What If The Chevy FNR-X Is A Preview Of The Rumored Next-Gen Blazer?52
When we saw the Chevrolet FNR-X concept, I was slightly confused: what exactly was the futuristic concept vehicle, with its bold, aggressive and sporty styling, and spaceship-like interior, previewing? Then we saw rumors of Chevy bringing back the Blazer as a midsize crossover, and it all came together: what is the FNR-X is a actually a harbinger for the 2019 Chevy Blazer?
When you peel away the concept styling and cabin, what you end up with is a midsize crossover — precisely what the 2019 Chevy Blazer is rumored to become. It has the general proportions and overall aesthetic that would fit right into the midsize CUV segment, where its primary competitors will be the Ford Edge and Nissan Murano.
We surmise that the next-generation Chevrolet Blazer will share the regular wheelbase C1 platform with the second-gen GMC Acadia, which is selling like hotcakes. The model will likely offer two rows of seating as standard and three rows as an option. But don’t expect the new Blazer to live up to its the off-road reputation of Blazers before it: the the car platform of the rumored model will not provide the proper chassis for going way off-road. That said, it’s entirely possible that new Blazer could get a model analogous to the Acadia’s All-Terrain package, which includes among other features includes Hill Descent Control and an Advanced All-Wheel Drive System.
So, what of the idea that the Chevrolet FNR-X concept is a well-disguised sneak peak at the next Blazer? Tell us what you think in the comments and don’t forget to follow our Chevy Blazer news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Chevy definitely needs a CUV between the now smaller Nox and the bigger Traverse.
I think the Blazer should be Ford Edge or jeep GC sized. Three row would be a bad idea in my opinion. Might take away a lot of sales from the Traverse.
The row configurations on a midsize CUV is definitely an interesting topic.
There is the argument that a midsize crossover with three could cannibalize sales of the full-size, three-row Traverse. However, I think there are some arguments against that line of thinking. First, even with three rows, a midsize Blazer would be worse at doing the “three-row crossover” thing than the full-size Traverse due to space constraints. Second, Blazer pricing could be set up in such a way so as to make the mid-range three row model more expensive than a base three-row Traverse, thereby making both vehicles attractive.
Third, there is the competitive angle to consider: other brands, namely VW (new Tiguan) and Kia (Sorento) offer compact and midsize crossovers, respectively, with an optional third row, making the point of entry into a three-row CUV more affordable than Chevrolet if the Blazer doesn’t offer three rows. So if Chevy’s only three-row option is the full-size Traverse, it makes the brand less competitive, as there are those who want three rows but do not want a full-size behemoth like the Traverse.
I can see that. Good points.
Maybe make the Blazer with option of three rows and then give us a five passenger Jeep GC and Toyota 4-Runner competitor.
This would be the Jeep GC competitor, since both are unibody.
A 4Runner competitor would simply be the bee’s knees!
Is that the new Mazda CX-5?
It looks nice!
Could be called the new FNR-X, since this looks to be more of a road vehicle than a mud trail utility type?
Almost looks like a new Lexus crossover. Sharp creases in all the right places.
We may see the real deal at the Detroit auto show in January.
This concept certainly conjures up thoughts of Lexus/Toyota! Nevertheless, it may very well be designed for nothing more than daily commuting through city/suburban roads. Which is just fine for most. The more size variety the better! I’d personally like to see Chevy build a “midsize-ish” SUV: one between the Equinox and Traverse.
But I’d rather GM make a serious small SUV, perhaps based off the Colorado or something, for serious off-road capability. The Blazer name would be more fitting on such a vehicle!
Unless it is a plug in (i.e.: Volt) or pure electric (i.e.: Tesla X), then I could care less. We don’t need more purely gasoline powered vehicles.
And yet no one is buying plugins or pure electrics… go figure who needs what.
The point is not to make this a gasoline vs. electric argument. The narrative should be electrics/electrified as an alternative to fossil fuel powered vehicles.
“And yet no one is buying plugins or pure electrics”
That’s like saying no one is buying champagne compared to Coke.
No, that’s like saying no one is buying organic hippie made coke as opposed to normal coke.
The argument that EVs are more epensive is moot when most mainstream EVs from Ford, Toyota, and GM are in the median of the selling price of vehicles today.
There is simply less demand for EVs at the current market conditions.
Again, greenies should not make this an either or argument. They would do much better and their message would be much better received if they made it clear that EVs are a great alternative to gasoline/diesel vehicles, not an all-out replacement.
The argument is not moot. Add the $7500 federal tax credit and the individual state tax credit ($6500 in Colorado) to the price and EVs are no longer in the median selling price.
Remove all of the financial incentives and let the market dictate if EVs make it or not. In my mind, there is no question. Without incentives, the only electric cars sold would be to the wealthy.
“No, that’s like saying no one is buying organic hippie made coke as opposed to normal coke.”
Firstly — how is organic cola ‘hippie’? What is organic milk ‘hippie’ too? Moms who want to give their kids real milk should be burning their bras? Grow up and turn of the Fox Views.
Secondly — champagne is terribly expensive and in a different class from cola altogether. The reason why people don’t drink champagne like cola is the cost difference is through the roof. ‘Natural’ Colas do not cost what champagne costs.
Thirdly — even champagne doesn’t cut it as an analogy. Because champagne isn’t a new product being brought to market. And so when you say no one is buying plugs or pure electrics —
— that’s like saying no one is buying 3D printers compared to Inkjet.
3D printers aren’t failed products. They’re new products. There’s a difference.
Fourthly (lol) — this median selling point argument is thirteen shovels of horsepoo. If you took the electrics out of the Bolt it would be a Sonic. A Sonic starts at $16K. A Bolt starts at$36K.
THAT is the reason they don’t fly off lots. It’s a 3D Printer at the moment, genius.
Most people drink Champaign to be PC not because the like it.
Most if given the choice would drink Jack and Coke
There is still work to do to make electric something most would like and approve of.
The key to electric is to make it a vehicle that does not require a life style change.
Price is just one factor. The lack of charging stations and the ability to charge in the time it takes to fill a tank are big matters.
Sorry that is just the everyday persons reality.
People are going to buy what they are going to buy and nothing that anyone says or argue about in this thread is going to change that. For my driving style I have to have gasoline. My wife she’s more of an electric driver. It’s an individual basis. I agree that some of the electric cars are way over priced and that they are trying to compare them to cars that they have no business comparing them to but other than that nothing that is said here today with make a major market change.
Hippie coke is something very different than coca cola
And if it is a pure electric (i.e. BOLT) or electric / gas (Volt), I could care less. Personally I want them to stay true to the blazer name and do a BOF real SUV. Hybrid options are ok, but put some decent gas engines in there.
so you prefer coal powered teslas instead.
All cars are “coal powered”! Or do you get your gasoline piped into your home like water?
i’m questioning how green teslas really are.
that is one of their main selling points isn’t it?
if they are only marginally better for the environment than a gasoline powered car, what is the point?
I like the radical style of the FNR-X concept (aka Chevy Blazer). It would be on target with the Lexus NX and RX but GM seldom brings concepts to fruition. The Buick Avenir was a beautiful concepts and I was almost sure it would have made it to production but the idea only made it to production on some models, not the whole Avenir vehicle. I was so disapointed. I expect GM to blow it again with the FNR-X concept. Maybe this design is closer to a new Cadillac SUV. Oh thats right, how would the FNR-X concept compete with the new Cadillac SUV being a Chevy, it might hurt cadillac sales; therefore just becoming a phantom vehicle in the minds of potential buyers, the same fate as the Avenir. We can only wait and see.
Looks like a Lexus RX
It was the other way around. The Japanese are always copying the GM and Ford designs.
which current toyota/honda car looks like a gm/ford design? maybe some of the trucks are somewhat similar but i don’t know how you could say that about the rest of the lineup.
To clarify, I never said it was a bad thing that it looks like an RX
If GM doesn’t use the Colorado platform for the next blazer then they are failing the consumer. Nobody wants another G0d damn crossover, we have the Acadia, Trax, and terrain, that’s plenty. Give us the small off-road suv we want and need!
“Everybody” is buying crossovers, so there need to be more of those in the lineup. There is a huge, colossal gap in the Chevrolet product portfolio between the Equinox and Traverse. That’s where a purported Blazer would come in.
“Nobody” is buying body on frame midsize SUVs. Perhaps not “nobody”, but the only vehicle in that class is the Toyota 4Runner, and it sells about 10,000 units a month (U.S. sales figures, cumulative retail and fleet).
Now, there is an opportunity to bring a body-on-frame Chevy SUV… but I’m not sure it will be named Blazer. Whether that’s a good decision or not is up for debate, of course.
The Jeep Wrangler 4dr is a body on frame midsized SUV.
The Wrangler is not exactly in the class of a 4Runner… it’s a lifestyle vehicle.
Show both to a soccer mom and see which one they pick. The wrangler is just too hard core for most. The 4Runner is not.
Exactly. If the new Blazer doesn’t share the Colorado’s chassis the new Bronco will kick its butt.
Kick its butt in what? Sales volume? Profits? Off-road capability?
What if the new Blazer is a crossover and there is another vehicle with a body-on-frame architecture that we don’t know about?
If there are possible plans to build a new vehicle with the body-on-frame platform for the USA, then they will have made a mistake by giving the Blazer name to this CUV. There are plenty of other names they could give the pavement pounder that doesn’t ruin the heritage of the Blazer name.
Body on frame off road style like the new Bronco or it will not honor the Blazer name. We don’t need anymore of these minivan like SUV’s.
“We” might not need any more crossovers (minivan-like SUVs, as you say)… but the market at large can’t seem to get enough of them.
Would love to see a hybrid at least — Toyota has the Highlander and RAV4 hybrids.
If they don’t make it a blazer, they are foolish! Beautiful!
Why Chevrolet don’t give another name to the midsize CUV. Produce two body on frame off road, one as the Blazer with three doors configuration and the second bigger one with a five door config as the TrailBlazer as the global one.
Does it really matter because the FNR-X concept vehicle has the overall good looks to be a winner and would sell even if Chevy decided to name it the FNR; you can almost imagine the FNR featuring engines similar to those in the Cruze with the LEX 1.4L DOHC-4v 4-cyl turbo making 153 hp and the new LH7 1.6L DOHC-4v 4-cyl turbo-diesel with both engines mated to the new 9-speed automatic transmission.
This vehicle will need more than the motors you listed to get it going. If this is to be larger than the equinox, it would be a flat out dog with the 1.4L. I’m not sure the diesel would be that much better.
If GM had the guts to build something as close as possible to this concept I would allow them to grab me by the ankles upside down and take all of my money….sigh
Great looking body, and I think it would sell as a two-seater. But it’s not a Blazer. Let’s not pretend it is.
If they would make the Blazer from this concept instead of jerking it around with various revisions and make an electric version available I would be interested. I’m still waiting for an SUV electric from Cadillac, but this concept looks quite nice and would certainly consider the Blazer over the Cadillac just from the visual from Chevrolet.
If this truly does lead to be a Blazer some day (which i like the idea) please make a 2 door version, 2 row seating with decent cargo space.. & bring back the s10 as well. Offer us good work base, compact pickup trucks, sport versions and off-road versions. Like what are still out on the road, to this date. A great, reliable non-stop truck and suv.
Make them semi-compact as they once were, we are tired of all these large, goddy vehicles.
I love the looks and design. What I would really like is if they put the Chevy Volt drivetrain in this. I’ve been searching for a long time and there is nothing that fills that nitch in production today.
Something about it reminds me of Nomad concept of 10 years ago.
This to me is like a CUV Camaro.
Do not call it a Blazer as it is not that kind of vehicle. I do agree Nomad would be more appropriate.
There is a segment for a sport CUV but it is not based on the Nox or Traverse so this could do its own thing.
Also remember this is a show car it is not even close to production spec. It will need changes to make it livable. The last thing GM needs is another SSR.
So when looking at this use a little common sense and understand the realities this kind of vehicle needs to meet in usability and price.
This should have been the Equinox.