By itself, the Trailblazer was a rather good SUV. It was comfortable enough, could carry a decent amount, and so on. Nothing out of this world, but not terrible.
Really, the most interesting thing about it was that had an optional inline six (I6) engine. Not a lot of truck, or cars, have those these days. Companies prefer the rougher, but more compact V6s.
This is the Chevrolet Trailblazer:
It's recognizable as a Chevrolet. It has the badge and line of chrome splitting the grill.
The back is fairly standard. We have the Chevrolet bow-tie.Naturally, Chevrolet needed an SUV to compete in the market. It also provided the basis for a number of other models.
Like the five, yes five, vehicles built using the same body.
The GMC Envoy:
I always think of a GMC as a Chevy that costs more and has more leather. I don't see a point in the brand, let alone their vehicles. But they sell, they have a customer base, and so they naturally have a version of the Trailblazer.The Oldsmobile Bravada:
Oldsmobile's version is slightly iffier. But the Bravada had been around since the early '90s, when it was a cousin of the smaller Blazer. So I'll give that to GM, a SUV between the Chevy and GMC made since. It filled a price point and had features common to both models.The Buick Rainier:
Well, it came out after Oldsmobile was killed. In fact, they just took the Old's body and put a Buick grill on it. But the Buick was closer to the GMC in pricing, so GM's various divisions were starting to steal sales from each other.That's not good, and it one of the major dangers with badge engineering.
The Isuzu Ascender:
Isuzu is known as a truck maker. However, they made cars and trucks for non-commercial consumers. But, when the Ascender came out, Isuzu had a grand total of three products to sell. Four, after this SUV.
That's why GM gave them the Ascender, to prop up sales. But, really, if you have the choice between an established brand like Chevrolet and Isuzu (and they're selling the same basic product) which one are you going to buy? There wasn't enough of a difference between the Isuzu and any of the rest to really recommend it.
And the Saab 9-7x:
The most unnecessary of all.Saab is small Swedish company. They built sporty hatchbacks and compacts that were turbo powered with front wheel drive and had the ignition key between the front seats. Their cars were a stylish, small, and sporty way to slam into a tree and kill yourself.
Like this:
In short, they were very good cars. They had their own distinct, Swedish, personality.So, why, why did GM give them an SUV?
Because SUVs were selling, and it seemed like a good way to prop up Saab's sales. But it didn't work. It looks like what it is, an attempt to give Saab a new product with the least amount of effort possible.
That's the danger with badge engineering, it can become a quick fix to a larger problem. Executives start thinking that if one thing is a success they can duplicate it in a slightly different form and make more money.
But it doesn't always work if the products don't fit the brand right, like the Buick or the Saab. It becomes a waste of effort and money. An effort that can seriously hurt a brand's reputation.
Overdrive is necessary––to take the Saab 9-7x off a cliff at about 90mph. Once it's done bouncing down to its final resting place, I'll take off in an old Saab 900.
Jason, you and I are looking through different ends of the same telescope.
ReplyDeleteThe Trailblazer is "a rather good SUV." By extension, the Saab 9-7x is, too. The parts will be cheap and readily available.
I live in a large city. There are thousands of Trailblazers running around. I can get the same functionality with different style in the Saab. This would let me avoid the "Camry effect" in the parking lot. (You know, you drive to Kroger in your blue Camry, and when you come out you find 4 more blue Camrys in the same part of the parking lot.)
If we assume that in re-badging all other things are equal, why would I buy one of 120,000 Dodge Grand Caravan/Chrysler Town & Country's when I can own one of 12,000 Volkswagen Routans? ;)
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your comments. Last week was a really busy one for me and I didn't have time to sit down and respond.
ReplyDeleteWe are looking through two different ends. I know that rebadging is necessary and that companies will do it until the end of time. I just ask them to seriously think about what they're doing.
Saab didn't need a large SUV, because it didn't fit the brand. Saab is so niche that, in most cases, they wouldn't even get considered in cross shopping.
Since Saab was better known for smaller cars, and wagons, it would've made more sense if they'd gotten a version of GM's new Chevy Traverse/Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook crossover.
I know you don't particularly like that market segment, and it's not one of my favorites either, but the smaller vehicle would've fit in better with Saab's brand identity.
As for GM's engine troubles of the '70s, I remember reading/hearing about that too. That was about the same time when GM's board took away every division's capability to make engines and gave it to the new General Motors Powertrain Division, which would be responsible for all engines, transmissions, and so forth. That could be why people tried to sue.
Also, according to John Z. Delorean's book, GMPD didn't have the same quality control measures as the individual divisions did. So the engines weren't nearly as reliable. While the did get better, it may have been so bad that people tried to sue GM.
As for the diesel engine, GM tried to do it cheap and forgot about how to keep the diesel fuel from gumming up and didn't make the cylinder heads strong enough.
But, GM did strengthen the lower half of the engine block. So hot rodders loved that engine because all they had to do was put some new heads on it and not worry about blowing it apart.