RE: SOTW: Chevrolet Blazer

[Dave Hedgehog]

Cledus Snow said:

I'd rather walk.

QFT

a car that actually looks worse than a range rover, who would have thought it possible

[grosserbaby]

I'd prefer it to a Ford Explorer after all I said.

[E38Ross]

300bhp/ton said:

E38Ross said:

300bhp/ton said:

ScoobieWRX said:

Would you say this was some honest reviewing carried out in the USA. these people should know shouldn't they?

Note the avg MPG of the 1995-2005 Gen long term test result!!

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1995-to...

Do you mean the 15.2 US gallons for all types of use mpg? So just under 20mpg Imperial gallons. So "on a run" as you like to say 22+ would seem highly likely.

Wow, 22mpg from a 195bhp engine in a car built in 1999. Astonishing.

What car where? Can you post a pic please.

However 22mpg from a 6 seater 1.8 tonne 4x4 isn't bad. Not considering the year and power/torque.

Can you site some other 1990-1999 4x4's of the same size, power and performance that achieve significantly better mpg?

BMW X5 will meet those criteria and has far better economy over the 3.0l petrol or especially the diesel.

What do you say to that 300?

Edited by E38Ross on Friday 12th October 17:15

[mat777]

JayMan said:

Paint it white with some left over gloss then do an OJ Simpson style chase across town.

Alternatively, paint it blackj, stick a red flashing light in the windscreen and drive around in black suits and sunglasses..

[dmussoracing]

My dad had a Chevy Blazer. Had to replace the engine four times and the gearbox once. Beware of the bad apple Blazer's!

[300bhp/ton]

Agent Orange said:

What's the off road capability of these like?

I have zero interest in it but would it be a cheap way to do those 4x4 mud play days?

They are ok. Ladder chassis and live rear axle. But IFS front. Not really setup for off roading either. But likely no worse than a Surf, Trooper, Shogun type of thing. But less capable than a Jeep or Landy.

A cheap lift kit and sone MT's would probably help a lot. Not sure if UK ones got the rear LSD, if they did then that's help off road.

[300bhp/ton]

ScoobieWRX said:

0-60 - It's a lumbering oil burning agricultural vehicle where acceleration isn't even thought about. I have no idea nor have i ever thought about it!! Does 0-60 really matter to you in one of these?
138bhp @ 3600rpm
245.2lbft @ 2000rpm

Well seeing as the Blazer isn't oil burning or agricultural then yes it does matter. I don't know the stats but suspect the Surf is in the 14-16 second 0-60mph. The Blazer is a GTI equalling 9-9.4sec. Quite a difference IMO.

But given light to the fact it makes 52 more HP, more torque and is significantly quicker. Then the trade off of 20-23mpg on a run vs the Surf's 25-27mpg on a run isn't really sounding all that bad - IMO.

[irocfan]

E38Ross said:

300bhp/ton said:

E38Ross said:

300bhp/ton said:

ScoobieWRX said:

Would you say this was some honest reviewing carried out in the USA. these people should know shouldn't they?

Note the avg MPG of the 1995-2005 Gen long term test result!!

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1995-to...

Do you mean the 15.2 US gallons for all types of use mpg? So just under 20mpg Imperial gallons. So "on a run" as you like to say 22+ would seem highly likely.

Wow, 22mpg from a 195bhp engine in a car built in 1999. Astonishing.

What car where? Can you post a pic please.

However 22mpg from a 6 seater 1.8 tonne 4x4 isn't bad. Not considering the year and power/torque.

Can you site some other 1990-1999 4x4's of the same size, power and performance that achieve significantly better mpg?

BMW X5 will meet those criteria and has far better economy over the 3.0l petrol or especially the diesel.

What do you say to that 300?

Edited by E38Ross on Friday 12th October 17:15

Chevy Blazer 1983 - 2001

X5 - 1999 onwards

newer car, more efficient engine tech. Leaving that aside I'd point out that IIRC the X5 (when it first arrived on the scene) weren't exactly paragons of reliability....

[ScoobieWRX]

300bhp/ton said:

They are ok. Ladder chassis and live rear axle. But IFS front. Not really setup for off roading either. But likely no worse than a Surf, Trooper, Shogun type of thing. But less capable than a Jeep or Landy.

A cheap lift kit and sone MT's would probably help a lot. Not sure if UK ones got the rear LSD, if they did then that's help off road.

Speak for your own. I get IFS/IRS, LSD and plenty of ground clearance. No worse than a Surf!! PMSL

With the greatest respect my Surf will piss all over this blazer off-road out of the box. It's a Landcruiser LWB chassis so do me a favour!! It's clear you know feck all about Surfs!! Stick to what you know....Or think you know!!

[scrappyloz]

Had one for 2 months brought it cheap to sell on. Terrible off road even though it has an LSD and has the worst quality feel to everything. Nothing inside fits properly and the immobilizer can be a nightmare if it goes wrong.

[UK952]

AC43 said:

Unfortunately it fails the "Would Fred West drive one of these?" test.

brilliant I am crying

[jondutyfree]

UK952 said:

AC43 said:

Unfortunately it fails the "Would Fred West drive one of these?" test.

brilliant I am crying

Fred West may have had his short-comings in the landlord department, but that's not to say that he didn't know his yank SUVs.

[UK952]

Actually 4.3 V6 c190 BHP is that the same engine as the mercruiser in my boat?

[300bhp/ton]

ScoobieWRX said:

Speak for your own. I get IFS/IRS, LSD and plenty of ground clearance. No worse than a Surf!! PMSL

With the greatest respect my Surf will piss all over this blazer off-road out of the box. It's a Landcruiser LWB chassis so do me a favour!! It's clear you know feck all about Surfs!! Stick to what you know....Or think you know!!

Funny how Toyota decided to keep the front live axle on the Hilux as it was better off road than the IFS on the 4Runner/Surf though. You sure you've got IRS? What age Surf have you got, I thought they where live rears. Happy to be wrong though.

[UK952]

Surf is my favourite vehicle for driving the potholed gravel in the Falklands, way better than a defender, ford explorer etc. Not tried Disco 3/4 yet and these look impressive someone overtook me on a really bad section the wheels were bouncing all over the place but the body on top looked smooth as if it was on a motorway. Achieved my highest speed on (very smooth) gravel in a surf 20mph more than my defender record.

[tr7v8]

UK952 said:

Actually 4.3 V6 c190 BHP is that the same engine as the mercruiser in my boat?

Yup Volvo use it as well. It is 205BHP as a Volvo though.

[Buzypea]

I look forward to a nice cold beer and SOTW of a Friday evening.....BUT WTF IS THIS???
Sort the sheds out pleeeeease!!!!

[BeirutTaxi]

tr7v8 said:

UK952 said:

Actually 4.3 V6 c190 BHP is that the same engine as the mercruiser in my boat?

Yup Volvo use it as well. It is 205BHP as a Volvo though.

I think that's the same engine i had in a boat (Rinker V190). Not much more than 4mpg. A day trip out cost £100 back in 20.7, wouldn't like to be filling up at the floating petrol station in Poole harbour these days.

[300bhp/ton]

irocfan said:

E38Ross said:

300bhp/ton said:

E38Ross said:

300bhp/ton said:

ScoobieWRX said:

Would you say this was some honest reviewing carried out in the USA. these people should know shouldn't they?

Note the avg MPG of the 1995-2005 Gen long term test result!!

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1995-to...

Do you mean the 15.2 US gallons for all types of use mpg? So just under 20mpg Imperial gallons. So "on a run" as you like to say 22+ would seem highly likely.

Wow, 22mpg from a 195bhp engine in a car built in 1999. Astonishing.

What car where? Can you post a pic please.

However 22mpg from a 6 seater 1.8 tonne 4x4 isn't bad. Not considering the year and power/torque.

Can you site some other 1990-1999 4x4's of the same size, power and performance that achieve significantly better mpg?

BMW X5 will meet those criteria and has far better economy over the 3.0l petrol or especially the diesel.

What do you say to that 300?

Edited by E38Ross on Friday 12th October 17:15

Chevy Blazer 1983 - 2001

X5 - 1999 onwards

newer car, more efficient engine tech. Leaving that aside I'd point out that IIRC the X5 (when it first arrived on the scene) weren't exactly paragons of reliability....

Not too mention probably half as much again to buy, not as capable off road and according to Fuelly 19-22mpg average.

[E38Ross]

300bhp/ton said:

Not too mention probably half as much again to buy, not as capable off road and according to Fuelly 19-22mpg average.

WTF has the ability to go off road got to do with the MPG? you mentioned heavy 4x4 and mpg of similar power and better mpg, i gave you an example.

an old audi A8 2.8 petrol will weigh more, give similar power, is 4wd and will give much better economy.

you just think of any excuse to make american tat sound much better than it is. some american cars are very good. this one, not quite.