NickF1011 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 MSNBC - AP article First I've heard of this. Wow. No 7-passenger midsize SUV from GM after February?!??! :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 MSNBC - AP article First I've heard of this. Wow. No 7-passenger midsize SUV from GM after February?!??! :blink: What they didn't mention is the reason Chevie's dropping the mid-size 7-passenger is that they're sale-proof sitting next to a Tahoe. It's problem isn't that it's too large, but not large enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 16, 2005 Author Share Posted December 16, 2005 What they didn't mention is the reason Chevie's dropping the mid-size 7-passenger is that they're sale-proof sitting next to a Tahoe. It's problem isn't that it's too large, but not large enough. Doesn't seem to be a problem with the 7-passenger Explorer sitting next to the Expedition though. :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llog215 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Doesn't seem to be a problem with the 7-passenger Explorer sitting next to the Expedition though. :huh: The Expedition is considerably larger than the Explorer. The Tahoe and Trailblazer XL are closer in size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Doesn't seem to be a problem with the 7-passenger Explorer sitting next to the Expedition though. :huh: It's not- the Explorer kills the Expedition, the same way the Tahoe kills the Trailblazer. Can't explain exactly why (well, then again, maybe I could ), but GM owns the full-size SUV market the same way Ford owns the mid-size market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Isn't the Expy a fair bit bigger than the Tahoe as well? Since the last Explorer redesign, I kind of looked at Ford's lineup as sort of a "plus-sized" version of the GM lineup. Trailblazer's smaller than the Explorer; Tahoe's smaller than the Expedition, and the Suburban was smaller than the Excursion. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 GM makes the 7 passenger midsize SUV's at the Oklahoma City Plant. They are closing the plant and have no plant tooled to make them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Isn't the Expy a fair bit bigger than the Tahoe as well? Since the last Explorer redesign, I kind of looked at Ford's lineup as sort of a "plus-sized" version of the GM lineup. Trailblazer's smaller than the Explorer; Tahoe's smaller than the Expedition, and the Suburban was smaller than the Excursion. ... Now that you mention it... It's funny how manufacturers find a certain "niche" and just lock into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Isn't the Expy a fair bit bigger than the Tahoe as well? Since the last Explorer redesign, I kind of looked at Ford's lineup as sort of a "plus-sized" version of the GM lineup. Trailblazer's smaller than the Explorer; Tahoe's smaller than the Expedition, and the Suburban was smaller than the Excursion. ... Uh, the Explorer isn't really bigger than the Trailblazer. The wheelbase is 0.7 inches longer. Overall length is 1.6 inches longer. Height is 0.3 inches higher. Width is 1 inch narrower. Ford just did a better job of packaging than Chevy did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FRdesign Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The trailblazer EXT was pretty much the size of a Suburban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68Cougar Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Too much product overlap; simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The trailblazer EXT was pretty much the size of a Suburban. That's like saying a Focus is pretty much the size of a 500. :P There's a big difference between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Uh, the Explorer isn't really bigger than the Trailblazer. The wheelbase is 0.7 inches longer. Overall length is 1.6 inches longer. Height is 0.3 inches higher. Width is 1 inch narrower. Ford just did a better job of packaging than Chevy did. You're right. On both counts. The Trailblazer seems incredibly tiny on the inside. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Funny thing with that big Trailblazer. GM saw the thrid seat in the Explorer and thought "Oh crap, we need one of those!" Stretch a body out, and Viola! Problem is, customers weren't amused- they bought Explorers anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 (edited) This is good news for the Explorer. It will still offer 7 passenger seating and the Trailblazer or Envoy won't. Oh well, It won't be sad to see those ugly stretched out beasts gone. I also found some info on GMInsidenews that the redesigned Trailblazer/Envoy has been pushed back to 2008 (possibly longer) and that the Rainier and 9-7x will be cancelled in the near future. If Ford continues improvements with the Explorer they should be getting some of those Trailblazer sales. Mercury should be going after the Envoy with the Mountaineer as the GM models become more and more outdated. There is still a good sized market for midsized BOF SUV's if they are packaged well and Ford has always done a good job with that. Now bring on the new SportTrac and we will see how the Explorer is stacking up against the Trailblazer in sales by this time next year! Edited December 18, 2005 by 2005Explorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Only thing I can say about the extended Trailblazers were that they looked exactly like a pregnant hippo. No offense to expecting hippos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 In the real world, the extended length Trailblazer (et al) was no more efficient at ANYTHING than the regular tahoe was. The trailblazer was narrower, leading to that feeling of smallness in the EXT. The Tahoe was just as fuel efficient (effective, technically, the 6 cyl LWB trailblazer beats it by a mpg or two EPA, but in real life, not so much). The back seat of the Tahoe was more usable and liveable for adults. The Tahoe has a large fleet volume, which the LWB trailblazer never had. In the end, it was the wrong answer to a question that only a few were asking. However, GM will do better, MUCH better with their newer three row crossovers. Ford has got to be on their game to play in that field. Abandoning the Freestyle to Mercury and intro-ing a 2 row edge at the same time that GM will intro a family of three row crossovers will not come out well for Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 In the real world, the extended length Trailblazer (et al) was no more efficient at ANYTHING than the regular tahoe was. The trailblazer was narrower, leading to that feeling of smallness in the EXT. The Tahoe was just as fuel efficient (effective, technically, the 6 cyl LWB trailblazer beats it by a mpg or two EPA, but in real life, not so much). The back seat of the Tahoe was more usable and liveable for adults. The Tahoe has a large fleet volume, which the LWB trailblazer never had. In the end, it was the wrong answer to a question that only a few were asking. However, GM will do better, MUCH better with their newer three row crossovers. Ford has got to be on their game to play in that field. Abandoning the Freestyle to Mercury and intro-ing a 2 row edge at the same time that GM will intro a family of three row crossovers will not come out well for Ford. Dealers out here are so flippin' mad at Ford's handling of the Freestyle launch..... it's pretty hard to describe and stay polite about it at the same time. :angry: If they had made a concerted effort to kill this car from the gitgo, I don't think they could have done a better job. Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Dealers out here are so flippin' mad at Ford's handling of the Freestyle launch..... it's pretty hard to describe and stay polite about it at the same time. :angry: If they had made a concerted effort to kill this car from the gitgo, I don't think they could have done a better job. Unbelievable. I'll bet. The Freestyle is such a great alternative to the Subaru Forrester & Outback, it's a shame that Ford just totally missed that opportunity. And I'm guessing that you live in Subaru country (if it's anything like the Front Range in Colorado). ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 I'll bet. The Freestyle is such a great alternative to the Subaru Forrester & Outback, it's a shame that Ford just totally missed that opportunity. And I'm guessing that you live in Subaru country (if it's anything like the Front Range in Colorado). ... Honestly, the Freestyle IS a great vehicle. How did Ford manage to give up on a vehicle that had such promise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 I'll bet. The Freestyle is such a great alternative to the Subaru Forrester & Outback, it's a shame that Ford just totally missed that opportunity. And I'm guessing that you live in Subaru country (if it's anything like the Front Range in Colorado). ... ]\ My office is about 20 minutes from Timberline Lodge, on Mt. Hood. Guess how many Subarus I see? Even more frustrating, the Chevy side of the biz (yes, we have both) sells Equinoxs like ice-cream cones on a Sunday afternoon. Now there's nothing wrong with an Equinox, but 1) the Freestyle is a better value and 2) it's not an issue of foreign vs. domestic quality. If it was, you couldn't push a Chevy over the curb. That leaves marketing. On the plus side, the new Explorer is going extremely well- and i suspect that's where a lot of the Freestyle biz is going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 Honestly, the Freestyle IS a great vehicle. How did Ford manage to give up on a vehicle that had such promise? Where are we with this anyway? I don't recall any official word from Ford one way or the other about whether the Freestyle was, in fact, going away. It's barely been out for a year. I doubt a final decision on the matter has been made either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Another way that Ford screwed up on this is the idea of naming the Freestyle separate from the 500 which, in my simple mind, doubled the advertising and promotion cost. Why not have shamelessly called it what it is, a station wagon version of the 500. Oh, and if they would have done that, they could have used the same dahsboard and other interior comonents and saved even more $$. Hey, Subaru has been using the term "station wagon" or "sport wagon" for years and they still sell. Back to the orignial topic, the extended Trailblazer, it was a dumb idea. Ford learned it's lesson and decided to stick money into the Explorer by redesigning the rear suspension to independent, allowing the same length vehicle to have a rear seat. Meanwhile, GM, not learning their lesson, took the cheap way out. I wonder how cheap it really was. Explorer is selling like hotcakes and the Trailblazer EXT not selling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Another way that Ford screwed up on this is the idea of naming the Freestyle separate from the 500 which, in my simple mind, doubled the advertising and promotion cost. Why not have shamelessly called it what it is, a station wagon version of the 500. Oh, and if they would have done that, they could have used the same dahsboard and other interior comonents and saved even more $$. Hey, Subaru has been using the term "station wagon" or "sport wagon" for years and they still sell. That's brilliant. I never even thought of them as the same car, though I guess I must have read it on this board before. Marketing types (except at DCX) seem not to have figured out that we're ok with station wagons again. Your 500 wagon idea would have done 3 things: 1.) It would have spared us from that not-quite-cool "Freestyle" moniker. 2.) It would have made it look like Ford had invested in a real lineup for the 500, instead of barely having the resources to put a single model out - with none left for advertising, and needing to wait a year or 2 for an upgraded engine. 3.) If it would have shared more of the 500's pieces (as you suggest for the dash) and styling, it would have looked much better. Although the 500 is accused (including by me) of blandness, it is at least a handsome and well-proportioned design, and contemporary enough, unlike the Freestyle. The Freestyle is also bland, but not in a handsome way. The thing already looked dated at its debut. For some reason - forgive me for repeating myself, because I've said this before - it reminds me of a Diebold cash machine: that sort of bland, insipid, anonymous American industrial design aesthetic that's supposed to fade into the background, like the person who designed it. There is not an energized line on the entire car nor, on the other hand, is there any particular harmony to it. Making it a variant of the 500 would have given it more the character of the Volvo X90, VW Taureg, or Subaru Outback - any one of which I bet is selling better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 The Freestyle is dead talk is from the notoriously illinformed media. I worked out the Freestyle sales rate at ~78,000 per year and the entire Chicago plat @ ~198,000 per year... That's almost 40% of the entire production run. There's no way Ford can kill the Freestly without killing Chicago at the same time. My guess is that Chicago will add a Mercury version of the Freestyle, add a Lincoln version of the Five-Hundred, and keep the three existing nameplates (Five-Hundred, Freestyle, and Montego) in order to keep it humming along. As for getting back on subject... The extended Trailblazer was actually as long as a Tahoe without any of the benifits. The Tahoe matches its fuel economy and has better egonomics. This is simply good sense comming back to the ute world after years of throwing things on the wall and seeing if they'd stick. That type of throwing money around doesn't happen in a shrinking market. The body on ute market isn't going away, but it's "hot factor" is gone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.