CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Welp, the 2019 Chevy Blazer dropped today...

Because they are considered "passenger vehicles",even though technically they are a truck underneath,they can be registered as "station wagons"...

I don't even see why GM bothered making another offshoot of their already over-done stock of SUV's..just a waste of money for them,to re-tool to make another vehicle,one that judging by the reviews ,isn't going to be a great seller,and being made in Mexico may also drive many potential customers away..
I agree with the above post as far as every manufacturer making look alike SUV's..I can sit on my front steps and watch 100 SUV's drive by,and I'd be hard pressed to tell which one was a Madza,Lexus,Toyota,Hyundai,Kia,etc..they all look so close its a mystery to me why none of them have the nads to build a REAL utility vehicle ,something different looking..
 
I don’t agree the 3.6 is junk whatsoever. I think it’s been a great engine for them. I’ve never seen one need a timing chain at 30k, 80-100k maybe if they aren’t maintained properly. I’ve also never seen a cracked block in one or even heard of that and I work on them everyday.

Oh, where do I start.

Let's see, I had a 2012 impala I bought new. I maintain flawlessly, mobil 1, long before oil life monitor told me..@ 30k, cracked block, they said casting flaw, coolant leaking into the cylinder. . tech at the time told me that this was a documented problem and gm engineering had developed a specific weirdo test to test for it and they know they have a few % of the blocks cast in this one place that have minor casting flaws that cuased issues.....Replaced engine. (shittyly I might add, car never drove right after they dropped the cradle) ... 20k later, that engine needed timing chains..stranding my wife and daugther in downtown saginaw mind you..., they did that, 15k later, needs timing chains again and I said you can take your f-ing engine and shove it and they bought the car back for over KBB value.
A friend had 2011 traverse. 3 sets of timing chains before 100kmi
another guy at work had 2010 cts, 2 sets of chains before he ditched that car.
another friend has 2013 impala, it's starting with the funny idle and they think it needs chains, he's just gonna sell it, still under warranty...any takers??
A neighbor has 2012 buick , 1 set of chains already with only 35k on it.

There is a very long documented history on the 3.6l DI and it's timing chain setup starting in 2006 first use in CTS. they have revised the timing chains at least 100 times and revised the block over 6 times, it's also what forced dexos oil on gm engines because the i4 ecotech had a similiar setup and also has a higher than is normal rate of chains going bad, techs will say full syn is best for the 3.6l, they also revised the software and oli life monitor a dozen times for shorter intervals.
Talking with tech's I know, the incidents of chains going bad seems to have subsided considerably staring with most 2014-15MY vehicles after they revised the block and chains yet again.... But they still go bad, just alot less. 2006-2009 are the worst years...I believe I read one article siting a GM source saying it was almost 50% incident rate go the chains going bad in those early years (of the ones under warranty..mind you..surely the rate goes way up as mileage goes up and warranty is gone)... Alot of dealers employ two dedicated techs on two shifts just to do timing chain jobs in the 3.6l. Go ahead, ask any GM dealer...go talk to the techs in the back, they'll tell you. They'll all have done countless 3.6l chain jobs and none of them are fun to do. It was a running joke according to one tech I know as to who was gonna get the short straw today and have to do the 3.6l chain jobs. I also do not see very many 3.6l equipped cars over 200kmi. just don't see them. I see a a shit ton of similiar vehicles with other engines, like the 3800 with well over 200kmi on them, 3.6l...not so much.
They knew it was a problem straight out of the gate, and in their defense most new engines will have some issues and most of the time they can be worked out and the engine goes on to have a happy long life (see 3800) . The chains just eluded them for years. They spent so much on development of the 3.6l they had no choice but to go all in and try to fix it. They've spent a wad on warranty work for these and there are class action lawsuits I'm not sure it ever paid off for them, except in lessons learned. I know it's their high value engine and they stuff it in damn near everything, and some of them are good, it seems it all depends on how well it was toleranced while being put together and alot of it was lack of oiling to the chains and low quality oil . But when you have incident rates anywhere near double digit % rates, and in this case it was well over that for a time at least...that is really really really bad.

From what I know.....the 3.6l is a total crapshoot at best and a pile of unreliable shit at worst.
 
Last edited:
Oh, where do I start.

Let's see, I had a 2012 impala I bought new. I maintain flawlessly, mobil 1, long before oil life monitor told me..@ 30k, cracked block, they said casting flaw, coolant leaking into the cylinder. . tech at the time told me that this was a documented problem and gm engineering had developed a specific weirdo test to test for it and they know they have a few % of the blocks cast in this one place that have minor casting flaws that cuased issues.....Replaced engine. (shittyly I might add, car never drove right after they dropped the cradle) ... 20k later, that engine needed timing chains..stranding my wife and daugther in downtown saginaw mind you..., they did that, 15k later, needs timing chains again and I said you can take your f-ing engine and shove it and they bought the car back for over KBB value.
A friend had 2011 traverse. 3 sets of timing chains before 100kmi
another guy at work had 2010 cts, 2 sets of chains before he ditched that car.
another friend has 2013 impala, it's starting with the funny idle and they think it needs chains, he's just gonna sell it, still under warranty...any takers??
A neighbor has 2012 buick , 1 set of chains already with only 35k on it.

There is a very long documented history on the 3.6l DI and it's timing chain setup starting in 2006 first use in CTS. they have revised the timing chains at least 100 times and revised the block over 6 times, it's also what forced dexos oil on gm engines because the i4 ecotech had a similiar setup and also has a higher than is normal rate of chains going bad, techs will say full syn is best for the 3.6l, they also revised the software and oli life monitor a dozen times for shorter intervals.
Talking with tech's I know, the incidents of chains going bad seems to have subsided considerably staring with most 2014-15MY vehicles after they revised the block and chains yet again.... But they still go bad, just alot less. 2006-2009 are the worst years...I believe I read one article siting a GM source saying it was almost 50% incident rate go the chains going bad in those early years (of the ones under warranty..mind you..surely the rate goes way up as mileage goes up and warranty is gone)... Alot of dealers employ two dedicated techs on two shifts just to do timing chain jobs in the 3.6l. Go ahead, ask any GM dealer...go talk to the techs in the back, they'll tell you. They'll all have done countless 3.6l chain jobs and none of them are fun to do. I also do not see very many 3.6l equipped cars over 200kmi. just don't see them. I see a a shit ton of similiar vehicles with other engines, like the 3800 with well over 200kmi on them, 3.6l...not so much.
They knew it was a problem straight out of the gate, and in their defense most new engines will have some issues and most of the time they can be worked out and the engine goes on to have a happy long life (see 3800) . The chains just eluded them for years. They spent so much on development of the 3.6l they had no choice but to go all in and try to fix it. They've spent a wad on warranty work for these and there are class action lawsuits I'm not sure it ever paid off for them, except in lessons learned. I know it's their high value engine and they stuff it in damn near everything, and some of them are good, it seems it all depends on how well it was toleranced while being put together and alot of it was lack of oiling to the chains and low quality oil . But when you have incident rates anywhere near double digit % rates, and in this case it was well over that for a time at least...that is really really really bad.

From what I know.....the 3.6l is a total crapshoot at best and a pile of unreliable shit at worst.

I’m not going to argue that they don’t have issues but I think you’ve had bad luck. I am a GM tech at a GM dealer and I haven’t seen those kind of issues. We have plenty of customers with 200k on their 3.6s that are still going. My girlfriends ‘14 impala has 115k on it and hasn’t had chains done yet, no signs of them being bad.

All engines, transmissions, and vehicles have issues obviously. The 3.6 has not been as big of a problem as some other engines, like the 2.4 4 cylinder. I’ve changed for sets of pistons and timing chains in those than 3.6s ten fold.
 
What's really funny here is we ( the group of people who detest that gm used the blazer name) are probably less than 1/10 of 1 percent if even that.

I know people that can work on their own vehicles. But they don't. Choosing to spend their time doing other things.

Lots has been said in this thread. Suvs are so popular because people my age who buy brand new cars hate minivans. Same way as when the minivan came along those poeple buying them hated station wagons cause that's what parents drove. Not cool hip young parents.

I'm hoping this comes around back to the next generation liking cars.

Like I said before. I could care less what they call anything. Names get recycled big whoop. Call it what you want. It's name is no reflection in blazers I have owned.
 
I think the only thing that pissed me off when I saw this thing get released was the fact that, what I had been seeing for the last year or so that GM was hinted at bringing back the "blazer", were concept designs that more resembled the 2-door Tahoe look (cab on frame with the same front clip as the trucks). And that ironically got me a bit excited (even if it didn't have a removable top, I still think it would have been cool). But instead, out of nowhere, they put out another shizzy crossover that is no different than any other crossover (including GM's current crossover line...my goodness I feel like a douche-bag even saying crossover that many times).

I didn't really care too much that it was called "blazer", just the fact that the hype around it for the last little while was a very large disappointment when the unveil happened. But like I said above, why would GM give a crap about the opinion of someone like me? I have never purchased a vehicle newer than 15 years old at the time I purchased it...and at this point I don't see me changing that anytime soon cause there is nothing worth it to me to spend more money on...so GM never really makes any money off me.

Deep down inside I hope the sales tank with this thing just to prove to these GM idiots that they have been making really dumb decisions...but it will probably sell just fine cause the only people buying new cars are losers who don't know any different...so whatever, rant over :sign3:
 
My wife wants one just because of the name.....

besides the more that sell the more money we get from Chevrolet.......
 
If you think about it, the current CUV popularity means the Aztec was just ahead of its time.

In that vein, I expect the next trend will be a return to full station wagons. Because that has the most novelty at this point. Few new parents are old enough to have grown up in one, so they'll become cool again at some point.

:popcorn:
 
Yea, but just imagine when you are just talking in a group of new people and you mention that you drive a "Blazer"....and the first thing that comes to their mind is this new thing?
Could be an issue for Parts searches in some capacity...at some point
Will LMC recognize these???
I am completely against re-using a name if the format of the vehicle completely changes....but I suppose they still have "K5" in their back pocket if they ever decide this was a stupid move.
 
I usually say "K5" and people either know exactly what you're talking about or have absolutely no idea, but don't think of one of the other permutations.

As for bringing back a "K5", don't they have to bring back C/Ks in general?
 
Well, i have to be honest: If i didn't need towing/hauling capacity, i would not rule out the possibility of buying a "blazera." So, shoot me.

i think GM is just following the money; And, if you look at the prices of Suburbans, trucks etc., maybe it's not so surprising they aren't selling as well as crossovers?

For example, was a Suburban or Blazer relatively more expensive in 78 than now?
 

Except that new models come with a whole crap load more safety and gee-whiz technical stuff standard these days, which all costs more money.

Looking at the current Suburban model on Chevy's website, and the cheapest available model, things like rear vision camera, 6 speed auto trans, automatic climate control, touchscreen stereo, satellite radio, HD radio, park assist, remote start, direct injection, 4G hotspot/wifi, 10 way power seats, 110 volt power outlets are all STANDARD items....on the cheapest possible model. The days of basic, stripped down, manual everything trucks are long gone. Even the "basic" fleet trucks we get at work come with a bunch of this stuff.

All this stuff adds up, and makes it much less realistic to compare todays models with models from 40 years ago. About the only thing that the current Suburban shares with the Suburban from 40 years ago are that they are large SUVs. 40 years ago the Suburban was just a large family hauler, and now it's a full blown luxury vehicle that's not really all that removed from an Escalade.
 
Except that new models come with a whole crap load more safety and gee-whiz technical stuff standard these days, which all costs more money.

Looking at the current Suburban model on Chevy's website, and the cheapest available model, things like rear vision camera, 6 speed auto trans, automatic climate control, touchscreen stereo, satellite radio, HD radio, park assist, remote start, direct injection, 4G hotspot/wifi, 10 way power seats, 110 volt power outlets are all STANDARD items....on the cheapest possible model. The days of basic, stripped down, manual everything trucks are long gone. Even the "basic" fleet trucks we get at work come with a bunch of this stuff.

All this stuff adds up, and makes it much less realistic to compare todays models with models from 40 years ago. About the only thing that the current Suburban shares with the Suburban from 40 years ago are that they are large SUVs. 40 years ago the Suburban was just a large family hauler, and now it's a full blown luxury vehicle that's not really all that removed from an Escalade.

Right, but the pricing structure has changed, which may mean folks who would have bought a new suburban maybe aren't. Meanwhile the wife sees a new "blazerra" or traverse............and the payments are lower.......etc....

Not that suburbans were super cheap back then either; Mr. McGrath had to steal cars to make the payments. i wonder, though, since he was a high school auto shop teacher, why couldn't he just get a used one and fix it up...........? But i digress.
 
Mr. McGrath had to steal cars to make the payments.

I had to look up the reference (it went right over my head). But in my hometown Mr. McGrath owns the dominant car dealership chain. So I found unexpected humor in that statement. We always figured he was robbing the buyers of the cars, not the previous owners. :haha:
 
Anything less than a straight axle front is not worthy of the name. I couldn't even care about a removable top, 2 doors, or even a V8. It's not a Jeep competitor, it's not anything at all, just another unibody SUV. I'd rather buy a RAV4 or Honda CRV.

automobiles-new-2018-toyota-rav4-1427495-right-front-corner-photo-Image.jpg
 
I had to look up the reference (it went right over my head). But in my hometown Mr. McGrath owns the dominant car dealership chain. So I found unexpected humor in that statement. We always figured he was robbing the buyers of the cars, not the previous owners. :haha:

It's a very GM biased movie if you haven't seen it. And, thinking about it more, most teachers don't get paid a whole lot. Still, i think it's damn irresponsible in the first place to buy a new Suburban in his position; He could have gotten a used 60's suburban or even a 70-74 and being a high school auto shop teacher, just easily fixed it up. This shows you how messed up he was to begin with.

i make 95K and there's NO WAY i'm plunking down 50,000 for a new suburban. So it ties in with what i was saying above; If i didn't need the towing and hauling capabilities, i would consider a terrain or blazerra strictly from a numbers standpoint. Most RWD vehicles today are so complicated, the advantage of being able to fix-at-home vs. FWD is negligible.
 
It's a very GM biased movie if you haven't seen it. And, thinking about it more, most teachers don't get paid a whole lot. Still, i think it's damn irresponsible in the first place to buy a new Suburban in his position; He could have gotten a used 60's suburban or even a 70-74 and being a high school auto shop teacher, just easily fixed it up. This shows you how messed up he was to begin with.

i make 95K and there's NO WAY i'm plunking down 50,000 for a new suburban. So it ties in with what i was saying above; If i didn't need the towing and hauling capabilities, i would consider a terrain or blazerra strictly from a numbers standpoint. Most RWD vehicles today are so complicated, the advantage of being able to fix-at-home vs. FWD is negligible.

I make $14,000 a year.
Not even small potatoes.. I have NO potatoes.
I wouldn't be in the market even if they brought the O.G. 1973 K5 back incarnate.
If I had $50,000 to burn, I wouldn't waste it on any new vehicle.
I'd do, what I always have; find a piece of old rolling junk and start working on it.

You know something funny?
My dream is to save $100,000 by the time I am 65 years old (16 years away).
So I can buy land, have something real that is mine.
Not pay rent or be on someone else's property.
You make, in one year, what I dream to have in a lifetime.
Life is funny.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Top Bottom