Five Reasons Why Chevy Should Bring Its New TrailBlazer To The States

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!

[nggallery id=377]

GM Authority Executive Editor with a passion for business strategy and fast cars.

Alex Luft

GM Authority Executive Editor with a passion for business strategy and fast cars.

View Comments

  • In a 2010 interview with the Asst. Sec. Of Transportation, Automobile Magazine repeatedly asked, "why not raise the tax on a gallon of gas?". Her answer was, "there is no appetite in Washington at the present time to raise the gasoline tax", and I had to laugh out loud. Why? Because, even though just about anyone knows that in a consumer-driven economy the price of gas greatly motivates us to buy a more efficient vehicle - and even though a large chunk of our national deficit, and all our infrastructure rehabilitation and expansion would be covered by a relatively small percentage uptick of the federal gas tax - it will never happen because it would be political suicide for whomever proposed it. There hasn't been a hike in the federal gasoline tax since 1993, and it is not indexed for inflation, so it stands at 18.4%. Just think, Congressperson A proposes a hike in the gas tax, Political Opponent B pounces upon it and runs TV ads proclaiming Congressman A as a horrible tax-crazy fiend, "Keep Your Hands Off Our Gas!". So the only way it can gain traction in our political environment would be from a lame-duck, last term person who could care less if they're re-elected. I'm not sure Obama in a second term would try or could get away with it.

    Instead of the best and most direct solution to our nation's problems, as usual, our elected officials pick the back-door approach. In other words, they instigate regulation upon regulation on the automaker. By periodically raising the C.A.F.E. standards, the government puts the pressure on the manufacturer of the good rather than the consumer who would naturally drive the market towards what sells. Look what the oil crisis in the '70s did for foreign compact cars, and they've been in the market ever since.Then said manufacturer goes under trying to develop product to meet the government-mandated standard - can anyone say "backasswards"?

    Because of our military might and political influence over most oil producing nations, we pay far less for a barrel of crude oil than our peers around the globe. This environment has spawned many a heavy-framed, truck-based station wagon. When I was asked to sell my sister's gas pig Suburban, I'd notice the other Suburban drivers on the road, 85% were smallish women driving alone! Now THAT makes sense, 5800 lbs. of steel to haul around a 120 lb. woman and her groceries! This is our current situation to this date - an environment so chaotic, that we see a company like Toyota who some see as a "green champion" for Prius and HSD making gargantuan Tundras and Sequoias to market alongside them. I mean, how ironic that we say, "We gotta make the high profit leviathan gas pigs to fund research to make fuel efficient solutions for the rest of the folks waking up to current world realities!

  • In Russia, we are a little more lucky because GM is going to bring the new TB to us next year. I like its design very much, but I can`t find any technical data anywhere! Our GM dealers in Russia have no exact information about this SUV, too. Would anybody help me, please?

  • Thank you, Alex! But 2.8L (180 hp) - is it quite enough for such a big vehicle? Whether it can provide a good 0 to 60 mph time?

    • 180 hp is one way to look at it. The other is that it makes 470 Nm (346 lb.-ft.) of twist . As it is typical for diesel engines, the horsepower number is low, while the torque number is very high. I'm not expecting this to be a race car, but rather a good-looking, capable, and efficient SUV.

  • Who cares about 0-60, if I can get the utility and 28+ MPG I am in heaven. If 0 to 60 is important, this is probably the wrong vehicle to purchase.

  • It is true for the USA. But in Russia, there is a lot of single carriageways, and roads with the only narrow lane in each direction, so a driver is very often to use for passing the same lane that is used by oncoming traffic. This makes overtaking a very dangerous manoeuver that should be completed as soon as possible. Because of that, 0-60 is really very important. My present vehicle (also SUV from GM) shows 8.9 seconds, and I want the next one not to be slower.

    • I don't think the new TrailBlazer will be slower to 60 than 9 seconds. However, I think you would be best served if you looked at 30-60 times, since you'll be making the passing maneuver from a moving position rather from a standstill, right?

      What do you drive right now?

  • Thank you again! This is because of my bad English. Of course, I meant acceleration as that (first of all, from a moving position).

    Now I drive 09`H3.

    • Cool. I love the H3. Too bad it's gone away. :(

      I hope the new TrailBlazer will be lighter than the H3, since it's a newer platform. This will, of course, help it achieve better performance with a less powerful engine. Does your H3 have one of the V6s or the 5.3 V8?

      PS: I was born and lived in St. Petersburg, Russia:
      http://gmauthority.com/blog/about/alex-luft/

  • One more question, Alex. GM usually insists it doesn`t a matter, in what country the car has been made. But actually, GM vehicles made in the US are not equal to ones made, for example, in Russia, because the quality of Russian manufacturing is not very high. What about the Thailand manufacturing?

    • Good question. I've never driven a GM vehicle made in Thailand... at least that I know of. So I wouldn't be the best person to ask. Perhaps one of our readers who has could chime in here?

      I wonder, though, if Blazer production will eventually be moved to St. Pete or Kaliningrad with time. I believe it's GM's long-term goal to move "large region" production locally instead of relying on the headaches associated with import/export.

      Do you think that Russian manufacturing, when done by international firms like GM, will improve with time?

  • There live two persons in me: the Idealist would like to hope for it, but the Realist says, it will occur not soon:)

  • And the last question for today, Alex. If I get it right, the Middle East is planned to be the main market for the new TB. Will the vehicles be adapted, if necessary, for the countries with frigid climate?

    • Good question as well! Thailand and surrounding areas seem to be the main markets for the new Colorado and TrailBlazer. That said, it's too early to tell -- since we don't know what kind of equipment the TB will offer for regions outside of its primary target markets.

      What kind of adaptations will you be looking for?