Five Reasons Why Chevy Should Bring Its New TrailBlazer To The States
Sponsored Links
It’s been only a few short hours since I first laid eyes on photos of the 2013 Chevrolet TrailBlazer show car. To say that I’m impressed, and excited, maybe even in love, would be downplaying my true feelings… in other words, I’d be frontin’ — as the cool kids say nowadays.
Be that as it may, GM has officially stated that it has no plans to bring the new TrailBlazer to North America. And even though our insider GM sources say otherwise, the fact remains that the TrailBlazer is not (yet) coming to the ‘States… officially, that is. But it must. Here’s why:
1. Market demand: there is still a sizable amount of drivers who don’t want a crossover optimized for 35 MPG and to whom fuel economy comes secondary to true capability. This market may be moving to crossovers on the premium and luxury side of the automotive equation, but it’s still alive and well when it comes to mainstream vehicles. Have you heard of the Toyota 4Runner and Nissan Pathfinder? What about the Jeep Grand Cherokee? In other words, the market is there… waiting for the right vehicle from the right brand.
2. Profitability: it’s no secret that body-on-frame vehicles are less expensive to manufacture than their unibody (crossover) counterparts. This means that not only is the market at the ready, but there’s a healthy profit to be made…
3. The TrailBlazer won’t step on anyone’s toes… any Chevy utility vehicle’s toes, that is. GM Authority sources have let on that a big reason for GM’s decision against brining the TrailBlazer to North America involves stepping on the toes of the much-bigger Traverse. Now, I’m not here to counter a company with gobs of market research at its disposal… but I will say that it’s all about positioning: it’s totally up to GM how it decides to position the TrailBlazer in the market, meaning that — if it really wanted to — it would find a way to make it work. Left to me, I would price it around $26,000 base and pitch it as a rugged, capable, and strong SUV — everything the Traverse and Equinox are not.
4. Pent-up Demand: now, we’re never fans of making foolish decisions for the sake of nostalgia, legacy, or history. After all, General Motors is a business — and we don’t want a repeat of what occurred in the summer 2009. But the Blazer is a legend that — as we already pointed out — can profitable serve an existing market segment. And given the amount of Blazer and TrailBlazer loyalists hanging on to their midsize SUVs with the grip of a hungry tiger, we don’t see the negative in bringing back a legend.
5. Three words: Jeep Grand Cherokee. Now, before I get lynched for drawing a comparison between a body-on-frame TrailBlazer and the unibody-based Jeep, let me just say this: sometimes, it’s not as much about the technical details as it is about the entire package. In other words, most Grand Cherokee buyers couldn’t care less about the unibody vs. body-on-frame argument us car fanatics love to obsess about. All most folks want is capability — on the pavement and off the road. And from what we’ve heard so far, the new TrailBlazer won’t disappoint in either department.
If that’s not enough (good) reasons to bring the new TrailBlazer to the States (and capture a good chunk of the hearts and minds of previous TrailBlazer owners), we don’t know what is.
Sound off in the comments with your opinions!
Sponsored Links
Just for a standart “winter package”. Usually, it includes a generator with increased power, an accumulator battery with increased capacity, an additional engine and fuel system thermo-isolation and use of certain kinds of oil, sometimes also block heaters (especially for diesel engines) or some other options, which are probably exotic for the US.
I don’t know why it hasn’t come yet. I have been saying for years that GM needs to create a mid size truck and suv that are made to use not to just look at, with a small diesel motor that would not only give the power that the small gas motors don’t offer but they will offer the fuel economy it seems everyone can’t live with out theses days, but most of all it needs to be made affordable to real working class people, not just the status minded yuppies that don’t really need an suv anyway but for the families that use it for work during the week and road trip with the kids on the weekends.
If they did what I said in my last comment they wouldn’t have to worry about the other SUVs because the profit from the trailblazer sales would make up for any lost revenue from the traverse and equinox losses. It should not affect them anyway, it would be marketed to a different group of people anyway. But must be made affordable with the diesel and if so the orders would be so deep they wouldn’t be able to keep them on the lots. I would be the first in line. There are so many people in my business that really need a smaller truck or suv with the towing power of the diesel without having to pay the outrageous prices of the fullsize truck.
Agreed. A capable TrailBlazer wouldn’t detract from existing sales of the Equinox or Traverse, but it would augment them. Different segment, different customer.
what an awesome vehicle.. I want one.
I hope GM can open up their minds and see the potential for this Trailblazer!
if they brought this to north america it would have to sell in smaller numbers and be more of a niche vehicle like the wrangler and anyways first they have to start with the colorado
If I were in product marketing for GM, I would kill the Traverse and add The Trailblazer and a small Cruse based mini-van (think C-Max, Mazda5) and leave Equinox right were it is. Chevrolet is the global brand and all of these would play nicely around the world without overlap.
Use Lambda for GMC, Buick and Cadillac in North American.
I don’t think killing the Traverse would be such a good idea, since the rest of the industry is just beginning to move into the large crossover space. Prime examples: Ford Explorer, Dodge Durango.
Also consider the possibility that the truck-based TB most likely will not get as good of fuel economy as the Traverse — or be as space-efficient.
The Chevy mini van you’re referring to already exists in the Orlando, but it’s not planned for the U.S. for one reason or another:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/08/2012-chevrolet-orlando-mpv-priced-from-19995-in-canada/
One of the biggest reasons for this, in my opinion, is thanks to the lack of “sex appeal” of mini vans here, in general.
And in regards to the Equinox: when people are looking for affordable transportation for their family of 5-6 people, Chevy is at a clear disadvantage today due to the Equinox. This is thanks to vehicles like the Kia Sorento, which offers 3 rows of seating for $25,000 (well-equipped). The least-expensive three-row Chevy is the Traverse, which starts at $30,000 (stripped). Making a few slight modifications to the Equinox will allow Chevy to curb the leakage of customers to Kia (and to the next-gen Santa-Fe and Edge — which will most likely offer 3 rows of seating).
The Orlando is not a small-minivan. It still has 4 “normal” doors. It is sold at my local dealer here in Canada and gets as much attention as Aztecs did when Pontiac made that abomination. Very sad. You are missing nothing.
Also, the Trailblazer with a 4cyl diesel better consume less fuel than a Traverse since the Jeep GC with a V6 Diesel and 7k tow rating already uses less fuel than a Traverse.
but again GC is not a three row crossover.
@Brian Wow, it’s that bad with the Orlando, huh? Could it be a combination of a new nameplate and a new product?
Also, I don’t understand why GM/Chevy skimped out on the sliding doors in the Orlando. It’s a defining feature of the segment. Unless they intentionally wanted to avoid them due to the “mini van” stigma…
i think they intentionally avoided it. if theyreally wanted a mini minivan then they should bring back the hhr andmake it what it should have been a small van mabey a nomad succsessor and they could even call it the nomad thugh at risk of being shot at by “purists” for it not being rwd
Long overdue , but why screw up the appearance with the add-on look of the rear window quarter panel , Lord this trendy nonsense GM trots out is tiring . Suggestion , lets bring back the GM 2002-2009 GM Envoy design . It is still highly valued by customers and except for the ; thirsty engines , mediocre handling , quietness , it would fit right in . Large greenhouse , spacious interiors and with the difficiences corrected , its a drop kick in the butt to the Ford Explorer !!
what a horrible vehicle….. if you compare the comeback of the Dodge Durango with this!!!! come on!!!! these are the engineers of GM? i’m pretty sure they can do it much much better…. they are just about to destroy the Tahoe and Suburban models. please somebody stop them!!!!!
Oliver — if you would do me the honor of explaining why you think the new TB is “a horrible vehicle”, I would be much obliged.
There better be a ss version. I still like horsepower and the old trailblazer and typhoon are classic American vehicles. And no interface screen?
@Talmadge how much real market demand do you think a vehicle like the TrailBlazer SS has in today’s new car environment?
Do you think a business case can be made to first bring the TrailBlazer to North America, and then to make a performance SS version out of one?
I’m all for the trailblazer would like to see it on a canyon or colordo frame ZR1 pkg