The Royal Salute: Chevrolet Trailblazer (2005)

June 05,2005

THERE’S NO DENYING THAT SOME PEOPLE SIMPLY CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT A SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE. Perhaps it’s the product of being Opus Dei, but the fact is they need at least seven seats and a large enough load space for all clutter. And although the Toyota Fortuner is enticing enough, some still prefer a lifestyle vehicle cum people carrier with bags more of kudos. Enter the American-style SUVs: large, dominating, towering and able to swallow the wife and five kids in massive comfort. But while you’re itching to head over to Ford’s showroom for the excellent Explorer, sit down and read on. You see, while Ford has been churning out guilt-less vanilla ice-cream SUVs, their American rival, Chevrolet has dished out one hot tamale of an SUV: the Trailblazer.

As you approach this piece of metal from any angle, it’s not impressive—initially at least. It may have more character than the dull-as-kitchen appliance Explorer and it may have the trademark headlight ‘slashing’ front grille; but for the most part, it’s formulaic and boring. But while it scores a flat line in the looks department, much like the Explorer; the former has one ace that the Blue Oval missed out on: getting the size right. The Explorer may be a capable 7-seater in its own right, but the third row bench is compromised of head and shoulder room. And what’s more, you don’t get enough luggage space even for a day trip. On the Chevy though, you get better breathing space plus a fraction more space for that weekend trek up Baguio.

Head to head, it’s easy to conclude that the Trailblazer has the size advantage is due to its longer body, given that the Trailblazer falls somewhat in the realm of the Expedition’s 5.2-meter length. Continuous glances at the side view mirrors not withstanding, the Chevy is actually more adept to driving on small streets thanks to its narrower length. Visibility is good with larger glass panels on all sides, though larger mirrors and a rear back-up sensor system should be added to ease backing into those tighter parking spaces.

Manageable bulk aside, the Chevy also has the upper hand in the steering and handling department thanks to its more responsive steering rack. Though twirling the four-spoker is like twirling a dinner plate, it’s certainly more linear and has less dead center than the Expedition. In addition, the lower ride height and center of gravity gives the Trailblazer a less floaty experience especially on higher speeds. Compared to its size rival, the Explorer, though, the changes are much more subtle. Both are wallowy (given their truck origins), but stable enough as not to cause mental images of accidental rollovers. Both have equally comfortable rides, but the Trailblazer is less susceptible on choppy surfaces. And both have good brakes, but the Ford manages to have a better pedal feel.

The main advantage of the Trailblazer though is what lies underneath the squared-off hood and ladder-on-frame chassis. The Vortec 4.2-liter inline-6 delivers a noteworthy punch of 275 horses and 373 Nm of torque—figures equaling the Ford’s 4.6-liter V8! The way the power is delivered is immensely smooth and refined too, no hints of putter and roughness anywhere. Mash the right pedal though, and it’s easy to know why this modern American muscle of an engine made it into Ward’s list of Best Engines in the world. It’s a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde case with the creamy smoothness turning into an addictive growl that’s not out of place in a BMW! The Trailblazer’s slush box may lack a forward gear versus the Explorer, but don’t be fooled: the Chevy has a more refined shifter. The shift points are more transparent and relaxed, especially given that the Explorer suffers from a rather “tug-filled” sensation between first and second gears. The Trailblazer’s electronic four-wheel drive system is more advanced too. It has the Ford’s 4WD auto, high and low modes but adds a full two-wheel drive mode—perfect for those gunning for better fuel economy.

But before writing off the Ford Explorer has a has-been in the realm of full-sized SUVs, it still has the advantage in terms of equipment levels. It enjoys a full-leather interior, wood grain paneling, a moon roof, a 6-disc in-dash CD changer with 6 speakers, dual climate control and electronically adjustable front seats and pedals. On the flipside, the Trailblazer doesn’t even get the luxury of leather seats and CD changer, while only enjoying a price advantage of 100,000 pesos. Split that amount over a period of 12 months, and the difference gets even smaller. The addition of the value-oriented Explorer XLT makes the Trailblazer’s specs a harder proposition to swallow since even the base Ford has everything that the single Trailblazer variant has. The Chevy does have the odd integrated voice recorder—perfect for recording directions, spying in on passengers or perhaps even playing Captain Kirk.

And so, these two American SUVs have left buyers with a difficult choice: a bigger SUV with more refined mechanicals, or a smaller SUV with a ho-hum engine but better specifications? It depends on who’s making the decision. Family men will be enthralled with the Trailblazer’s performance, refinement and excellent size, but the bachelors will certainly like the Explorer’s more manageable size and the Blue oval’s brand prestige. Being a bachelor myself, I’m awarding my two million pesos to the Ford. However, the Explorer’s advantage isn’t as large or dominating as it may seem. In fact, I don’t consider the Trailblazer to have lost here. The fact that I’ve begun considering a full-sized SUV besides a Ford is proof enough that Chevrolet is beginning to press the right buttons. Their products are increasingly becoming competitive, and that alone should act as a wake-up call for Ford if they plan to continue their market domination.

By Ulysses Ang | Photos By Jason Ang

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.