RE: SOTW: Chevrolet Blazer
Discussion
ScoobieWRX said:
A petrol 2.7 Surf does around 23-25mpg on a run, and they weigh around 1800-1850Kg.
An extra 1.6ltr displacemenmt and 150Kg in oldskool technology is going to cost you more than 3-5mpg.
It's not like some of the yank V8's in something like a Cadillac or Lincoln that shut upto 4cyl off for economy on a steady run, you're getting all 6cyl all the time so IMHO 20mpg even on a run, sounds properly over optimistic.
I don't believe it, and i reckon in average UK motorway or town traffic you'll be lucky to see mid to high teens. I dread to think what the MPG will be when you're towing something.
I hope it's got a mahoosive fuel tank!!
You make many assumptions but adduce little by way of facts.An extra 1.6ltr displacemenmt and 150Kg in oldskool technology is going to cost you more than 3-5mpg.
It's not like some of the yank V8's in something like a Cadillac or Lincoln that shut upto 4cyl off for economy on a steady run, you're getting all 6cyl all the time so IMHO 20mpg even on a run, sounds properly over optimistic.
I don't believe it, and i reckon in average UK motorway or town traffic you'll be lucky to see mid to high teens. I dread to think what the MPG will be when you're towing something.
I hope it's got a mahoosive fuel tank!!
UK "road test" - http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/Chevrolet_Blazer_roadte...
16.5 USmpg in road tests: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2001-ch... which is 19.8mpg.
Given it's less than a grand to start with, fuel is of less importance and any petrol is better to drive than a shonky old diesel.
I just don't like it,
for me yank = V8 , RWD, and a sh*t interior which you forgive cos of the other two points and I only like the muscle cars
all of which is stunningly unoriginal but I am not apologising for that. I don't like SUVs or most offroaders ,no reason for it I just don't like 'em
still, interesting shed
for me yank = V8 , RWD, and a sh*t interior which you forgive cos of the other two points and I only like the muscle cars
all of which is stunningly unoriginal but I am not apologising for that. I don't like SUVs or most offroaders ,no reason for it I just don't like 'em
still, interesting shed
ScoobieWRX said:
tr7v8 said:
ScoobieWRX said:
I'll stick to my 96 Toyo 3rd Gen Surf. It's way cooler than this and does 27mpg (3.0 Diesel) on a run.
I don't see the allure, even for under a 'bag o sand', and it's fugly as sin.
There's no way it does 20mpg, and it must easy weigh a couple of tons.
Perhaps if it was diesel it might have some merit as purely a workhorse for towing and shifting stuff about without worrying about it getting dented, and be worth a punt if everything else was guaranteed in working order but it's no looker to be seen in. Where's the cool??
Roll on next SOTW!!
Yup the US forums seem to reckon on a UK average of 20+MPG, & it is another 150-200kg heavier than your Surf according to Wiki!I don't see the allure, even for under a 'bag o sand', and it's fugly as sin.
There's no way it does 20mpg, and it must easy weigh a couple of tons.
Perhaps if it was diesel it might have some merit as purely a workhorse for towing and shifting stuff about without worrying about it getting dented, and be worth a punt if everything else was guaranteed in working order but it's no looker to be seen in. Where's the cool??
Roll on next SOTW!!
An extra 1.6ltr displacemenmt and 150Kg in oldskool technology is going to cost you more than 3-5mpg.
It's not like some of the yank V8's in something like a Cadillac or Lincoln that shut upto 4cyl off for economy on a steady run, you're getting all 6cyl all the time so IMHO 20mpg even on a run, sounds properly over optimistic.
I don't believe it, and i reckon in average UK motorway or town traffic you'll be lucky to see mid to high teens. I dread to think what the MPG will be when you're towing something.
I hope it's got a mahoosive fuel tank!!
My Grand Cherokee is around the 1800-1900KG as well.
My 4l Grand cherokee can get 20MPG+ on a motorway run, it is the cold starts & short runs that kill the consumption. So I expect the Blazer will be about the same.
ScoobieWRX said:
tr7v8 said:
ScoobieWRX said:
I'll stick to my 96 Toyo 3rd Gen Surf. It's way cooler than this and does 27mpg (3.0 Diesel) on a run.
I don't see the allure, even for under a 'bag o sand', and it's fugly as sin.
There's no way it does 20mpg, and it must easy weigh a couple of tons.
Perhaps if it was diesel it might have some merit as purely a workhorse for towing and shifting stuff about without worrying about it getting dented, and be worth a punt if everything else was guaranteed in working order but it's no looker to be seen in. Where's the cool??
Roll on next SOTW!!
Yup the US forums seem to reckon on a UK average of 20+MPG, & it is another 150-200kg heavier than your Surf according to Wiki!I don't see the allure, even for under a 'bag o sand', and it's fugly as sin.
There's no way it does 20mpg, and it must easy weigh a couple of tons.
Perhaps if it was diesel it might have some merit as purely a workhorse for towing and shifting stuff about without worrying about it getting dented, and be worth a punt if everything else was guaranteed in working order but it's no looker to be seen in. Where's the cool??
Roll on next SOTW!!
An extra 1.6ltr displacemenmt and 150Kg in oldskool technology is going to cost you more than 3-5mpg.
It's not like some of the yank V8's in something like a Cadillac or Lincoln that shut upto 4cyl off for economy on a steady run, you're getting all 6cyl all the time so IMHO 20mpg even on a run, sounds properly over optimistic.
I don't believe it, and i reckon in average UK motorway or town traffic you'll be lucky to see mid to high teens. I dread to think what the MPG will be when you're towing something.
I hope it's got a mahoosive fuel tank!!
This brings back good memories for me! My newlywed wife and I were supplied with one as a hire car for our honeymoon, it wasn't quite the car I was hoping for but good fun in an Americana kind of way.
Drove it from Las Vegas to La (no I didn't get married in Vegas) and various places in between, one of which was a trip to Death Valley which included a drive on a gravel track. The gravel track started out at least 4 lanes wide and was hilarious fun for 4 wheel drifts at over 50 mph, (hey it was my honeymoon and a hire car so I wasn't worried about the damage the big stones that were being flicked up might be doing to the car) but over time the track narrowed and narrowed to the point where we were driving down tracks little wider than the car that by then had also become very, very bumpy with sheer drops on one side which seemed at the time to only be millimetres away. We found out from a Death Valley park warden / policeman of some description after we got to the end of the track an hour or two later that the track was about to be closed for the end of the season as it was classed as too dangerous to leave open all year round due to the nature of certain parts of the track and the fact that in these sections both CB radios and mobile phones couldn't get a signal / work and thus patrols were constantly made of the track to make sure no one had crashed down one of the sheer drops, had a break down etc etc. At the time the wife and I thought we would just going be driving down a wide flat track for a mile or so thus enabling us to be able to claim we had driven off road in Death Valley, got that one slightly wrong and absolutely petrified the wife in the process....
Ours also had a speed limiter which from memory kicked in between 80 and 90mph, if you hit the necessary speed the engine would cut out for what felt like a second, this made for entertainment on the long straight roads later in the journey trying to get as close to the limiter as possible without it kicking in.
Don't think I will be buying it though!
Drove it from Las Vegas to La (no I didn't get married in Vegas) and various places in between, one of which was a trip to Death Valley which included a drive on a gravel track. The gravel track started out at least 4 lanes wide and was hilarious fun for 4 wheel drifts at over 50 mph, (hey it was my honeymoon and a hire car so I wasn't worried about the damage the big stones that were being flicked up might be doing to the car) but over time the track narrowed and narrowed to the point where we were driving down tracks little wider than the car that by then had also become very, very bumpy with sheer drops on one side which seemed at the time to only be millimetres away. We found out from a Death Valley park warden / policeman of some description after we got to the end of the track an hour or two later that the track was about to be closed for the end of the season as it was classed as too dangerous to leave open all year round due to the nature of certain parts of the track and the fact that in these sections both CB radios and mobile phones couldn't get a signal / work and thus patrols were constantly made of the track to make sure no one had crashed down one of the sheer drops, had a break down etc etc. At the time the wife and I thought we would just going be driving down a wide flat track for a mile or so thus enabling us to be able to claim we had driven off road in Death Valley, got that one slightly wrong and absolutely petrified the wife in the process....
Ours also had a speed limiter which from memory kicked in between 80 and 90mph, if you hit the necessary speed the engine would cut out for what felt like a second, this made for entertainment on the long straight roads later in the journey trying to get as close to the limiter as possible without it kicking in.
Don't think I will be buying it though!
ScoobieWRX said:
I'll stick to my 96 Toyo 3rd Gen Surf. It's way cooler than this and does 27mpg (3.0 Diesel) on a run.
I don't see the allure, even for under a 'bag o sand', and it's fugly as sin.
There's no way it does 20mpg, and it must easy weigh a couple of tons.
Just working through the comments - certainly a vehicle chosen well to generate 'debate' in here - and thought this point worth a reply.I don't see the allure, even for under a 'bag o sand', and it's fugly as sin.
There's no way it does 20mpg, and it must easy weigh a couple of tons.
I've got a V8 Grand Cherokee, which weighs a fair bit, but it mostly returns just over 20mpg locally, increasing to 25mpg on longer runs. And, for a one-off, I recorded 30mpg on a long and gentle run up the M1 to Leeds :-o (however, I had no wish to repeat the gentle acceleration and 75mph max speed needed to do that)
Would you think that the V6 GM lump uses more petrol than the V8 Jeep, maybe if the power/torque/weight ratios aren't so good?
eta: Jeep consumption down to 13mpg when towing at speed though!
Edited by rutthenut on Friday 12th October 13:34
Out of all the yank SUV's I have driven I actually thought this was one of the better ones. They aren't as bulky as the Grand Cherokee's /Explorers and the V6 isn't a bad engine really. I wouldn't buy one for the UK but then I wouldn't look at any petrol 4x4 as there are far better options for my needs.
In late 1995, when these first came out, I was working in the US. The boss had just bout a new one for his Mrs and I got ride in it (the Blazer) a few times and drove it once.
Interior and exterior styling and subjective and in this case it was very American, which was fair enough. I though the quality of the interior was on a par with the low end Hyundais of the era. I'm no connoisseur of ride and handling, but this thing scared me to death. The engine had loads of low end grunt, put your foot down and it just took off, then shortly after, the body would catch up with a twang. I mistakenly thought the power would just keep coming, but once it got out of the wafty part of the power band it just got harsh and gave up. Added to that, the transmission was very reluctant to kick down, a heavy duty Allison auto in a Peterbilt truck gave much better shifts. A load of rubbish really, but for shed money, it might be a laugh. Until you rolled it.
Interior and exterior styling and subjective and in this case it was very American, which was fair enough. I though the quality of the interior was on a par with the low end Hyundais of the era. I'm no connoisseur of ride and handling, but this thing scared me to death. The engine had loads of low end grunt, put your foot down and it just took off, then shortly after, the body would catch up with a twang. I mistakenly thought the power would just keep coming, but once it got out of the wafty part of the power band it just got harsh and gave up. Added to that, the transmission was very reluctant to kick down, a heavy duty Allison auto in a Peterbilt truck gave much better shifts. A load of rubbish really, but for shed money, it might be a laugh. Until you rolled it.
crofty1984 said:
MarJay said:
Maybe you should coax Riggers back?
What's happened to Riggers? I've been away.300bhp/ton said:
Aren't you comparing "on a run" figures for the Toyota's and more normal use for the Blazer though? Yes the 4.3 V6 won't be the most frugal, but it's also offering up smooth, quiet 190hp and 250lb ft and strong performance.
As does the similar aged 2.8 engine in my car, which is far more economical. 
Mark-C said:
SO what do people suggest as an alternative 4x4 for Shed money? I can't see many decent options ...
http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds?Cat...Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff