mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2021 Chevrolet Blazer Premier To Get 2.0L Turbo Engine As Standard

The latest 2021 Chevrolet Blazer arrives as the third model year of the all-new Blazer crossover, bringing with it a few small changes and updates. Among these is a revision to the 2021i (2021 interim) Blazer Premier’s engine lineup, which now offers the turbocharged 2.0L I4 LSY gas unit as standard.

Up until recently, the top-trim Blazer Premier came equipped with the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LGX gas engine as standard. The V6 LGX is now offered as an available option on the Premier trim.

Customers can opt into AWD with either engine. Front-wheel drive is standard.

To note, the turbocharged 2.0L I4 LSY produces 227 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque, connecting to a nine-speed automatic transmission. Meanwhile, the naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 LGX produces 308 horsepower and 270 pound-feet of torque, and also connects to a nine-speed automatic transmission.

Notably, the turbo 2.0L I4 LSY offers higher fuel economy ratings in the 2021 Chevrolet Blazer as compared to the preceding 2020 model year, with 22 mpg in the city, 29 mpg on the highway, and 25 mpg combined when equipped with FWD. In the outgoing 2020 Blazer, the LSY is rated at 21 mpg in the city, 28 mpg on the highway, and 24 mpg combined when equipped with FWD.

The latest 2021 Chevrolet Blazer also comes with a new exterior paint option lineup, deleting Nightfall Gray Metallic, Graphite Metallic, and Cajun Red Tintcoat, while adding Pewter Metallic, Iron Gray, Cayenne Orange, and Cherry Red Tintcoat.

What’s more, a leather-wrapped steering wheel is no longer offered as standard across the line. Instead, the L, 1LT, and 2LT trim levels are equipped with a urethane steering wheel as standard.

What’s more, the 2021 Chevrolet Blazer also gains a number of active safety features as standard equipment via the new Chevy Safety Assist package, which includes features like Automatic Emergency Braking, Front Pedestrian Braking, Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Warning, and IntelliBeam headlights.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet Blazer news, Chevrolet news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1126]

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Why on earth they made the more powerful engine standard and offered the weak one as an upgrade in the first place.

    Reply
    1. I think part of that is GM always offers the loaded models the 1st year before the value models are available.

      Reply
    2. I suspect the V6 Future will be very limited. Many applications are set to drop the engine and the offering structure is set to get people to try the Turbo 4.

      It is not likely the mid size trucks will have the V6 in the next gen nor the mid size SUV FWD based models.

      Many have not driven the Turbo engines and miss how the offer a much flatter and stronger torque band. I have a V6 in my truck and do miss the torque of my old Turbo 2.0.

      I have not driven the new engine in this application yet but I expect it to be similar to my last Turbo. The Torque was amazing.

      Reply
  2. Why not offer the 2.7T? Seems like a missed opportunity.

    Reply
    1. We have yet to see a 2.7 transverse installation. Not sure it is an option.

      Reply
  3. WHERE is the SS version Chevrolet?!

    Reply
    1. Not sure how well this drive train would work. FWD sucks once you get over 300 HP as traction is limited and I am not sure the rear drive will take a lot more power. It was not built to be more than it is.

      I had 300 HP in my HHR SS and it was difficult to put the power to the ground. It would easily spin the tires up to 50 MPH rolling if you nailed it. It was fast when it hooked up but it was difficult to get the power to the ground.

      To do this right they need 400 HP and a strong AWD system. Then the question is just how many would they sell? The price would creep up on the $60K mark and not many will pay that much for a Chevy CUV.

      My HHR SS was nearly $30K back in 2008 and while the HHR sold well at over six figure volumes the SS was always 5K or less per year. Shame because it was a fun car even with its lack of traction.

      Even the Trailblazer SS sales were not as good as they should have been. Great vehicle but little money made.

      Reply
      1. We have the 300HP V6 in our 2019 FWD Blazer RS and had had zero traction issues. A 227HP I4 in a vehicle this heavy would not be fun like our Blazer is, and would have made us look elsewhere. Keep in mind that the 227HP is only with premium fuel, put in regular and the ECM will adjust the HP accordingly, and it will be below 200HP. The 300HP V6 uses 87 octane so it is always 300HP.

        Reply
        1. My Acadia in FEW mode loved to spin the front tires unless it is in Sport mode at 310 HP. I refuse to drive it in FWD.

          If you don’t want the turbo the V6 is still there.

          Note it is not the HP that you feel but the torque. Look at the torque curves. This is why the Colorado Diesel feels hardly down on any power even though the HP difference is great. It has more torque and a wider torque ban. That is why they feel much closer together.

          I learned there is more to life than HP alone.

          Reply
      2. You didn’t have the right tires on the vehicle

        Reply
        1. Had the factory Michelins that wore out at 18,000 miles due to soft compound.

          Reply
          1. DId you complain to GM regarding the premature tire ware?

            Reply
            1. Not worth what Michelin would offer.

              I put Goodyear Weather Ready tires on and they are great in all weather and are wearing much better.

              The Michelin’s were just another cheap OE Tire. The guy at the Michelin dealer said they were junk too.

              The ride well and handled well just my life. They even wore dead even but no life.

              Reply
      3. With awd this isn’t an issue, IMO a 5.3 should be available, they worked wonders in the W-cars..

        Reply
        1. The W cars were detuned a lot. The timing was pulled heavy at the ship points to keep from killing the transmission and to keep them going into a major understeer. If you drove a GP GXP you would now this.

          Guys pulled the timing retard off on the Supercharged cars and they were a lot faster but even they killed the transmission and would blow out the differentials. I have seen it at the track and they would make a mess.

          I know the 9 speed is stronger but the rear end in these is not that beefy. Also the V6 make more power than the 5.3 did in the W car.

          What many forget is that emission are getting tougher and smaller displacement engines get better numbers. Less pistons and forced air meet the number better. I hate it too but that is just the way it works. If that were not true then why would they go to all this trouble?

          Sometimes reality sucks.

          Reply
          1. Yea, OTOH when Ford was doing the Edge ST they cut one gear and a few other things to make the ST version worth its effort. A better differential is easier than a new transmission what the v8-W-cars needed, the torque the 5.3 is superior over the 3.6 then and now.

            For emissions the 5.3 being the volume motor something good is going for them but if it’s that much of a hassle a 2.7 upgrade would be interesting.

            Reply
            1. There are no 2.7 transverse set ups. Is it even possible with out changing the block?

              The 5.3 transverse was just old GM trying to fix a problem with no money. The GXP GP was a mess.

              Might not the transmission and Diff were all one on the W body cars. You blow the duff you blow the tranny.

              Racers went to a Cadillac 4 speed that was used on the N Star. But to make it fit you had to modify the floor pan and cut up the fire wall. GM did not use it due to these reasons and would have had to re engineer the platform for fit and crash testing.

              So GM dialed back timing at the shift points and it killed what power the V8 should have added.

              To make the car handle better the front wheels were wider than the rear for an odd look.

              My GTP Comp G was just as fast with the SC 6. It also was better balanced.

              Reply
              1. I can definitely say the Comp G wasn’t on the same field as the GXP as I’ve tested both and I’ve owned a GXP. The GXP was lighter, handled better due to the odd tire set-up, Bilsteins, etc and faster in the low and top-end (the scV6 was equal in midrange). The G8 replaced the GP as Zeta was supposed to replaced the W-car IMO that’s why GM didn’t waste money on a proper transmission for it.

                As for now GM needs to look at some type of upgrade over a regular 3.6 because the 3.6 just isn’t a premium engine in its CUVs.

                Reply
  4. Only at GM do you delete a leather steering wheel on half of your models and not even offer it as an option despite the near 40K price tag on the 2LT models most commonly found sitting on dealer lots. Why can’t it be bundled with the expensive convenience package that costs 1845.00? Why are you now forced to get a higher leather only interior just to get one? The ever shrinking HP LSY wonder leaves me cold too now down a full 10 from when it was introduced a few years back and also now calling for premium fuel making it a questionable value and a noisy one too!

    Reply
    1. Premium fuel from what I have read is only Recommended not Required.

      Reply
      1. Correct and what do you think happens when you use 87 octane on an engine that recommends premium? In my experience with other like turbo engines you get lower MPG and lower performance so my comment still stands!

        Reply
        1. Slightly lower, not enough to offset the price increase. They have done tests and it is roughly 1 mpg and 10 hp. Of course this all depends on the specific car but when recommended but not required the difference isn’t huge, even less so on naturally aspirated cars. Only Ford have I seen list a difference in numbers from the factory and it wasn’t huge and wasn’t a cast savings versus regular. We use Regular in our 6.2, not even an a full mpg difference and power difference isn’t at all noticeable. When towing in hot weather we bump it up but nothing is noticeable. Those that say they can tell a 15 hp difference in a 400 hp vehicle or say they notice things are just relaying their placebo they think they notice.

          Reply
          1. My 2004 Pontiac GTO 5.7 V8 recommends 91 or higher. Once in a while I use 87. No problems. Speed Racer I am not.

            Reply
            1. If you don’t like to drive sporty you probably won’t notice. Otherwise it feels like pulling a spark plug wire. In my experience was about 10% less fuel economy in an LS, probably about that in hp

              Reply
          2. Yes the Turbo drop is not even close to what the 3800 SC had. It was 20 HP.

            Reply
        2. #1 Yes you can lose about 20 HP.

          #2 The price difference is small between grades.

          #3 The MPG is generally better than listed on most turbo applications. My 2.0 average better MPG than a similar V6 and that more than off set the cost.

          I prefer the V6 but I am not going to lie about the turbo engines as they are efficient and to be honest more a pleasure to drive in many applications.

          My V6 has torque but you have to really put the rpm into it. My Turbo could hit peak torque at below 2000 RPM and hold it till it hit 5300 RPM.

          To be honest now I am using Premium as with so much closed down I am not driving as much. Fuel breaks down over time and I made the switch to keep to better levels longer.

          Note my HHR SS was rated at 19 City and I saw a constant 25-26 MPG and that did not include any highway driving. I also made daily full pull runs on the boost up to 23 PSI for fun. I had the GM tune kit on and it picked up 1 MPG.

          Note when I did do highway I saw 31-32 MPG again beating GM numbers.

          To be fail my V6 truck also tops the EPA numbers wish 20.1 City, Note that is the average over 15,000 miles so no games playing with numbers here. I find most of my GM vehicles will beat the numbers.

          I used to be very anti Turbo engine. I hated them as they used to be trouble for durability, MPG and refinement. Today these things are no longer true. They are good and efficient engines.

          I still prefer a V6 in my truck but when they go to the 2.7 I will not have an issue moving to it.

          Note any engine is is more efficient and cleaner on Premium. GM has HCCI engines now that fire on compression. I expect they will come into play at some point for better emissions. they are going to take a higher octane. GM has talked to the fuel industry and government about raising octane to meet the needs of these engines.

          Besides if you can afford a $40,000 vehicle you should be able to afford a extra $2.50 or less on fuel per tank.

          But People skimp on the craziest things at times. I have customers put $15,000 into a new engine but try to use an old radiator from the 60’s to cool it. Too cheap to spend the $650 on a modern radiator with better cooling to protect their investment.

          Reply
          1. I owned a first gen 2.0 T with 272 HP and 295 TQ and would NOT own any other domestic or foreign 2.0 T. I went through the growing pains of the first gen and all I did, added a catch can which captured excessive oil blow back from entering the air box and soiling the smog devices setting off the SES lights. That first gen took all 2.0 turbos down, even today… IMO, if GM wanted to refine the first gen 2.0 T, they would sell more vehicles instead of going backwards. They could have proposed 2 options instead of dropping it.
            JMO

            Reply
            1. My turbo went 10 years before I sold it and it never had an issue,

              My neighbor just had a turbo failure on a Cruze. But it took 280,000 hard miles for it to fail. The cooling line failed and burned up the bearing. He knew it was leaking and said he should have fixed it.

              With millions of these engines out few are having trouble but some will. The V6 had timing chain issues too.

              If it is mechanical failure is always a possibility. I had worried about it but my worries in my case were unfounded.

              How many V8 engine had piston slap and other issues too. If you look there are some issues with all but not the majority.

              Reply
          2. Not sure where you are but in most parts of the country I’ve driven through the price difference between regular and premium is $0.50-$0.70 per gallon, which comes out to $7-10 per 15 gal fill-up. So if you fill up once a week that’s $400/year minimum, which is a significant difference.

            Reply
            1. 20 cents here and my fill up was only $18 a week. It did not use that much gas on a daily 26 mile drive. Gas has been cheap here for a couple years.

              $400 buck a year if you are buying a $40,000 vehicles should not be a problem. Now if you are just scrapping by then it might. Many people spend much more on beer, lottery tickets and smokes with no hesitation.

              Reply
              1. In my area of PA regular is about $2.65 and premium is about $3.15 to $3.35. So its a minimum of 50 cents more here. And for some reason it just feels wrong buying premium. Of course neither my gen 2 Volt nor my C5 need it. Since I don’t drive the C5 hard I figure that anything over regular is an unnecessary cost.

                Still wondering what it would’ve been like if Volts came with a turbo diesel instead

                Reply
                1. If fuel is listed as Premium Recommended it will not hurt to run it. The engine adjust well.

                  Just seem odd to spend the money on a performance vehicle and not use the better fuel.

                  Back in the day I had a 8 MPG big block that needed premium. It hurt to fill it but today with mpg as it is it never hurt to fill my SC and Turbo cars with the Premium.

                  The Diesel would have performed well. But the real trouble would have been over time the fuel would have been an issue if it was seldom used. Moisture would be a problem. Also Diesels are still a hard sell and in a Volt even tougher and even more expensive car to sell.

                  Reply
                  1. “ Just seem odd to spend the money on a performance vehicle and not use the better fuel.”

                    That’s a fair point. Bear in mind I’m under 30 and I got the C5 for 5,000. It needed a new pcm and the wire harness connections into the pcm were corroded. But for a car that sat in an old lady’s driveway for roughly 7 years and didn’t run because of said corrosion, it’s now doing pretty good. From the driver’s seat I just don’t feel any difference between a tank of regular and one of premium. Perhaps you can sell me on why premium is a better choice?

                    All in all, I love how C5s look and the Billy boat exhaust that the previous owner had installed is fantastic.

                    Obviously I love the Volt for a very different reason and I can’t help but wonder what could have been. Especially where the limits might be in min-maxing the fuel economy without changing the drag coefficient or making anything too fragile.

                    Reply
          3. Come to Wisconsin..Premium fuel has always been 70 to 90 cents more per gallon! Check Gas Buddy…you will see! More like $12.00 more for 15 gallon fill. Sheesh $2.50 your lucky

            Reply
  5. This blazer is no K5 nor S10.

    Reply
    1. Not supposed to be. Need to get pass that.

      Reply
    2. Absolutely right Afi. I had a 1985 K5 Blazer it was the best vehicle I ever owned. Oh by the way the K5 was American made unlike 2021 modal. GM makes to many vehicles in foreign plants.

      Reply
  6. Moves like this are a GM staple. Decontent, removing the higher cost standard feature for a lower cost feature. From Roger Smith to Mary Smith, poor management = poor decisions.

    Reply
  7. GM the nokia of 2020.. your late to the party and no one drinks hot shots anymore.. so sad to see

    Reply
  8. That’s too Bad……Another Barra Blunder..

    Reply
  9. 2019equinox 2.0 if you use regular gas major turbolag,midgrade no problems

    Reply
  10. Why offer the premium engine when most wont know or care. I would, but most wont care if its a 4cyl turbo.

    Reply
  11. I’m not a fan of this new LSY engine at all. The previous LTG 2.0L Turbo engine was WAY SUPERIOR. MY Camaro has the LTG 2.0L and it gets 275HP 295 ftlbs torque, and gets up to 31mpg on the highway. This new LSY has 50HP less and 40 ftlbs torque less than the LTG, AND IT HAS WORSE GAS MILEAGE (28 compared to 31). What is even the point with this engine?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel