Its an age thing I'm sure. For me its the opposite.This vehicle clearly is building off of the S10 Blazer vs the K5 Blazer.

I don't think I ever said that BOF SUVs didn't have their place, I said the majority of SUV buyers today don't want the negatives that come with a BOF vehicle, which is true, and is apparent in the direction most carmakers are going with their SUVs, and the buying behavior displayed by consumers. The Bronco will be a low volume niche vehicle. If there was a "loud call" for BOF SUVs we would see more of them, not less of them with each passing year.

"Pandering", maybe so...but the goal is to sell cars. Take the Explorer since I had an Explorer. The vast majority of people who bought Explorers in the 90s didn't buy them BECAUSE they were BOF, they bought them because BOF SUVs were the only kind of SUVs there were, and they put up with the poor ride and the truck handling because that was what an SUV was. That was definitely the case with us. If the vehicle had been a crossover then, it would have sold just as well. What an Explorer "was" was not an offload vehicle, it was a stylish go anywhere family vehicle. People may drive old ones offload and there may be a following for that, but 400k people a year didn't buy them for 10 years to take them offload.

 

Looks like Ford didn't want to take on Jeep and its storied Wranger because that is a different niche. Instead they invoked the Bronco name, but were smart enough to use the Ranger BoF platform. Blazer is just marketing and sales hype using a FWD crossover with some limited AWD capability. GM doesn't really have any sort of BoF short wheelbase RWD biased offroader.

This is why K5 Blazer people who are an older generation are not impressed. But, we live in a world of shallow image and hype don't we? They'll do a Blazer K "Special Edition" where you will get extra rugged looking stuff on the outside and commercials featuring it running around tearing up the environment. For the galleria/mall crowd

 

The question is, does GM care if they aren't impressed?

 

No GM doesn't care. It's building the Blazer in Mexico and its advertising will likely invoke patriotism, hip club rap imagery etc. To the intended audience Blazer will be a nice cute ute. But we're on a car enthusiast forum, not a PR, marketing hype forum - hence the discussion about what Blazer means for auto enthusiasts.

 

Like it or not, car enthusiasts make up a very small % of the buying public. Like I said before, you can't blame carmakers for building cars consumers buy.

I'm clearly a car enthusiast, I would never buy a Bronco. I wouldn't buy another BOF SUV, modern unibody SUVs are just so much better in every way thats important to me. I'd buy this Blazer before I would buy say a 4 Runner.

 

There is a another car legacy that comes from pedigree, heritage and history. Using Blazer is perfectly ok for the mass audience, but it does really tell us that shallowness and corporate profits are more important than history. Blazer is just GM being lazy and dusting off an old name to sell a new crossover.

If Blazer doesn't mean that much anymore, why are they using it? Ford's using the Bronco name and using it on a real RWD platform. Jeep will never make a FWD Wrangler.

 

Look at what you and I drive. We're car enthusiasts, not necessarily speed/handling/racing enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the auto press often has trouble differentiating the two.


The biggest advantage of the 4Runner (besides towing ability), though, is that it is built like an iron anvil, and will run almost forever if serviced properly. Though they don't qualify as CPOs at that age or mileage, local Toyota shops here sell them, used, with full dealer-warranties, with 175K or more miles on them. I see some from the 1980s still running around.....if they haven't rusted out like a seive by now.

 

It does look like 4Runner and Wrangler sales have both been on the climb the last 4-5 years. I think we're seeing some popular call for the availability of BOF SUV's again.

You're correct that many/most buyers didn't originally buy them because they were BOF, but when the automakers switched gears and turned EVERYTHING into a unibody, people eventually started to get frustrated that there are only 2 choices for a new BOF SUV(unless you want to go big with a Tahoe/Expedition/Sequoia or expensive in the case of the Land Cruiser).

Ideally we'll have variety and options. Ford and GM have a myriad of CUV's. Adding a BOF SUV won't diminish those sales. I for one hope that the Bronco is a success.

 

 

That was something that I already knew lol

Who said it doesn't mean much? They're using it because it does have a brand cache. I think its a little bit of a stretch to compare the Blazer to the Wrangler. The Explorer is really the best comparison. This is no different than Ford using the Explorer name on the outgoing and upcoming unibody and outgoing FWD platform Explorer.

But its cramped, rides poorly, drives truck, the interior is terrible. Its not a vehicle I would ever buy, if it lasted forever it would just be a vehicle that doesn't appeal to me that lasted forever...what good is that to me?

 

Outside of that one transfer-case problem a few months ago, you said yours has been pretty much bulletproof, right?

 

Oh, I agree....it's not the vehicle for me, either. But some people want exactly that.....a purchase that they can keep well past the time it's paid off, and they are out of debt. Many people have to also set money aside for other purposes....they can't afford to be always buying new vehicles.

 

 

Agreed.....the Blazer looks too much like a Camaro inside.

 

No you didn't. Your posts indicate a memory of the 90s Blazers. It had to be pointed out that there was an older Blazer. S10 ain't a real Blazer. K series are.

You did, because you only traced back the history to a 90s Ford Explorer competitor.

And we're back to the original argument. So Blazer does mean something, but only when it suits shallow marketing cachet.

Why didn't Ford just use Bronco on a Focus/Escape platform if it doesn't matter? Lol.