport which he pays more for.

        Back to the original topic, the Hummer will provide a nice AND ORIGINAL alternative to the Wrangler and Bronco. I like the Bronco design quite a bit but the actual market will get sliced thinner and thiner with more competition. As much as people want to bash GM, an electric Hummer is a great idea assuming the product meets expectation at the4 right price similar tot the C8

    • 0 avatar
      3800FAN

      Face it. GM has been playing ME TOO throughout their existence. With a few exceptions (automatic transmission) they have never tried to innovate, always watching the competition and then copying them assuming their brand clout and the sloan model would push them ahead. For the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s that worked but since the 60s they’ve been just too late to every party and when they do show up it’s always been a day late and a dollar short and then products they get right they kill like the volt. GM is a dead man walking kept alive by silverado sales and thats it. You may as well not pay attention to them.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        There’s a reason that at one time GM had 50% of the world automotive market, post WWII until the early 70s they made some damn nice cars, but have been on a slow decent since

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Lie2: “I’ve always felt that the Blazer was rushed to market to get a storied name out there to capitalize on the up-coming Bronco. As predicted it was received with yawns and a “why bother” response.”

      — I agree with everything you say about the name of the Blazer, though if you ignore the former use of the name, the vehicle is quite nice. As a replacement for her current car, my wife found the new Blazer remarkably comfortable but Covid came along and put our car-buying plans on hold while she was still considering what she wanted. Now the new Bronco has come along and she likes it too, outside of the fact it’s a Ford. Yes, her family has had the same kind of experience with Fords that mine has. Every Ford they’ve owned was a money pit, one way or another.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I agree, the Blazer is another adequate crossover, but how is it different then the many other crossovers GM already has out there? Oh, yeah, it’s 50 thousand frickin’ dollars

      • 0 avatar
        dukeisduke

        The one Ford I’ve owned (my ’95 F-150) was incredibly reliable. The one defect it had was the pinion bearings in the rear axle (I was told by a couple of people that some had too much preload during assembly), but that was a good excuse to add a Detroit Truetrac LSD, which made driving in the rain much easier. The rest of the truck was great for 17 years and 214,000 miles. But no, I wouldn’t touch any of their new vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      I agree with your premise, but suggest one small correction. In business, the “C” students become top managers and CEOs. They hire the “B” students to run the departments where they have expertise. The “A” students are in love with theory, and are unemployable by business, remaining in academia to teach theory.

      GM is more like the college dropout of automobiles, run by the clerical and accounting majors who know nothing of engineering or construction/assembly, but really know their ledgers and spreadsheets.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Ok, here’s another theory, for every student who graduated first in their class someone had to graduate last. They ended up at GM

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @Lorenzo is correct. About a dozen years ago a major magazine ran a cover story stating in essence ‘do not worry about your grades, the
        ‘C’ students run the world’.

        When you think about most major corporate CEO’s, most entrepreneurs and nearly every politician, they are not the top of the class students. Those students as @Lorenzo posted are too caught up/fascinated by theory and often have problems coming to decisions because they try to evaluate too many factors.

        Most entrepreneurs don’t think that way. They go ‘full speed ahead’. Often asking for forgiveness rather than permission.

        As for politicians, in order to put yourself and your family through the scrutiny required, you probably have an emotional issue (your ego needs constant adulation/attention).

        One other thing that I have been ‘flamed’ for mentioning previously. There are approximately 360 million Americans. By definition half of them are below average intelligence. That means there are a lot of people of below average intelligence who have been successful or reached positions of power/influence. And that percentage goes for the citizens of every nation.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Arthur Dailey – ‘C’ students run the world’.

          That study showed that to rise through a corporate entity you needed to have a decent level of knowledge but also needed to have good people skills. “A” types focus too much on the academics causing a lack of interpersonal skills or the focus is because of a lack of it.
          “B” types have decent knowledge and interpersonal skills but don’t excel enough with people to rise to the top.
          “C” types often did not rise to “B” status because their academic life was more focused on the interpersonal.

          It is rather interesting premise and makes a huge amount of sense.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Arthur Dailey –

            IQ tests can be skewed by multiple factors. One of the biggest critiques is the fact that they are designed by intelligent usually upper middle class to upper class people. if you do well at school you’ll automatically fair well with an IQ test. One has to look for learning disorders and factor in any cultural and socioeconomic factors.

            Case in point, a study done testing “self control” found that children from middle to upper class families when offered a treat now or several later chose to wait for later. Those at the lower end all went with the now. It was found that those who chose “later” had very stable and predictable lives. They knew things would not be taken from them or loose out on the “later”. The lower end kids had no stability and routinely saw things stripped from them or their family. they did not wait for “more later” since their experience was that there wasn’t going to be a latter.

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            Of course intelligent people design intelligence tests. Do you think the below-average would do a good job of it? Heck, half of the posters here don’t know how to punctuate a sentence, spell all of their words, or take the time to proof-read what they post.
            The C- students wouldn’t even be interested in designing an intelligence test, and wouldn’t know how to process or interpret the results.
            The “educated elites” (as Trump wants his supporters to consider those ‘other people’ with book larnin’) are necessary for our country to prosper and move forward. They do things such as write laws, design pickup trucks, invent computers and teach your children how to read, do math, understand history and science and to plan for their futures.

        • 0 avatar

          To really succeed in life and become super rich you have to be college or better school dropout. Because what they teach in schools and colleges is totally useless or even dangerous in real life. If you have wits like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates you can clearly see that.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      People hate on the Blazer because it “sullies the Blazer name.” I suppose that since I’m not an SUV fan, I have no skin in that game, and can look it simply as a vehicle. In that context, my conclusion is that it’s actually an appealing vehicle, and a clever play on GM’s part.

      YMMV, of course, and I have no need for something like this, but if I did, this car would be on my shopping list – I like the way it looks. At a minimum, it *has* style when so many other vehicles in this are just anodyne blobs.

      dwford mentioned the Murano, and I think that’s the real target here – a family CUV with some style. For a long time, the Murano (a car I liked once upon a time) pretty much had that market to itself, before Nissan ruined the styling. Enter the Blazer – a jacked up Malibu that they can sell (and actually DOES sell) for a higher price. Not a dumb move on GM’s part at all, if you ask me.

    • 0 avatar
      randyinrocklin

      I wonder what Alfred Sloan must be thinking right now?

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    The Blazer RS is actually a decent looking vehicle, aggressive but its Camaro-likeness only goes so far. It’s no SRT or ST for sure.

    The old man had an old 2003 Trailblazer used for wood trailer duties and bombing around in the country. It was no super rock crawler but it could go just about anywhere he wanted on old logging roads, washed out trails, or up forest hills to collect chopped up wood. It was a squeaky interior rattling thing but it always got the job done.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Ford and FCA have a good track record when it comes to creating those “special” vehicles. GM, not so much. I would tell them not to bother. Maybe come out with an SUV off the Colorado as a 4Runner competitor, but don’t dare try anything interesting.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    You never want to be the last one to the party. A Wrangler/Bronco competitor would go over like a lead balloon and only attract the true GM faithful which is a smaller and smaller number.

    Why not concentrate on making the upcoming next gen Colorado/Canyon world class? Get thoughtful about them and try to not just improve quality but come up with things that make competitors go “Why didn’t I think of that?”

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      If GM did it right it would do fine, there are a lot of Chevy/GMC truck loyalists who would jump at a real off-roader like Jeep or Bronco, but GM will never put in the effort

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lie2: I expect GM will cheat, either by importing a purpose-built beast from somewhere (possibly Isuzu) or hacking down a Colorado. Either way, without some major body work on the hack job, it won’t be competitive in looks and that’s where the Wrangler/Bronco have the advantage due to their historic look.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          @vulpine I don’t know that hacking a colorado is a cheat. The bronco rides on an existing chassis. It seems like taking something along the lines of where they were going with the ZH2 and pulling from the Colorado based Army ISV- you could get something very capable with built in marketing. I think they have the engineers, they just hobble them.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      I think they’re just simply to risk averse as a corporation. I don’t think they can do world class without a giant enema with the notable exception of Corvette which is sort of like the crazy drunk uncle of GM.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @PrincipalDan – agreed. Aggressively update and upgrade the Colorado/Canyon. How about a Colorado ZR2 running 35’s and an option for a solid axle front end? Offer a V8 option. Build another Syclone.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        base engine 2.7 tri-power turbo, first upgrade 4.3 DI V6 from the full size trucks, big dawg option 5.3 V8 – 10 speed automatic all the way around. Keep the diesel around for the hard core diesel heads…

        Improve the interior of the midtrim crew cab models to the point where you might actually want to put your family in there.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Well, obviously GM used up the one name people would recognize by putting it onto a generic (if nice) CUV and not a true off-road-centric SUV. This means that if the General does choose to field something, it’s going to have to be based on a dedicated BoF platform and I think the Colorado is simply too larger for the task, even if the frame is shortened to meet the need. But I also think that’s exactly what they’ll end up doing… unless they import something from South America… such as the Troller somebody mentioned in the Bronco article yesterday.

    Yet again, as I said when said ‘new’ Blazer came out, the name has a history that the current vehicle simply cannot and will not live up to.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      I think GM missed the boat on bringing the Hummer Name back as a GMC model. It was right there. Jeep’s sales have been soaring for many years now, the idea was right in front of them as well as the obvious market for off road intending vehicles.

      Instead you get an electric Hummer, that may be pretty cool, but likely out of reach for many consumers not to mention that wide adoption of electric vehicles is still in its infancy.

      On the other hand, given that so many Broncos and Jeeps will never see an off road adventure, maybe its a calculated risk. The Gladiator has shown that the market will only absorb so much. The Bronco and Wrangler are not particularly practical vehicles and do have a limited audience. Once the enthusiasts and faithful have purchased, it is pretty tough to win over converts with such a niche vehicle.

  • avatar
    Rocket

    GMC reportedly had an off-roader in the works, but they canceled it when Mary started cutting costs anywhere and everywhere. The modern Jimmy, or whatever it would have been called, was to be based on the next gen Colorado according to reports. In hindsight, even the beancounters might be regretting that decision. You can be GMC brand managers aren’t happy about it. The Bronco is simply the most hyped vehicle I can recall, and Ford delivered BIG while GM is sitting on the sideline. Now if GM decides to join the party, it will be years before they have a viable product, and frankly I don’t know how they could outdo Ford’s efforts.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      GM had a concept (the Hummer HX) that was some thought would reach production
      as the H4, a direct competitor to the Wrangler. But we all know what happened to Hummer.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      Ford Bronco’s biggest threat is certainly not the GM Blazer, or even the the Jeep Gladiator/Wrangler.

      You say “Ford delivered big”…we will see how many Broncos (that function as intended) Ford can deliver, and how many will be rebuilt by hand (see Explorer/Aviator launch…)

      Many of you have already articulated why the “new” Blazer is not worthy of the name, and I don’t disagree.

      But how many prospective suburban couples or families have ever seen the Bronco that inspired the new design? For that matter, how many have seen a 1970-90 Blazer?

      That’s probably what GM is banking on. Hope is usually not a good strategy though….

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        A good salesman would REMIND buyers of the vehicle’s history and tie it in to the current model. The problem for GM is they don’t even HAVE a chief of sales, much less a coherent sales plan.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    GM should put a turbocharged 3-cylinder engine in all their vehicles, including all half ton trucks, every single one. And they should exclusively use CVT transmissions in all vehicles and they should source them from Nissan.
    Then later, when they go bankrupt again, they should never, ever build cars or trucks again. Ever.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      My problem with GM has to do with all the mistakes they’ve made over the past 40 years. During that time I’ve owned three Chrysler products (if you include the Mitsubishi pickup,) three Ford products (all pure Fords) and five GM products (pure GM, even if one had an Opel drivetrain. Though I have to admit, the Saturn Vue had a remarkable resemblance to a certain Isuzu model early on.) GM has almost always had good cars, their mistakes have been in choosing to cut corners and make them ‘feel’ cheap and far too often dropping their best models (often a ‘Halo’ model) to save money which basically left them with generic models that cheapened the marques. Oldsmobile and Pontiac were both far better than Buick in so many ways but they were dismissed as too costly while Buick’s only saving grace was the Chinese market–I certainly don’t see that many Buicks on American roads and I honestly wouldn’t own a single one of their currently-available models. Cadillac, in my opinion, is no better; it has a name but everything that gave them that name is gone. I wouldn’t even own a Caddy as a status symbol now, much less has a usable vehicle. That means that GM really only has one viable brand any more, with one sub-brand trying to be the “Cadillac” of trucks.

      Honestly, I bought my Colorado because it was the only truck that best met my wants and needs at the time. I gave up waiting for anything smaller; I gave up waiting for the Jeep Gladiator and when the Ranger was finally announced to have a tiny turbocharged four-cylinder under the hood when I’d already had years of issues with a nearly-new 2.3L four in an older Ranger (only 19,000 miles on it when I acquired it) I certainly wasn’t going to trust THAT engine alone. My Chevy at least has a V6 which ‘feels’ right for the truck, something the turbo 2.3 in the Ranger seems to be having trouble with… according to others on these boards.

      So I don’t expect the Blazer to suddenly come up with a boxy design just for off-road use and I don’t see GM able to offer a Bronco/Wrangler competitor within the year, even if they import a South American off-roader to compete. So yet another GM mistake that will end up costing them. Oh, and I don’t the the electric Hummer will compete either. I think it, too, will be lacking on everything that gave the Hummer its name.

    • 0 avatar
      mfrank

      Turbo charged 3-cyliner CUV’s with a CVT transmission and front wheel drive will be the most common vehicle on the road. It all comes down to the fact that the average consumer doesn’t know or care what kind of power train their car has. Auto manufactures will make use of this fact to cost cut power trains. Only the car guys will complain about this fact. The majority of consumers will be clueless and ambivalent.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Unlike the Bronco and Wrangler/CJ, the Blazer was always a full size. That market is still untapped.

    The fools let Kia take over the name “K5”, but some vehicle based on the Tahoe with 2 and 4 door variants and Raptor-class off road prowess would be a winner. 6.2L standard of course. $50K for a hose-it-out vinyl floor 2 door and $80K for a leather lined High Country. Unlike the smaller off-roaders, this one could still tow your boat and the 4 door could keep the optional 3rd row. They would sell a bunch.

    Bonus points if they manage the removable top.

    • 0 avatar
      Rocket

      I’m still wondering if that short wheelbase F-Series Raptor captured in spy pics a few months ago was exactly that … a true full size SUV mule. Ford did trademark the Bronco Scout name after all. That could be for the rumored pickup, or maybe it’s just being reserved in case, but it does give us something to think about.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        A fullsize Bronco (Grande?) and Tahoe base Blazer (just 2-door 2+3’s) could be (hotter and) bigger sellers than all the midsize/compact “True Off Road” SUVs combined.

        What could beat, or out goat a Samurai for true off road that was street legal/stock?

        On the road, fullsize trucks always beats midsize (and under). Plus the available V8 or V8 power, fullsize towing and fullsize comfort/cruising.

        Off road and camping, the advantages are debatable, depends on task and who you ask.

        There’s “great” and great-all-around. BTW, did the Border Patrol ever run Bronco II’s?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @jack4x: Ummm… You’re partially correct. There were two Blazer models prior to y2k, one the ‘K5 Blazer’ which was first and then the S-10 Blazer sold side-by-side with it for over 20 years. The K5 version was dropped in ’94. The former K5 became known as the Tahoe in ’95.

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        Yes I should have been more clear.

        The only Blazer equipped and marketed for off-roading was the K5 full size.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @jack4x: Even that is not quite true; the S-10 Blazer was seen off-road almost as much as the full sizers. But even with the Tahoe, they’re simply not marketed as off-road vehicles any more and are simply full-sized grocery getters–too luxurious to even consider taking off-road.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    GM builds a solid V8 and a great value in a mid engined sports car. The rest is forgettable junk. They aren’t going to field a competitive vehicle in this class even if they try.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      You’re ignoring the pickups and SUVs, though, and GM’s very good at making those (assuming, of course, you like the styling of the new pickups, which I actually do now that I’ve seen them in person).

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Their pickups are barely keeping up with RAM and doing nothing to close the sales gap with Ford. They are, if you like the styling, remarkably average and sadly for them, more dislike the styling than like it based on sales. They are good at making pickups, but certainly no better than Ford or Ram, again based on sales figures.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Art V: While you may be correct about their sales, GM still has reliability on their side; initial buyers of their trucks tend to hang onto them longer than their Ford or Ram rivals (though I acknowledge they did have an issue with wheel or tire balance one year.) As of another month or two, I’ll have owned my Chevy truck for two years so far with no mechanical issues whatsoever and the one infotainment issue I had was due to an aborted OTA download that had to be re-initialized… OTA after I got the truck back home and it had the time to update. Ford’s SYNC is still problematic and FCA’s UConnect is on its fourth iteration as of the 2020 model year, so is somewhat of an unknown for its reliability.

          Why is it that Ford buyers almost never keep their purchases beyond the warranty period? I tend to see far more newer Fords in the used car lots than I do either of the other brands. Of course, if GM buyers are hanging onto their trucks longer, they’re certainly not buying as often, are they?

  • avatar

    I don’t remember the General EVER attempting to really compete in this segment.

    The original plan for a “Trail Blazer,” back around 1966, was indeed a compact utility like Bronco and Scout, but they ended up going full-size with a pickup-based SUV that became a smash hit.

    To a person, everyone I’ve spoken with who has a new Blazer loves it, especially with the 3.6. Yes, getting one fully optioned can be expensive but there seems to be enough option packages to personalize to your tastes.

  • avatar
    jmiller417

    Did we already forget the GMC Hummer has been announced?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @jmiller: Already mentioned but you forget the Hummer is intended as a BEV so won’t necessarily be fully competitive with the existing Ford and FCA offerings.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      The electric Hummer, after it’s delayed a few more times, and if it ever actually comes to market, will simply be too expensive to be relevant, even if it’s great.
      A Blazer STARTS at $30K and that gets you a slow ride with a 2.5L transverse 4-banger motivating the front wheels only. As a comparison, I can buy a base Honda Pilot for that same amount of money, and it’s bigger, has much greater utility, has a powerful V6, and a well deserved reputation for reliability because it’s a Honda…. in short, the Honda is everything the Blazer is not.
      If I looked seriously at a Blazer it would need $5000 on the hood and a 10 year warranty. Which is why I’ll never own a GM product.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Good question, wrong crowd to ask it

  • avatar
    Matt51

    “A fish rots from the head”

    Hollywood is into remakes –
    1. Night of the Living Dead – GM has been zombified.
    2. Dumb and Dumber – starring Mary Barra and Mark Reuss. Hollywood insists Barra and Reuss are perfect for the role, they don’t need acting skills.

    GM – unleash your engineers. At least those you didn’t kick out the door.

    Yeah, 10% of GM profits come from China, at least until the trade war escalates.

    GM is a company of excellent employees across the board, except at the top. Their full size sedans were excellent, but the market changed. Will electric cars save GM? Not likely.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I find most of GM’s products very lame and even within their “exciting” offerings I tend to be less enamored with them compared what they offered in those segments 3-10 years ago. And, their refusal to let the V8 proliferate across the lineup has been disappointing.

    That said, we all know there is more to an auto maker than making internet commenters and auto journalists cream their jorts. Financially, GM is in pretty decent shape compared to Ford, and I’m not just talking about from a “short-term Wall Street” perspective either. Ford seems to struggle a lot with their costs. This is just a slightly educated WAG but I expect the Bronco costs more for Ford to develop, build, and sell than the Wrangler does for Jeep or the Blazer does for GM.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Chevrolet has already blown any opportunity they might have had, by slapping the Blazer name on a unibody FWD-based crossover. They got nothin’.

  • avatar
    Runfromcheney

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that despite the hype, the Bronco still isn’t a sure thing. I’m skeptical as to how viable a Wrangler substitute truly can be. I think there’s a decent chance that the Bronco could wind up living a similar life to the early 2000s Retro Thunderbird: Garner tons of hype pre-release, for the first year sell at a mark up while all the Ford faithful who have been waiting years for it rush out to buy one, then once everyone who wanted one has one, sales dry up and Ford with their terrible attention-deficit disorder moves on to something else. I think Ford’s projection of all three Broncos selling a combined 200,000 units in the first year alone is pretty optimistic.

    I worked at a Jeep dealer for a good chunk of the 2010s, as their sales skyrocketed post-Fiat merger. A not-insignificant chunk of recent Wrangler buyers have been young urban dwellers who want one as a fashion accessory. They are buying them for the Jeep badge and image. BMWs, Mercedes-Benzs and Lexus’ were being traded in for Wrangler Rubicons. Thus why the Wrangler’s price has managed to creep over $50K without hurting sales. Will those millennial lumberjacks even look at the Bronco? Are they even still looking at the Wrangler now that the economy is in recession? Similarly, I am very skeptical of the Bronco Sport. I see what Ford’s doing, it’s aimed squarely at the Jeep Trailhawks. However, from my own anecdotal observation, most of the TrailHawks are sold to people who wanted a mack daddy Wrangler but couldn’t afford one, so they buy the TrailHawk and pretend it’s a Wrangler. They’re so beholden to the Jeep badge, will they even look at the Bronco Sport?

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      You make some good points, but I think there are a lot of people who really don’t want to go full rock crawling Wrangler, but want something a little more adventurous then the milktoast mommy-car crossover, the Jeep Cherokee fills that void, but looks like a generic crossover. The Bronco Sport also fills that void, but looks much more exciting

  • avatar
    Jeff Weimer

    They *had* an entire brand, with Jeep-like cachet, and they abandoned it because some folks considered it kind of icky and they were in charge of the reorganization. I could see it was a mistake even back then.

    • 0 avatar
      indi500fan

      The “some folks” were Steve “the rat” Rattner and the rest of the Obama car czar team. Those folks made the calls on which products and brands and dealer points survived.

  • avatar
    Dan

    Forget about it. These are toys for the middle class that’s about to be absolutely disemboweled by the recession and the woke left coming in on its coattails.

    Electric luxury cars for our betters, sustainable little blobs for the drones, and don’t waste the product development money for the disappearing people in between.

    If it isn’t already in the pipeline they damn sure aren’t going to put it in now.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    I suspect that sort of dedicated mid-sized off-roader market is close enough to saturation, that unless GM could do something worthwhile for pennies, there’s not enough room for them to enter that market. As previously mentioned, a 2-door Tahoe is probably the cheapest and most sensible option (as sensible as a niche vehicle could be). Or the Avalanche seemed like a decent solution for how a lot of full-size trucks are used (and I thought had plenty of happy owners). Even bringing up a South American minitruck would at least be unique if they can beat Ford to market. The only other product I can think of from their past is the Tracker, which has merit, but couldn’t be based on any current product, so impossible to make money on.

    • 0 avatar
      Johnster

      I still think there’s a pretty decent-sized market for fashion accessories such as the Wrangler, Bronco and Defender. It’s only a matter of effectively marketing to it.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        That’s sort of my point though – the Wrangler sells quite well with the market to itself (well, and the 4Runner), but the Bronco will likely eat up the remaining capacity (or at least enough capacity to justify another model), and the Defender will mostly exist for rich guys who can’t be seen in something as vulgar as a domestic vehicle, but still want to appear to have interests and a personality.

  • avatar
    deanst

    GM went from 5 car brands pre bankruptcy, to 4 CUV brands post bankruptcy. Congratulations GM.

    GM needs to build reliable cars that are differentiated from each other and their external competition. Make GMC the butch CUV brand with standard AWD. Make Buick something other than a repository for vehicles built worldwide, with no coherent identity. Let someone run Cadillac for more than 4 weeks and first develop a plan that can be adhered to for more than 4 months. Build something special at Chevy to get some sort of excitement brewing and would actually attract people who want to spend less than $59,000 on a vehicle.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    GM’s corporate memory tells them that there is no real money to be made (for GM, story is different for some players) in midsize offerings.

    GM has determined that the large margins (for GM) come on large products and upscale trims.

    GM will likely be very serious with the upcoming Hummer. They probably view this as the off-road ‘Corvette’ to anyone else’s ‘Mustang’. Yes volume will be limited due to high price, but this really isn’t a problem, since we don’t want to chew into our existing fullsize truck/SUV business too much too quickly. And the new-tech Hummer will be working to save the environment, not pollute it (perception- and promotion- wise).

    GM could also fairly readily offer some ‘serious offroad’ packages/trims on their fullsize pickups and/or fullsize SUV’s.

  • avatar
    Steve203

    Old phartz remember the 60s. There was the CJ, and the Landy. Harvester challenged them with the Scout. Ford challenged with the Bronco.

    I don’t recall GM having a CJ clone in the 60s.

    In their next generations, the Scout and Bronco gave up on fighting the CJ and both became SUVs.

    So, now, with Ford populated with Bronco fanboys that weren’t born when the original one came out, they are giving it another whirl. The Bronco still isn’t a Jeep. If anything the Jeep wannabe Bronco looks more like the FJ, which failed in the US and was withdrawn.

    My hunch is GM is probably right in not pursuing the Wrangler, because, at the end of the day, it is a small volume niche market that GM has watched it’s competitors fail at before.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Heck, yes, GM should build a Wrangler/Bronco fighter – it’s a no brainer. They have the platforms, engines and engineering know-how. Do it.

  • avatar
    MeJ

    Head of GM…Ok.
    Make the trucks better and more reliable than anything from the competition
    Make Corvette and Cadillac a sub-brand with their own dealers and service. Scrap everything Cadillac has and start fresh with 3 models: An SUV. a high performance 2 and 4 dour (go after BMW and MB for quality and performance.) but surpass them! Don’t just keep up!
    Dump Buick, it’s pointless. Bring back Pontiac and make a great, smallish sports car (Firebird?), A fantastic RAV4 like CUV. and maybe a Corolla fighter for the budget minded.
    That’s it. Basically go for the ultimate in quality over never ending models.
    Oh, and make Tadge the CEO!

  • avatar
    Matt51

    Johnster,
    It needs more than a little tuning. The FCA engine is so good, FCA is retooling a US factory so the engine can be used in more vehicles.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    All I think of when someone says GM is that it is the Great American Company that couldn’t organize its way out of a wet paper bag and ran with its tail between its legs from Europe. Unable to compete due to its presumably bad organization, since PSA has had no trouble making money from the remains. GM’s mantra these days is yhat it will only compete in markets where it’s a snap to turn a profit. Doing what Ford has boldly done with the Bronco twins and Mach E would cost actual money with no guarantee of a handsome return. The mice at the helm of GM have no taste for adventure or risk.

  • avatar
    sckid213

    If GM wants a vehicle to make a nostalgic-driven splash like the Bronco is, I can think of no better vehicle than the El Camino. If the model had a wide range — affordable base model, lots of engines to choose from, all sorts of add-ons, high-po top-end models — it could actually replace the Camaro’s place in the line-up and bring similar ATPs.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @sckid213: They tried that with the SST… and failed miserably because they grossly over-engineered it, which drove the price up into the Corvette range after they had publicly announce it was intended for the Camaro market.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • DenverMike: Actually, unlike normal SuperCabs, the Raptor SCab has the 5.5 ft bed, same as the SuperCrew. But the...
  • RHD: Try a Toyota 4Runner. You can’t fix it with a screwdriver and a sledge hammer in the middle of a swamp,...
  • ajla: When did they say that? Shelby, Roush and Saleen all offer hopped-up F-150s right now. The Shelby and Saleen...
  • spamvw: They thought Demon was bad? Time for a little history lesson from Wikipedia. The 1970 Dart’s dual tail...
  • raph: Ford has said the current F-truck is too porky to do a proper Lightning. When they looked at adding power it...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber