Stop resurrecting once great nameplates

[Joe Handley]

52 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

And to continue the thought, the androgynous millennials that their marketing would seem to indicate is the preferred customer-base probably never heard of a Blazer before now, and they most likely would have no use for real 4WD that could take them out of the neighborhood of the gluten-free artisan-milled rice bread and free-range organic kale and soy-everything-else they seem to subsist on.

All the computer-controlled-4WD mommy vans here end up upside down in ditches every time it snows 1/4" anyway, so what's the point, really?

I'm thinking they're aiming for older Gen-Xers and older, especially those that are older who might want a nice utilitarian "car" that they can get in and out of without too much difficulty,  but so full of themselves that they can bring themselves to buy a minivan or even a proper SUV like the Blazer used to be. Then there are those who are Gen-X like myself, but who wouldn't be caught dead in a van or station wagon, but just buy a vehicle that is like a station wagon, but closer in size to a minivan and without the usefull room and slide open doors of a minivan and may have AWD......even if they live in a climate that wouldn't need it in 99.99% of the time........

[Oldcarfan27]

For legal reasons, I think companies have to re-use names of products they acquired a copyright to own, or risk losing the name to public domain for lack of use. Or something like that.

That's what happened when Chrysler was using the name Suburban on their station wagons in the 50s and GM "copyrighted" the name for their truck line. Stole it right out from under them!

Or how Nissan acquired Rogue because American Motors (of course, now defunct) doesn't use it anymore. 

That's why old names get dredged up and reused on inappropriate newer cars constantly - they simply don't want anyone else to get to use it!

For what it worth, I think Gremlin, Pinto and Edsel are available, ?

[tbill]

Not sure where this is supposed to fit in the lineup of vehicles, the traverse is now slightly smaller than a Tahoe, the equinox a bit smaller , what’s it supposed to be???

[Rob Hall]

5 minutes ago, tbill said:

Not sure where this is supposed to fit in the lineup of vehicles, the traverse is now slightly smaller than a Tahoe, the equinox a bit smaller , what’s it supposed to be???

With the Blazer, Chevy will have 4 CUVs and 2 SUVs.   The Trax is the subcompact CUV, the Equinox is the compact CUV, the Blazer will be the midsize CUV,  and the Traverse the full size CUV.   All the CUVs are unibody/FWD/AWD.    The SUVs are the Tahoe and Suburban--BOF RWD/4WD. 

The Blazer will basically be a variation of the GMC Acadia w/ different styling inside and out. 

Here's a chart of how they all lining up, note there are gaps that may be filled with future models. 

2019 GM crossover chart

brand  subcompact  compact  midsize   fullsize
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
chevy    Trax             Equinox      Blazer     Traverse
gmc                           Terrain        Acadia
buick    Encore         Envision                      Enclave
cadillac                      XT4              XT5

Edited June 24, 2018 by Rob Hall

[tbill]

It’s quite clear to me the automotive industry has lost its mind.......

 

i can only hope it has a dual range 37 speed trans in it, cause 9 and 10 speeds just aren’t enough....

 

and yes, that is sarcasm, I work on this stuff everyday, and all I hear is ‘boy, my vehicle seems to shift a lot.....’

[Rob Hall]

3 minutes ago, tbill said:

It’s quite clear to me the automotive industry has lost its mind.......

 

i can only hope it has a dual range 37 speed trans in it, cause 9 and 10 speeds just aren’t enough.... 

Nah, only a 9spd auto.   My Jeep only has an 8spd auto and is quite smooth...not sure if I need more gears.   Crossovers are the big growth area of the market, with sedan sales tanking,  we can expect more and more CUVs and SUVs coming out...

[Joe Handley]

Basically, we're returning to this, but they're now called CUVs,

 

but don't have the interior room, the style,  or the toughness of the above, then.......... we don't get things like this to help ease the suffering!

 

[Rob Hall]

1 minute ago, Joe Handley said:

Basically, we're returning to this, but they're now called CUVs,

 

but don't have the interior room, the style,  or the toughness of the above, then.......... we don't get things like this to help ease the suffering!

 

 

Sounds like rose colored glasses...today's CUVs and SUVs are way better built, look alot better than ugly humpy 40s cars IMO, have way more interior equipment (40s cars were very austere), and go a lot more miles...200k miles is easy of out of typical a modern car. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 hours ago, Rob Hall said:

Sounds like rose colored glasses...today's CUVs and SUVs are way better built, look alot better than ugly humpy 40s cars IMO, have way more interior equipment (40s cars were very austere), and go a lot more miles...200k miles is easy of out of typical a modern car. 

Rose colored glasses indeed. You're not inside the industry, you don't see the staggering stupidity and incompetence in the engineering and design, horrible serviceability, onboard-diagnostics that don't, EARLY failures in many overly complex systems and parts (like 8+ speed gearboxes), etc. etc. And it's getting getting worse every year.

But believe what you want. The current generation of vehicles won't be running long enough to get as old as the vintage pieces in the photos above. The electronic hardware and software simply will NOT be supported. The insanely complex transmissions in many vehicles now can't even be rebuilt. It's already happening, but most people only see what they WANT to see, not the objective truth.

Vehicles are becoming more appliance-like and disposable, and what MY generation (and the smarter one just before it) railed against as an abuse of consumer trust and labeled "planned obsolescence" has now been successfully converted into a positive and brainwashed into the consuming populace: it's GOOD to have everything replaced every couple years. New is better. Buy. Buy. Buy.

Speaking of truth, I've been told by management here that telling it is "abusive" and "doom and gloom". Apparently, dissenting opinions will no longer be tolerated.

The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome is alive and well, and it dovetails very nicely with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[MrObsessive]

Looking at Joe's pic of this car and his comment, I didn't take it as us going back to the '40's as far as style. I'm seeing the bigger picture of how the car is styled "architecturally" as far as its height, and bulk of presence.

I do believe though that the car companies are making a big mistake as far as sticking all their eggs in one basket in the whole Truck/SUV/CUV thing. This is only my opinion, but I stand by what I've thought about for the last several years in regards to the industry as a whole. The young folks coming up (13-17 year olds) I can best believe will NOT want those kind of vehicles come the mid to late '20's when they're well into car buying age.

Why? It's generational. They won't want to drive what their parents and Grandparents are driving. They'll want something different to "buck the trend" and I don't see it as big lumbering CUV/SUV's. What's to follow who knows, but if past history is any indicator whoever's first in determining what will be the next best thing, they'll be sitting pretty in the years to come.

Bill, you make a good point regarding today's vehicles and the electronic nightmare they can become. I look no further than the electronically controlled air suspension of the early to late '90's Lincoln Mark VIII's for instance. One reason you don't see many of them on the road today is because a number of those electronic components have failed and it's woefully expensive to replace if not impossible depending on what it is. I've already seen a few on the road that you can tell the suspension is mighty wonky as the front end is so high in the air, and the rear is dragging!

I look no further than my own Dodge Challenger, and I wonder will any of them (like you mentioned) still be on the road in nearly 50 years, as long as the previous 1970-'71 versions can still be seen on the roads today (some as daily drivers). Hard to say as technology is ever changing, but that's a very good question to think about.

Just my 2¢ worth..........................

[Rob Hall]

44 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

 

Speaking of truth, I've been told by management here that telling it is "abusive" and "doom and gloom". Apparently, dissenting opinions will no longer be tolerated.

 

You always seem to rant negatively about modern products,  the modern world and modern people.   Do have anything positive to say about the world?  The angry, bitter old man living in the past shtick gets tiresome...then, again a lot of the denizens of this forum seem to be the same way..

Edited June 24, 2018 by Rob Hall

[Ace-Garageguy]

50 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

You always seem to rant negatively about modern products,  the modern world and modern people.   Do have anything positive to say about the world?  The angry, bitter old man shtick gets tiresome...

You know Rob, the "everything new is awesome and everything old is useless junk" shtick gets pretty tiresome too.

I LOVE computers, I LOVE trick new tech, and I LOVE smart people (old OR young). The 700 WHP car I'm currently building for a client has 7, count 'em 7, onboard computers and ECMS, they were NOT designed to function together, and its been a large and very enjoyable part of my job to make them all play nice with each other. But the self-same level of performance could have been achieved without ANY of them, with vastly reduced potential for side-of-the-road failure of anything mission-critical.

An anvil and a hammer and an open forge are just as useful today as they were 100 years ago, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THEM (which I do).

My knowledge base includes BOTH ends of the spectrum, and RESPECT for both ends (unlike that of folks who can't change their own flat tire), but I WON'T say something makes good sense or is well designed when it just flat doesn't or isn't.

I've seen PLENTY results of incompetent idiots with their hands in the pies on OLD stuff (and I've been responsible for a few). And in my years, I've learned that ONE thing above all I was taught in engineering school is of immense importance (and for the most part, now forgotten).

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Ace-Garageguy

[modelercarl]

28 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

You always seem to rant negatively about modern products,  the modern world and modern people.   Do have anything positive to say about the world?  The angry, bitter old man living in the past shtick gets tiresome...then, again a lot of the denizens of this forum seem to be the same way..

X2

[martinfan5]

It looks like a Camaro and a CUV had a baby, maybe they should name it Blazamaro, or Camazler .

Anyways, I see GM has jumped on the one grill for everything now, and they had to chose the god awful looking Camaro grill to boot.

[martinfan5]

Oh, on topic, I know what I was going to say now

The name doenst make the car, the car makes the car,  a name is simply just that, name, I think its a bit silly getting all work up over names getting reused on new models ,but if that is how you want to use your time, and that makes you happy, then by all means, continue.

But for this, I really dont see an issue with GM naming their newest CUV , Blazer,  its not very far off from the last time we seen the Blazer in production,  although, that one was a body on frame set up , not a unibody , so there is that, anyways.

But that is just my opinion, and your mileage is gonna vary .

 

[iamsuperdan]

Not exactly what I would put the Blazer name on, but I kind of like it. Depending on the sizing, and the class of vehicle its going after, I think it'll do well. 

Heck, wifey's Volvo XC90 is on the books to be replaced next summer, if the size and numbers make sense, a Blazer RS could make the list of viable replacements. It looks too small for us, but it's something I'd consider.

I think some people hold nostalgia too closely. It's just a name. Why not use a name that has some recognition? The original Blazer was of course a full sized truck based SUV that fit with the brand at the time, and fit the needs of the people. The S-series Blazer of the 80s and 90s was also truck based, and was smaller, and less capable, but fit perfectly with what people wanted. Now this one. As far as I can tell, not truck based, but it fits with what people shop for, and what they want in a vehicle. If this had any other name, no one would be up in arms.

It reminds me of all of those poeple who complained about the XJ Cherokee back in 1984. Then it sold millions. And those who complained about the new KJ Cherokee/Liberty back in 2002. And it sold millions. And all of those who complained about the new KL Cherokee in 2014, and it continues to sell at the top of its class. Or maybe the blue oval folk who freaked out about the Bronco II back in the 80s. The one that also sold millions, and became the Explorer which also sold millions, before it became a station wagon.

And just wait until the new Ford Bronco comes out. I think those expecting a truck based V8 SUV are going to be in for a shock.

 

[peteski]

As it has been said here few times (by older folks)  blame these new car designs on Millennials.  Period.  World is changing and we (the older folk) are having hard time adjusting.  I'm in the over 50 group myself, and I'm also disliking the looks (and also all the electronic distractions inside) of many contemporary vehicles.  While the self-driving cars are almost becoming a reality, all the automatic braking, line departure correction, blind spot warnings, etc., etc., etc. make many of today's drivers complacent while driving (because the car will "take care" of things while they check their email on their smart devices).  That's not good. Drivers need to pay attention to their surroundings at all times. If you want to check your emails or play a game on your fablet, wait until there are true self-driving cars on the road and you don't have to pay *ANY* attention to your surroundings.

Yes, I'm almost an old man yelling at clouds.  I've been around long enough to earn this right. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by peteski

[Classicgas]

18 hours ago, peteski said:

As it has been said here few times (by older folks)  blame these new car designs on Millennials.  Period.  World is changing and we (the older folk) are having hard time adjusting.  I'm in the over 50 group myself, and I'm also disliking the looks (and also all the electronic distractions inside) of many contemporary vehicles.  While the self-driving cars are almost becoming a reality, all the automatic braking, line departure correction, blind spot warnings, etc., etc., etc. make many of today's drivers complacent while driving (because the car will "take care" of things while they check their email on their smart devices).  That's not good. Drivers need to pay attention to their surroundings at all times. If you want to check your emails or play a game on your fablet, wait until there are true self-driving cars on the road and you don't have to pay *ANY* attention to your surroundings.

Yes, I'm almost an old man yelling at clouds.  I've been around long enough to earn this right. 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phirewriter]

I had one of the fore mentioned Mitsubishi based Challengers for a number of years. It was actually a very good car, well optioned, 5speed car. The power was adquite but with 4 wheel discs and good suspension it handled great. Of course shortly after repainting it and new wheel/tires some nimrod ran a stop light and totaled it. Wish it still had some photos.

Actually wish I still had it and the '73 Celica GT coupe my buddy had.

[SfanGoch]

On 6/24/2018 at 6:35 PM, Rob Hall said:

You always seem to rant negatively about modern products,  the modern world and modern people.   Do have anything positive to say about the world?  The angry, bitter old man living in the past shtick gets tiresome...then, again a lot of the denizens of this forum seem to be the same way..

There's no "shtick"  involved. "Modern",  "new and improved", and "computer controlled" don't equate to better than the stuff they're designed to replace. Those catchwords mean that the average person can't fix a simple problem by himself because everything is interconnected to a dozen computerized boxes, which means having to take the car to a shop to get it done. Did you ever experience the warm, fuzzy feeling you get when the electronic control systems of your modern, new and improved computer-controlled car decide to simultaneously drop dead in the middle of nowhere, or in a crummy neighborhood and you can't roll up your windows because......there ain't no power to operate the electric motors? Bet you'd wish you had window cranks, huh? Unlike you, Bill, Pete and I have been around long enough to personally witness the changes in automotive technology and how its overapplication resulted in excessive, unnecessarily complicated and, in a number of cases, useless and distracting gadgets more suited to toys than motor vehicles. Funny thing is that if some "bad actor" decides to set of a nuke in the upper atmosphere with the intention of triggering an EMP over these here parts, you're modern, new and improved computer-controlled ride will stop working because all of those fancy electronics will be fried like a piece of fish on a hot skillet.  Meanwhile, all of those angry, bitter, old Luddites who ignorantly clung to the old ways will be laughing their heads off as they drive by you now useless, overengineered pile of junk  in their primitive, non-computer-controlled Bulgemobiles.

[Rob Hall]

8 minutes ago, SfanGoch said:

blah blah blah

Whatever, dude..I've been driving over 30 years..not a kid. I'll take modern cars over old ones any day for regular use.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Rob Hall

[SfanGoch]

BAH! The utterances of a plebeian! At least I never had to worry about the possibility of my ass getting roasted because the wiring harness under the front seat decided to short out and spontaneously combust. Ask anyone who owned a Mercury Sable about that bonus feature.

[Jim N]

1 hour ago, SfanGoch said:

There's no "shtick"  involved. "Modern",  "new and improved", and "computer controlled" don't equate to better than the stuff they're designed to replace. Those catchwords mean that the average person can't fix a simple problem by himself because everything is interconnected to a dozen computerized boxes, which means having to take the car to a shop to get it done. Did you ever experience the warm, fuzzy feeling you get when the electronic control systems of your modern, new and improved computer-controlled car decide to simultaneously drop dead in the middle of nowhere, or in a crummy neighborhood and you can't roll up your windows because......there ain't no power to operate the electric motors? Bet you'd wish you had window cranks, huh? Unlike you, Bill, Pete and I have been around long enough to personally witness the changes in automotive technology and how its overapplication resulted in excessive, unnecessarily complicated and, in a number of cases, useless and distracting gadgets more suited to toys than motor vehicles. Funny thing is that if some "bad actor" decides to set of a nuke in the upper atmosphere with the intention of triggering an EMP over these here parts, you're modern, new and improved computer-controlled ride will stop working because all of those fancy electronics will be fried like a piece of fish on a hot skillet.  Meanwhile, all of those angry, bitter, old Luddites who ignorantly clung to the old ways will be laughing their heads off as they drive by you now useless, overengineered pile of junk  in their primitive, non-computer-controlled Bulgemobiles.

Joe, with all due respect, the gas pumps are electronically controlled.  If an EMP goes off, the gas pumps will likely be fried too.  The Luddites will drive for a few more days or weeks until they run out of gas.  Then they will be like everybody else.

[Ace-Garageguy]

15 minutes ago, Jim N said:

Joe, with all due respect, the gas pumps are electronically controlled.  If an EMP goes off, the gas pumps will likely be fried too.  The Luddites will drive for a few more days or weeks until they run out of gas.  Then they will be like everybody else.

If you mean the pumps at a station, a simple hose dropped into an underground tank and connected to a lifting pump solves that problem nicely.

And driving for a few more days or weeks can make all the difference.

Luddites who are somewhat prepared will do just fine, thanks.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Ace-Garageguy

[Jim N]

8 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

If you mean the pumps at a station, a simple hose dropped into an underground tank and connected to a lifting pump solves that problem nicely.

And driving for a few more days or weeks can make all the difference.

Luddites who are somewhat prepared will do just fine, thanks.

Bill, you are correct, but if things ever get to that point, what few manners and decorum this society has left will be gone.  Those that survive will be the ones with the most guns and bullets.  Furthermore, they will also have to be the ones who aren't afraid to kill a lot of other people to keep what they have.