Not a surprising move but giving the Blazer name to yet another CUV is just insulting to the name. 

9 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Not a surprising move but giving the Blazer name to yet another CUV is just insulting to the name. 

I agree, I think someone took the easy way out of branding another auto.

An Acadia with a more sloped rear glass and a Traverse front clip.

No brainer move, they need another crossover, and mid-size crossover is a huge segment.  I think they could get another crossover in between Traxx and Equinox if they really wanted to.  

Justa buncha wagons

GM is really missing out on carlike crossovers.  If this is just a new Acadia clone with a truckish demeanor, some folks will dig it, but GM needs to make a true tall car offering.  More Edgelike but even sportier.  Blazer will sell ok but i think if its too trucky it won't sell in big volume.

we don't need more of these

Funny how the source article mentions Honda also working on s similar vehicle when the Pilot is basically haklf way between an Equinox and Traverse in size.

Pilot is sorta big, they need something in between CRV and Pilot.  Or to downsize the Pilot and do a 3 row full sizer.

When you look at Ford they have Ecosport, Escape, Edge, Explorer, Flex, Expedition, Bronco coming soon.  They could have 7 SUVs, and they all sell pretty much.

Pilot was the largest in the segment till the 2018 Traverse came out. Honda could fit another crossover between Pilot and CRV

4 hours ago, regfootball said:

GM is really missing out on carlike crossovers.  If this is just a new Acadia clone with a truckish demeanor, some folks will dig it, but GM needs to make a true tall car offering.  More Edgelike but even sportier.  Blazer will sell ok but i think if its too trucky it won't sell in big volume.

we don't need more of these

 

 

 

 

 

 

When has it ever been a good idea for a GM to be more like a Ford (and vice versa)? More people are actually like the more truck like look of the Acadia. The Traverse seems to be getting a similar reaction. If I have to pick my poison with a CUV (since I really don't care for any CUVs), I would actually take one that didn't look a like tall car. 

chevy / gm needs to have a few products that look less like a wagon / truck and more rakish (for a crossover)

Already knew it was coming...

All I can say is....this thing better be at least somewhat badass offroad. (Or at least offer it) I get the feeling getting jeepish is going to improve sales as more folks but bigger trucks...

8 hours ago, regfootball said:

chevy / gm needs to have a few products that look less like a wagon / truck and more rakish (for a crossover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So not only should they look like everyone else, but they should mimic the equal amount of uselessness that is inherit in these "rakish" designs (i.e. Compromised cargo room)? Yeah, I'll pass and so should GM.

8 hours ago, regfootball said:

chevy / gm needs to have a few products that look less like a wagon / truck and more rakish (for a crossover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree, those are all butt ugly auto's with terrible interior space and limited real world use. Especially for big people these auto's are complete fails.

Those are also good sellers (except the ZDX)... so just because you don't fit in one doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold.

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Those are also good sellers (except the ZDX)... so just because you don't fit in one doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold.

He made a clear distinction that they are not good for big people, not that they shouldn't be sold at all.

My bigger issue with them is the compromised cargo room in the back and the tall car look that is simply boring to look at and honestly, fairly unoriginal at this point. 

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

He made a clear distinction that they are not good for big people, not that they shouldn't be sold at all.

 

My bigger issue with them is the compromised cargo room in the back and the tall car look that is simply boring to look at and honestly, fairly unoriginal at this point. 

We're enthusiasts, these vehicles aren't meant for us. These are for people who get excited over daring shades of beige on beige.  There are a lot of people out there who buy them. 

22 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Disagree, those are all butt ugly auto's with terrible interior space and limited real world use. Especially for big people these auto's are complete fails.

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

7 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

We're enthusiasts, these vehicles aren't meant for us. These are for people who get excited over daring shades of beige on beige.  There are a lot of people out there who buy them. 

Not disagreeing there but you said he stating that they should not be sold when he never said that. That was my point. It was also meant to highlight the fact that they all need not be the same basic shape (as Reg suggests). While I hate CUVs, at least GM is bucking the tall car trend a bit and putting out something that won't be confused with every other CUV in the mall parking lot.

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

Once a year doesn't sound like a big deal until you need that extra space that ONE time. Not everyone needs the bed of a pick up but just one use makes it worth the price of admission for a lot of folks.

2 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Once a year doesn't sound like a big deal until you need that extra space that ONE time. Not everyone needs the bed of a pick up but just one use makes it worth the price of admission for a lot of folks.

Personally, I prefer the boxier SUVs...they can look stylish without compromising cargo space..the Grand Cherokee is stylish but still upright with decent cargo space..I've used every square inch of that cargo space a few times....

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

Exactly... these aren't being sold to people going camping for a week, people who do that will buy an Explorer over the Edge, Pathfinder over the Murano, etc..  These are for urban warriors who "need" an SUV to go to Ikea once a year. 

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Not disagreeing there but you said he stating that they should not be sold when he never said that. That was my point. It was also meant to highlight the fact that they all need not be the same basic shape (as Reg suggests). While I hate CUVs, at least GM is bucking the tall car trend a bit and putting out something that won't be confused with every other CUV in the mall parking lot.

Well, he called them a fail when they are not.  That was my point of contention.   Going to disagree with you on GM producing something unique here.  Even under the Camo it looks like it's going to have the same general silhouette as the Edge or Murano. Aside from the likely Traverse face, it will blend right in with the others.  Heck, it might even get a "floating roof".

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Once a year doesn't sound like a big deal until you need that extra space that ONE time. Not everyone needs the bed of a pick up but just one use makes it worth the price of admission for a lot of folks.

Yup, then the mid-size SUV isn't your jam anyway. 

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yup, then the mid-size SUV isn't your jam anyway. 

Says you because not everyone needs a Suburban. Going midsize doesn't mean you should have to compromise on room just because the lastest design fad is a sloped roofline. The GC and Durango are perfect examples of midsize design and utility done right in a midsize. 

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Says you because not everyone needs a Suburban. Going midsize doesn't mean you should have to compromise on room just because the lastest design fad is a sloped roofline. The GC and Durango are perfect examples of midsize design and utility done right in a midsize. 

That's why there are other choices in the GM showroom.  If that's what you need, they will happily direct you to the Traverse or GMC/Buick dealer for an Acadia/Envision.

But... just putting this out there on what everyone should expect to see.

22 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There are only two of those that have "terrible" interior space, the Jag and Acura. The other three really don't have a super raked rear end or window that's near horizontal. 

Also, how often is the area closest to the glass maxed out anyway? once a year?Usually stuff is kept below the rear seats meaning this raked look really doesn't negatively effect anybody.  

The Nissan and Infinity versions are just as bad. Coworker has both, Infinity for his wife and Nissan for himself and I have been in both and the interior space sucks, none of these auto's without putting down the back seat can even hold a normal set of golf clubs. Plus as I said, big people these auto's fail to give the room they need and I am not talking about being Obese, but just talk, muscular people. The very norm in my family.