It’s no secret that Chevrolet is working on a new midsize crossover utility vehicle to slot between the compact Equinox and full-size Traverse. Since finding out about the C1 platform-based program, it’s been believed that the model will launch as the future Chevrolet Blazer, despite the fact that the unibody crossover will have little embodiment of previous iterations of the more adventurous body-on-frame Blazer. Therefore, the direction to stick with the Blazer name can be categorized as a misuse, similar to a hypothetical scenario where the Camaro were to go front-wheel-drive, or if the Suburban were to become a minivan… or, more recently, if Ford were to foolishly name an electric crossover after the Mach 1.
This lack of proper representation is sure to have decision makers at Chevrolet debating whether or not to name the upcoming CUV the Blazer. As such, the midsize Chevy CUV – which is expected to share the same underpinnings as the second-gen GMC Acadia while being nearly (if not completely) identical in terms of size – may ultimately wear an entirely different nameplate when it launches in either late 2018 or early 2019, despite GM currently being in the process of securing trademark rights to the Blazer name.
In fact, Chevy could have other plans for the Blazer name – namely a potential midsize SUV to take on the Toyota 4Runner and upcoming Ford Bronco. Such a vehicle would theoretically be based on the next Chevy Colorado and offer significantly more off-road capability than a car-based crossover.

2017 Chevrolet Trailblazer for international markets rides on the same platform as the Chevy Colorado
With the growth in overlanding (using one’s vehicle to reach a remote destination) and Jeep leveraging its off-road reputation in marketing as well as in other vehicles, a body-on-frame Blazer could finally be a way for Chevrolet to swing back at the near-monopolized success of the Jeep Wrangler and the Toyota 4Runner.
Stay tuned to GM Authority as we learn more about this developing story, and be sure to follow our coverage of Chevy Blazer news.
[nggallery id=963]
Comments
Blazer does not belong with CUV.
Thats good. A CUV, especially one with a massive front overhang doesnt deserve the Blazer name
I am not sure it will even matter! I think it will sale no matter what name it will have. I would imagine most people wouldn’t even have a clue that the blazer name goes back 40 plus years, and that it was BOF 4×4.
Do you really think a person who is 25 will choose to not buy a cuv called blazer because of what it use to be in the past! I don’t think they would care!
That’s not necessarily the point, though.
Firstly, the point is that a model called Blazer should come later to do the name justice and, more importantly, earn sales and customers from Jeep and Toyota, which currently own the off-road capable segment… with Ford coming shortly after. Chevy is better positioned to do this as a full-line brand than either one of those brands, and a BOF Blazer would also earn profits hand over fist to fund all those profit-sapping electric and autonomous efforts.
Secondly, if the Blazer name graces a crossover, what is the point of names? Why call it Blazer rather than something different and new, something that doesn’t have the heritage of the Blazer name? There are other, better options.
That said, yes – the midsize Chevy crossover should sell well, no matter the name. But there is a certain art to this business, and to call it Blazer would be to disregard that art, in a way.
Yup you nailed it
It would not earn money hand over fist. It would sell in much more limited numbers than a CUV, it would cost more to develop and it would cost more for a smaller vehicle for such a limited market. As much as I love them and would want one in the portfolio, that part was just incorrect.
Common sense eh? Since when does a truck-based vehicle “cost more” from any standpoint? You’re way off on that.
A body on frame Blazer that shares a platform with the Colorado would require minimal development, and it would carry higher per unit margins based on lower initial investment AND lower production costs. It would actually be one of Chevrolet’s best earners on a per unit basis, behind the Silverado, Tahoe and Suburban… and right up there with the Colorado.
Getting an additional 5-10 thousand units a month from the Colorado platform is just good business sense.
Want something correct? There you go 🙂
I would agree with you but this notion that this vehicle if named blazer wont sale because of the name is ridiculous! Most people! Not us! Wont care or even know about the name!
“I am not sure it will even matter! I think it will sale no matter what name it will have.”
Try selling the Chevy Fenispace
That’s a good point! Though I think the idea is that it will sell well no matter the name *within reason*.
You really think soccer moms are going to know what a blazer is?
Really milking this one?
It has been reported GM has been reconsidering the name. I think the Bronco has made then reconsider this.
We all need to just step back till GM anounces the name and just live with what ever it is.
Odds are it is not Blazer. I would expect a new name or Trailblazer.
Oh really?!
Show me one report that “GM has been reconsidering the name” from a credible source. I’ll sit here and wait.
PS: a credible source means a real report from an actual publication, not some forum post that sends one on a wild goose chase.
Soooo… milking? No, not at all. Simply reporting… which is what we do around here at GMA.
Milk that.
Show me one wher they said it was a Blazer officially by GM.
Posting once is fine but reposting this speculation over and over with nothing new to add is click bait.
All you do is get Andrew, John and Brian started over what may end up as nothing.
I like to think of think that this site and author as creditable.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/04/upcoming-mid-size-chevrolet-crossover-to-not-be-called-blazer/
Alex this is how one losses credibility by taking both sides and not adding to the story.
Alex I do not challange you to be a pain I do so because I know you are better than this. You know you can not force a story.
We have enough sites pushing numbers not creditable news. The folks really want constructive news. Be the Autority you really are.
Well he changed the original article title, hyperlink is still the same, can’t change that. Have to drum up clicks somehow!
Andrew:
Actually, we can make the hyperlink whatever we want. In this case, the hyperlink was carefully chosen for reasons that are not related to the title of the story. But hey, nice try to unearth what I’m sure you believe is a huge conspiracy theory!
Additioanlaly, there is so more to our content strategy (including the one surrounding this story) than simply drumming up clicks.
For intance: we have collectively (as a publication) written roughly 15 stories about the future Blazer, so a story or two or even three or four to remind the world that the vehicle previously believed to have been called Blazer will NOT be called as such should not be that difficult to understand in the grand scheme of things.
Think of the radio: 15 reports that are incorrect to 1-4 reports that aim to correct those 15, and bring light to the other 15 being incorrect. As a matter of fact, correcting incorrect reporting or reporting on changes in reports that have changed is something that the media industry at large doesn’t do enough of… so I would look at our efforts here as a positive, rather than a negative… or (worse) some other form of conspiracy theory to “drum up clicks”.
Scott,
First of all, this story and the one you linked to are very different. I recommend you read them both. And when I say read, I really mean read – not skim… which is what you seem to have done to reach the woefully incorrect “milking” conclusion.
Second, who is to say that we are not being the “authority”? Everything we do, day in and day out, is driven by being and maintaining that status.
Moreover, you are confusing two things here: you are informed about the topic at hand, and that’s great… but there are those who are not, or not as informed as you. So clearly this story might not be for you. That’s not “milking”… it’s simply you not being the target audience for the story in question. You need to undertand that distinction as part of this conversation… instead, you seem to think that we are insulting your intelligence, which is far from reality.
Third, you have a penchant habit of giving out suggestions and recommendations when they are not asked for, while pretending that you have an understanding of the publishing, content and editorial business that GM Authority is in. Make no mistake about it: when I desire feedback about running our successful firm, I will ask for it, as I have done on many prior occasions. Until then…
Alex the truth is stirring the post on the name at this point is like complaining about the styling we have yet to see.
You have even admitted we do not know th3 name so why start a panic over the unknown?
Nice title change by the way.
I understand is is a slow news time but you could cover the closing of the second shift of the Cruze at Lordstown.
That is going to be interesting as sales are tanking and the refresh will change little. GM has a good relationship with the Union at the plant so it may be interesting what the do with the line and workers.
Do the move all Cruze production to Mexico and give Lordstown CUV in much higher volume? It is a large plant way under capacity.
Now there is a real story to stir real debate.
Oh you are not insulting my intelligence. I just fine cheap stories like this below your abilities. It is like the A student taking the easy way out.
You normally do better and should. Sorry but I just want you to be the best you can be. Not just fodder feeders to the clueless camo styling complainers.
No Scott, I already explained “the truth” in my replies above.
Have a gander at my reply to Andrew, where I eloquently outline the reason for articles like this. If you’ve forgotten or have otherwise overlooked it, then let me remind you: these articles aim to remind the public that the vehicle will not/might not be called Blazer, and to provide an area for discussion and conversation.
After 15 reports indicating that the name will be Blazer, a report or two (or even three or four) stating otherwise doesn’t hurt anything… but rather does the public a service, by correcting reporting that is now incorrect.
“Nice title change by the way.”
I’m sorry, but what are you even talking about? Show me evidence that it was. You can’t, since it was not changed.
I also find it amusing that you say things like “the truth is” on a regular basis, as if your comment contains the one and only truth. That’s a good example of attempting to establish supremacy by word choice, but it ain’t gonna fly here.
“You normally do better and should. Sorry but I just want you to be the best you can be. Not just fodder feeders to the clueless camo styling complainers.”
You’re the only one beating a negative drum here and you are the only one with some kind of an issue, agenda or ax to grind. While everyone else is having a normal discussion about the subject matter at hand, you feel obliged to take the conversation into an abyss that is meaningless and off topic.
I think you are better than this, Scott.
Once again, I do invite you to consider what I already explained to you earlier. There is more to this story than you seem to comprehend.
Alex, bravo!
No one likes a know it all who in reality knows nothing. A certain poster likes to pretend that he maintains a direct line with Barra and Simcoe.
Get over it. Just challenging someone as they are better than egging in a unknown name situation.
Not fighting either way here just debate and nothing personal given or taken.
Alex generally does a good job and I just want to keep it that way.
We’ve all watched you play blow hard know it all for years, acting as you have some inside track, making you the ultimate GM authority.
Seeing you’re fantatic powers of observation get you in way over your head and over your skis has been pitiful with your recent snarky dust up with Alex being just one of many examples.
What’s worse, however, has been your obsession with “up” votes and whines that people are manipulating the system when, instead, your comment simply wasn’t popular. Condescension is generally poorly recieved.
I say all of this without rancor and in the spirit of constructive criticism because I know you can do better.
Admitting when one is wrong is a sign of strength as opposed to doubling down and trying to bully the wronged party into silence.
Looks to me like somebody is jealous! Looks to me like somebody things they can do a better job!
Keep fighting your readers.
There is a big difference between “fighting” and calling out incorrect and misguided comments. I’m doing the latter… how about you?
PS: it’s not “readers” but rather “one reader” (single vs. plural). So, just one reader who is unnecessarily negative and who decided to take it upon himself to derail the conversation by providing tongue-in-cheeck feedback that is best left by going to http://www.gmauthority.com/blog/contact/
Alex nothing personal as I like your stories. This was just a challange to keep you on your game as this was not a good effort. Rare but just one of those that come up. It happens.
At this point no one here knows what this will be called and doing a what if just stirs the S#$t pot.
Until it is announced that this is a Blazer there is no logical debate.
Again it is like arguing over styling on a vehicle in camo.
A better title and story would have been what should this vehicle be called and not even suggest the Blazer name. This would have brought out the best in those here not the worst.
No one is taking anything personally… although it’s really up to me how I elect to take any comment, is it not?
Furthermore, I happen to not be in need of any challenges “to keep me on my game”. I’m really bewildered as to why you took it upon yourself do so… and I’m not that interested in an explanation. I just hope you realize that you’re the only negative nilly here that is continuing to talk about something that’s really off-topic…
To illustrate this further, I will use a certain speech by a former U.S. president that was used in a recent Cadillac marketing campaign:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.”
So the truth is (to use your own way to speaking), it’s not your singular attempt at a critique that matters…
Ironically, a story examining the potential names of the midsize Chevrolet CUV in question has been part of GM Authority’s content plan for roughly a week now, and the story you are commenting on now (this one) is one part of our planned narrative surrounding the upcoming midsize Chevy crossover. See the trees, but don’t miss the forest bud.
PS: to answer this question:
“Show me one wher they said it was a Blazer officially by GM.”
You’re better than this.
GM has never issued any public-facing comments on the existence of plans for a midsize CUV, Blazer or otherwise. They almost never/very rarely discuss future product or plans for future products. But we happen to have it on very good terms that at one point, the name for this very product was actually set to Blazer.
I’ll leave it at that.
That last paragraph is spot on and my whole point of the needless bring up the name time and time again till more is known.
I apologize if I got you upset but the endless chatter of tossing the Blazer name out to those who are sure that it is going to happen and bursting a blood vessel till we know more is just not cool.
That is no better than tossing out more C8 photos claiming it is a Cadillac.
Please don’t call Blazer in that vehicle. GM should not follow as Ford changed Explorer from rock SUV to family CUV. Ford fans still don’t forgive them although Explorer sales well.
The Explorer is doing fine. It was always a family hauler.
Note to the Ford Bronco is not FWD and GM is seeing this. They will consider this for their product and know FWD will not cut it for the real off roader.
BUt the point is, there still needs to be a name for this car lol…. unless we call it the Traverse SportCross
Folks until says it is or is not a Blazer give it a break. This may very well be a lot to do over nothing.
Complain when you have something to truly complain about.
Names generally are up for change right till the vehicles are announced. Many have been changed in the 11th hour.
Case in point the Fiero was changed so late from Pegasus that the production car was left with a flying horse emblem.
The Firebird was to have been the Banshee till it was changed late.
I just think the Blazer/Trailblazer name has been tarnished…God-awful cheap plastic GM product of the 1990s and early 2000s. Chevrolet now is so much better. New name, new start without Blazer in the mix.
Blazer and Trailblazer represent a time when SUVs were way cooler than they are today.
I would love to see the Australian market Trailblazer in the US.
Considering Ford is ready to reintroduce the Bronco as a true Bronco, I think it would be a huge mistake for Chevy to throw the Blazer name on a grocery getting crossover.
But will the name have any affect on sales? Maybe a few here or there who remember what a blazer was but the majority wont even bat a eye at what’s calit’s called. It will fit what they need to do based on size and use! In a similar way as a equinox
GM, in particular Chevrolet, has too many CUV/SUV models that only differ by a few inches in some cases. Including the aforementioned new model, The General will be marketing 16 SUV/CUVS! This doesn’t include a Bronco off road fighter or EVs.
I understand the popularity of the segment but nothing aside from cubic feet and a few thousand dollars will seperate this model from Traverse while differentiators like off road are very popular and will be used by other automakers (Ford) to highlight same-sized product.
Trax, Equinox, New Midsizer Above, Traverse, Tahoe, Suburban plus Blazer and a future EV is too large a line up with gas prices moving upward and potential for slowing economic growth. Clearance incentives with further erode the differences between segment.
Chevrolet, GMC and Buick need to focus on a unique SUV subset: GMC handling off road, Buick Blue responsible for EV, Chevy a traditional line up. Instead, GM will just just duplicate the Chevrolet product mix with unique bonnets and end up with, as it stands now, 20+ SUV/CUVs.
It is doubtful that market share or profit will increase due to GMs goal of covering every segment multiple times. Wasting this amount of capital is reckless.
At this point in time no mfg has too many CUV models and most have too many cars.
Note the cars that will be cut and how the Cruze went from 3 to 2 now 1 shift.
People are not buying them.
It will sale very well regardless of what the name is
Just how many Crossovers does GM need . The instead of another grocery grabber from Chevy that money could have been used to help speed things along at Cadillac .
Names do mean alot and what a vehicle is called . The Blazer name has an image attached to it and could very well hurt sales of a vehicle if mis-used . Very few automakers have treasured names anymore and if GM didn’t own the nameplate Blazer , it could be used in a year or two and not necessarily for a new CUV .
Saying that most people won’t know the difference is a narrow viewpoint . A crossover is a car based vehicle and an SUV is a truck based vehicle and Blazer has always been a truck .
Some guy pulling up in his “new” Blazer that is stuck to the side of that CUV would be laughed at ( or gal ) gotta be PC .
You really think a 21 year old lady is going to know the difference? Nope!
Meanwhile if GM wants yet another crossover how about something smaller, lower to the ground like E-Pace or CX5 as a Sonic or even Cruze replacement?
Yet they have lowered the Nox, Terrain , Acadia etc…
Steve there is a difference between knowing it all and just being observant. You may want to give it a try,
We’ve all watched you play blow hard know it all for years, acting as you have some inside track, making you the ultimate GM authority.
Seeing you’re fantatic powers of observation get you in way over your head and over your skis has been pitiful with your recent snarky dust up with Alex being just one of many examples.
What’s worse, however, has been your obsession with “up” votes and whines that people are manipulating the system when, instead, your comment simply wasn’t popular. Condescension is generally poorly recieved.
I say all of this without rancor and in the spirit of constructive criticism because I know you can do better.
Come on if you are going to be salty at me twice at least be original.
Copy and paste? Sad, you can do better than that.
Might want to debate the Cruze hatch as it is a lowered CUV in a way yet sales have not been excessive to say the least.
GM right now has a good selection of models and heights of their models. These are not models targeting the off road set and they are doing fine. It comes more down to features and quality of interior that they need to focus on in these models.
GM also needs to do a better job advertising how while these are FWD models they are 60% rear drive in AWD and 50% rear in off road mode. Many people do not realize that in sport mode they drive very well even with FWD based modes.
I think GM is not getting considered because many perceive them as FWD and flawed. Especially at Cadillac.
GM needs a real off road style SUV that is smaller than the Tahoe. The FWD based models are fine for the road but off road is limited at this point.
Now what may be the wild card here is we have heard GMC is doing an Acadia AT4 that is going to be more rugged. The question is it going to be a real change like Jeep or is it going to be a poser? time will tell.. The Acadia now can go off road in a limited way but I would not consider doing Moab.
With that tumorous front overhang and gaggingly “cute” proportions, this is obviously the latest move to make the Chinese wet themselves, known internally at GM as “anti-Blazer lol”. It’ll probably be released wearing the GeeKing Muddy badge in GMs largest market, alluding to its “tough off-road style” but fear not, high level luxury and sophistication will also be attainable by selecting the upmarket Creen Undees trim level. Perfect for a stylish night out under Shanghai city lights (but equally at home in Chongqing, it’s a win-win!)
People are going to be disappointed…
The Chevrolet FNR-X concept vehicle would be a good fit between the Traverse and Equinox.
They will try to apply FNR-X styling cues to a bloated crossover and make you wish it looked like a Traverse.
GM will probably too cheap to have a defeat switch for the stop/start that everyone hates.
Shakespeare wrote a rose by any name is still a rose as who gives a bleeping darn of the name of this CUV as what is more important is it’s substance; although because it will use a C1XX platform which is the same as Cadillac’s XT5 and GMC Arcadia, it will have the necessary genetics for success.
I really like the Trailblazer depicted above.
Call that the Blazer, give it the ZR2 package, the diesel and sell it here and they’ll have a massive hit.
The front overhang and minivan-stance on the spy photos has made me hate whatever front drive crossover this thing is anyway.
It’s not even out yet and I don’t like it.
Why can’t we have a 4Runner or Grand Cherokee competitor?
GM use to and people stop buying it! GM sees the mass of people picking the cuvs and they are making vehicles to take advantage of that!
A real body of frame full size blazer 4×4 would still not sale better then a cuv at this moment in time!
The Acadia and this “name yet to be determined” Chevy crossover ARE direct competitors to the Grand Cherokee in terms of size and target audience.
The 4Runner is purchased more by customers who buy the Jeep Wrangler… the more adventurous/hobbyist customer profile. So while Chevy will do well with this midsize crossover, they also do need a capable midsize body on frame SUV to rival the 4Runner and Wrangler.
Last we heard, there isn’t such a program in place currently within GM… but that could have changed.
Blazer only belongs on a true body on frame 4wd utility vehicle…….not even a sport utility vehicle should be called Blazer! SO………why not just give us back a true Blazer and make this boring crossover a Tracker.
Really don’t care what the name is, just want to see the production version and hoping it has some similarity to the FNR-X concept and offers a true performance trim. If Chevy does another weak-ass RS like they did with the Traverse, I’ll be bummed. Alex, please do a piece on why Chevy refuses to do real FWD/AWD performance vehicles. Cadillac’s got 3 TTV6s’ in a total of 4 models that could be proliferated out to other GM brands to spread the cost and help make more money.
Hoping this story could be true – been holding on to my 2007 Rainier for a reincarnation of this line. Although, I doubt the 5.3 V8 will be an option, ha.
As a fan of GM, I would hope whatever this thing is would not be called the blazer. If GM is truly wanting to make a blazer it should follow what Ford is doing and bring back a Bronco fighting blazer. It would honestly be quite easy for GM to pull this off since the Colorado is already a very capable vehicle. All that would need to be done would be to make a two and four door variant with the new 2.7L Turbo 4-cylinder & the baby Duramax, use the ZR2 DSSV suspension setup make it boxy and cool and call it a day.
Now i would love to see an FNR-X 600+hp electric crossover come out along with a few other things but my deep interest is in the Camaro. The car is great but there is only so much you can do with the 1st Gen styling from 67-69. The second gen Camaro from 70-73 had a great look as well and with the more fastback design the practicality of a hatchback might come in handy as well like the corvette but with 4-seats. Also it would lend a better design for a more open grille style plus the ’70-’73 Camaro was a more “Driver friendly” car and better handling due to design changes and a few other things. The point that I’m making here is that with the new VSS-R platform coming up and the opportunity for the 7th Gen Camaro to take on a more “complete package” like what the Camaro did in 1970, better engines, more comfort and more tech need to go into the Camaro. People are stuck between wanting power and wanting economy. Now call me crazy but i’m almost certain that GM could take an LS6 5.7L V8 that made 405hp and 400lb ft of torque from back in the early 2000-era upgrade to the new LT-family heads and cam, a new intake manifold, 90mm throttle body, a set of factory Tri-Y manifolds, an aluminum block, the 10-speed automatic, better induction system, fuel mapping for a direct and port fuel injection system and push out 495hp and 490lb-ft of torque and not only keep a similar MPG rating the 6.2L has but probably best it. I’m also confident that GM could take that new 2.7L Turbo 4-cylinder and bump that up to a cool 350hp & 390lb-ft of torque and slap that in as the base Camaro while taking the 405hp/405tq 3.0L twin turbo V6 and sliding that bad boy in as the new V6 setup. I’m also confident that GM could do all of this with a new VSS-R sedan and either call it the Nova since that was the counterpart to the Camaro back in the ’60’s and 70’s but this time they could make it a sedan and have it be a truly badass sedan with a ZL1-type Super Nova sedan along with an SS Nova 5.7L, an RS Nova twin turbo V6 and a base nova 2.7L to mirror the Camaro. I could also see Chevrolet bringing back an SS Silverado with a 495hp 5.7L V8 under its hood and a few performance goodies. Along with all of this what would really be nice is if GM could offer more performance upgrades for its vehicles as well. Granted yes regular vehicles have a big place in the market but there are still alot of us that want the performance gasoline cars as well. Yeah I’d love to see that new FNR-X concept wipe up the ground with Tesla! I love all of the innovations going on. but don’t forget about us Camaro guys and muscle car guys and V8 truck guys as well.
Wow!