Not so long ago if you wanted serious room in a GM SUV you had to buy a Tahoe or even a Suburban. The Blazer was very compact inside. Then Chevolet introduced a new mid-sized SUV for 2002, the TrailBlazer. Unlike the Blazer, the TrailBlazer is not based on a pick-up chassis. This frees it from the compromises forced by a shared platform: a compact size, poor chassis rigidity, and a certain cheapness of construction (compact pick-ups to be competitive must be quite cheap). The change in size is especially noticeable. Length has increased by 8.5 inches, width by 4.2 inches, and height by 5.2 inches. We’re talking major growth here. Next to the new vehicle, the old one looks quite small.

One thing the TrailBlazer lacked was a third row seat. This was a problem, as the also new for 2002 thoroughly redesigned Ford Explorer had an optional third row seat. The new Explorer had a space-saving independent rear suspension, so this third row seat fit, if only barely, into a vehicle little larger on the outside than the previous generation vehicle.

To match this feature in the TrailBlazer with its live rear axle, GM had to perform some major surgery. Sixteen inches were added to the standard TrailBlazer’s 114” wheelbase, creating a TrailBlazer EXT model with a wheelbase equal to that of the huge Suburban. Three inches were also added to the rear part of the roof to provide decent third row headroom. (This bump is successfully disguised by the luggage rack.) Notably, the vehicle’s width remained the same, so while the TrailBlazer EXT is very long, it remains much lighter and promises to be more maneuverable than GM’s full-size SUVs. Is this the answer for those who want much of the capacity of a full-size SUV, but without all the bulk?

Chevrolet TrailBlazer Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Chevy TrailBlazer rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.

To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

The TrailBlazer is very brawny looking, from the bulged fenders to the thick bar that crosses the front end. Unlike in the past, the GMC and Oldsmobile models use different metal. (Though the Oldsmobile will be leaving us in a couple of years, a new Buick SUV will inherit its car-like sheetmetal.) At first I thought the Envoy was the most attractive, but over time the more aggressive styling of the Chevrolet has won me over. It never fails to catch my eye. It helps that the most common colors suit the TrailBlazer’s styling very well. I’m less ambivalent concerning the extended models. The Envoy XL has a visually separate, smaller appearing window for the third row. It looks downright strange to my eye. The TrailBlazeer EXT’s third row window uses the same smallish opening but surrounds it with a large band of heavily blacked-out glass, such that the third window is visually continuous with the first and second row windows. Somehow this looks better. While the EXT’s proportions remain strange for an SUV, and are far inferior to those of the standard TrailBlazer, the overall package has a certain strange appeal. It somewhat resembles the SUV-based stretch limos I see from time to time, except this one’s from the factory and designed for families, not party rentals.

Though the three GM SUVs share a bit more inside, the interiors are similarly differentiated. I initially preferred the round vents, metallic trim, chrome-ringed gauges, and two-tone leather of the Envoy. The major problem with the Envoy interior is that the materials used could be richer. In both SUVs the cloth seats appear very pedestrian. The material resembles that in a Chevrolet car. A more textured, more rugged, altogether more trucky cloth would help. Many of the pieces on the dash, doors, and console are the sort of plastic that has a hard surface and makes a loud, hollow sound when tapped with your nails. Given the mediocre quality of the materials in these interiors, the more conventional interior styling of the TrailBlazer works better. Of course, better than either would be a stylish interior with rich-looking materials, but GM can’t seem to fit such an interior within its product budget. GM owns 20% of Subaru; they should study what that company did with the $21,000 Forester X.

Accommodations and amenities

The TrailBlazer’s driving position is fairly good, but could be better. The header is nice and high, but the dash is also high. I’d personally prefer the dash a couple inches lower. The TrailBlazer’s A-pillars (those flanking the windshield) are also quite thick, or are at least turned so that an unusually wide pillar is presented to the driver. The upshot is you feel a bit like you are gazing through a tunnel.

The cloth front seats in the vehicle I drove offer good support fore-and-aft. Power height and recline and manual lumbar support are standard on the LT, the middle trimline with the standard TrailBlazer but the only one available with the EXT. Sadly, these seats provide virtually no lateral support. In the regular TrailBlazer I felt this was a major problem. In the EXT, it’s less of a problem, as this vehicle is too long to be tossing through curves anyway.

Second row passengers are treated very well. The rear seat also offers good support, though again side bolstering is nonexistent. The cushion is just a tad too low to provide proper thigh support to someone of my height (5ֽ”), which makes it a bit better than that in the average vehicle. Rear seat passengers get their own vents and heating ducts, their own fan speed control, and (with a few packages not on the vehicle I drove) their own radio (which outputs to a pair of headphone jacks). A DVD-based rear entertainment system is a $995 option (not on the truck I drove). These can be a lifesaver with kids on long trips. A shoulder belt is provided for the center passenger in the rear seat, a rare feature in an American-brand vehicle. Another sign that GM went the extra mile with this truck in many areas (just not in interior materials).

Comfort in the third row is relative. It’s better than in the Explorer, and much better than that in Chevrolet’s own full-size Tahoe. In the Tahoe the third row seat cushion sits right on the floor, so it provides no thigh support to anyone over three feet in height. The TrailBlazer EXT’s third row provides thigh support for people up to four or even five feet in height. Like I said, comfort back there is relative. It’s still not equal to that in a long wheelbase minivan, and I still wouldn’t want to be an adult back there for very long. For an adult-sized third row in an SUV, the 2003 Ford Expedition is the way to go.

At least getting to the third seat isn’t too difficult. The rear doors are extra long, courtesy of that long wheelbase. The second row seats tumble forward using a single lever, opening up a wide path.

Without its optional third row seat, the Explorer has a larger cargo area than the standard TrailBlazer. The stats put the difference at about 10%, but the difference is noticeable. Also noticeable is the lower floor in the Explorer. But the TrailBlazer still does very well here. It does provide ten cubic feet more cargo volume than the old model, a very significant increase. The EXT makes a big difference here. Compared to either the Explorer or the Tahoe it offers much more cargo capacity with the third row in place. In the other vehicle the third row seatback is just inches away from the tailgate. In the TrailBlaxer EXT the seatback is over a foot away from the tailgate. Aside from providing more cargo capacity, this should also increase third row safety.

To increase cargo room, the third row seat cushion must be pulled forward and then the seatback folded. These operations cannot be done through the tailgate, an inconvenience. With both rows folded, the TrailBlazer EXT has 100 cubic feet of cargo capacity, vs. 82 with the three row Explorer or standard TrailBlazer, 105 with the Tahoe, and 132 with the Suburban. Okay, it’s still well short of the Suburban, but a lot of stuff will fit in there.

Then there is the matter of the liftglass. It is nice to be able to open the rear glass without opening the entire tailgate if all you have to do is throw in a shopping bag or two. The problem is that SUVs tend to be so high off the ground that it’s not always easy to throw something in through the glass. With the new Explorer, Ford has addressed this problem by having some of the door open with the glass, so that it is like a door within a door. This reduces the liftover to a very manageable height. The TrailBlazer has a conventional liftglass, so throwing things in through it will be difficult for shorter people.

On the road

Currently GM offers only a six cylinder engine in the TrailBlazer. This might seem to put the GM vehicles at a disadvantage relative to Ford, Jeep, and Dodge. But a quick look at the new six’s spec sheet suggests otherwise. The new six is an inline design, not a V. Though less compact than a V6, an inline six is inherently smoother and more durable. Theoretically it is even superior to a V8 in these areas. Add in the performance benefits of four valves per cylinder and variable valve timing, and the new GM six is also more powerful than the eights offered by the competition—and not just by a few horsepower. With 275 horsepower, the new six is not only far and away the most powerful base engine offered in a mid-size SUV. It even has thirty-six more horses than the Explorer’s optional eight-cylinder engine.

I was very impressed with the power and smoothness of this engine in the standard TrailBlazer. In the EXT, however, it has 350 lbs. more mass to haul around. This takes the edge off. The engine still doesn’t feel weak, and even manages to burn some rubber when floored coming out of a turn (interesting sensation, feeling a tire spin somewhere well aft). But it feels slower to respond, and less energetic when it does respond. In short, it’s no longer sporty. Maybe this is to be expected with such an extreme increase in wheelbase? It can chirp a tire here and there, but driving this long of a vehicle aggressively ranks up there with those people who put limos sideways in action flicks. Kinda neat, but definitely wrong.

For those who desire more power, and especially more low-to-mid-range power, Chevrolet will be offering a 5.3 liter V8 in the EXT later in the model year. This V8 will have an aluminum block to keep weight down. It will produce only fifteen more peak horsepower, but fifty ft-lbs. more torque—netting nearly twenty percent more horses in the mid-range. This will be especially useful for towing.

That V8 would be superfluous, especially when not towing anything heavy, if GM added a gear to its transmission so that the gear ratios could be closer together. As it stands, when the transmission shifts engine revolutions fall almost in half. The torque band of this engine is wide enough to deal with this, but performance would be significantly better with an extra gear. It also would not hurt if first gear were a bit steeper, to get the engine up into its powerband quicker. I have had similar issues with the four-speed automatic in the Cadillacs with the Northstar system. For those into such details, the truck I drove had a 3.73:1 rear end. The six-cylinder (but not the V8) TrailBlazer is available with a 4.10:1 rear end, so stronger performance is possible, at the expense of fuel economy.

Aside from having only four speeds, the automatic does a very good job. I never felt it hunt back and forth. It always shifted very smoothly, and seemed to shift very close to the points at which I would if I were shifting for myself. For casual driving, the new engine pairs with GM’s proven transmission to provide outstanding performance. Under moderate acceleration, they simply shine. The engines makes its nice sounds, engine revolutions stay fairly low, and you just have the sense that if you ever need more power it’s just a tip of the throttle away.

The same basic conclusions apply to the suspension. Despite the solid rear axle, the TrailBlazer EXT rides much better than the Explorer. The standard Bilstein monotube shocks probably deserve a good portion of the credit. While you can feel some road imperfections, especially at low speeds, the shimmying and shuddering that was so disappointing in the Explorer is absent here. This truck feels solid, though not quite as rock solid as I recall the regular TrailBlazer feeling.

What’s more, the TrailBlazer EXT on fairly smooth roads has the fluid, precisely controlled motions of a luxury sedan. Aside from some humming from the roof rack in strong cross-winds, the ride is also quite quiet for an SUV, though somehow not as quiet as I remember the regular TrailBlazer being. Perhaps because I drove a Yukon Denali right before driving the EXT, and the Denali definitely had a quieter, more luxurious feel to it? I do not recall the non-Denali Yukon’s ride being as quiet and luxurious-feeling as the Denali’s, but then I guess the extra cash required to buy a Denali must go toward something.

Handling, aided by large 17" tires and those Bilsteins, is quite good in the regular TrailBlazer. Sure, it has its faults. The steering is too light. The vehicle leans a bit more than the Explorer or even the Expedition in turns. The rear sways a little in aggressive maneuvers (the Yukon Denali behaves similarly; part of the GM truck DNA?). And the limits of the chassis remain well below those of the average sport sedan. But somehow I actually enjoyed driving the TrailBlazer. Despite being a tall, heavy vehicle, it had a certain tossable quality to it. The EXT gives up something here. That long wheelbase takes away much of the nimbleness of the regular vehicle, even though the turning circle remains under forty feet. The EXT’s steering doesn’t respond as quickly. The truck feels like it wants to just keep going straight, forever. But everything’s relative. It is more maneuverable than a Suburban.

I did not take the TrailBlazer EXT off-road. Though the push button 4WD includes a button for 4-Low, I suspect this vehicle is a far too long and too softly sprung for serious off-roading, even with the optional on/off-road tires. The truck I test drove was clearly intended and tuned for maximum on-road comfort. The four-wheel-drive, which also has an automatic setting, is there for snow and unpaved roads. On these surfaces I suspect the EXT would perform well.

Still, I imagine that there are some people who take Suburbans places that car-based SUVs fear to tread, places where 4L does come in handy. With a stiffer suspension the TrailBlazer EXT would do well there. I just don’t know where there is. An isolated cabin? A ranch? When I see the TrailBlazer EXT in work truck form, or at least with an optional off-road suspension, I’ll know that it’s seriously intended for the serious four-wheel-drive market, and not just winter runs to school and the mall. For suburban use, a car-based SUV seems a better bet for those who can’t stomach the negative image of a minivan.

Last words

I’m having a harder time warming up to the TrailBlazer EXT than the shorter version. The extra length further improves the ride, but takes the edge off the engine and deadens the handling. Since the vehicle with the 16” wheelbase stretch makes no sense off-road, especially since the only available suspension is optimized for on-road comfort, the weight and handling compromises required by the truck frame buy little or nothing in return.

The EXT is far from alone with its strange mix of attributes. Anyone strongly considering a Suburban or Yukon XL should at least give the TrailBlazer EXT or Envoy XL a look. But better choices for most people include the Honda Pilot and Ford Expedition, depending on the specific needs involved. I’d suggest checking out a good minivan as well, but know well enough that most people considering a large SUV already know that a minivan is the most sensible solution to their needs, just one they wouldn’t be caught dead in.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough up-to-date new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Amount Paid (US$): 33,860