When trawling for CCs out in the mystic East, one does not often catch American metal. But Japan has a stronger connection with the US than places I’ve lived in before, and I’ve been seeing a few more American cars here than in Thailand or Myanmar. Case in point: I found a classic “K5” Blazer, sitting in a quiet neighbourhood. However, I was not too sure what to make of it, and the more I looked and learned, the less I understood this Blah-zair. Or is that Blay-zurr?
See, I didn’t even know how to pronounce it – that’s the English language for you. So no, I’m not overly familiar with these machines. I cannot remember the last time I saw one of these, or their Suburban big sister (yes, I’m electing to give these a gender, and they’re female. I don’t know why exactly.) Unlike Jeeps, Blazers were never popular in Europe and are perhaps not as charismatic as other Chevrolet products, like the Biscayne or the Vega. Ok, I’m being sarcastic, but the fact remains that “Blazer,” to a good many foreigners, sounds more like a garment or a misspelling of the word “blasé” than a Chevy.
The idea behind the initial Blazer, in the late ‘60s, was GM’s answer to the Jeep, the IH Scout and the Ford Bronco, based on the Chevy Suburban / C-10 pickup. It was pretty a good idea, except that convertibles were on their way out and that the Blazer / Suburban started to bloat up at an alarming rate. The 1973 redesign, with those characteristic oversized square wheel openings, really changed the look of the vehicle and made the wheels look a little lost in there, though that’s perhaps only true on this particularly peculiarly-shod example. However, the front wheels seem a bit off-centre, which is a trait I’ve seen on other Blazers.
Chevrolet Blazer brochure excerpt, 1977
By MY 1976, the genuine drop-top had morphed into a short wheelbase Suburban. The rear could be canvas-topped if one so wished, but the GRP top was becoming the more or less default option. Combined with the decidedly wagon-like tailgate, complete with wind-down back window, the Blazer turned into a two-door wagon on stilts. The great thing about Suburban and Blazers was their combination of a simple yet sturdy frame and drivetrain with 4WD. I for one always figured that anything this big and high off the ground was necessarily equipped with 4WD – it sure looked like they were designed that way. But no, you could get RWD and IFS if you so desired. Same with the Scout, but not the Bronco or the Jeep CJ, as far as I know.
Our feature car is one of those RWD-only Blazers (a.k.a. the C-10, like the pickups — theoretically, “K5” should only apply to 4WD models). I’m not seeing the floor-mounted transfer lever down there, just a column shifter. And what looks like door cards from a mid-‘80s Blazer, too – Blazers from this era did not have power windows. Incidentally, this is another GM product from the era when they felt the need to wrap the dash around the driver – another ‘70s fad that leaves me wondering what they were smoking with their Quaalude and peyote space brownies back then.
Body-wise, I kind of like the profile of this truck. The square wheel openings are very ‘70s and work pretty well, assuming the wheels are big enough for them. The rear is fine too. But I’m really not too fond of the front end. It’s needlessly bland and brick-like, without any attempt at a curve or any non-right angle. It’s more akin to masonry than automotive design. The previous generation (1969-72) Blazers had a much more handsome mug, in my view.
I have no idea what engine this truck has – it has an automatic transmission, so I believe that theoretically rules out the 6-cyl. base motor. Either the 305 or the 350 (5.0 and 5.7 litre) V8s should be in there, producing something like 145hp and 165hp respectively – all to operate a two-ton Lego truck. The fuel economy must be in the single digits, unlike the 0-60 time.
So to sum up, here is a two-wheel drive two-door wagon that’s much bigger and heavier than it needs to be, wearing a face drawn with an etch-a-sketch. It used to be fully convertible, but no longer. It has a gluttonous appetite but not much power and it has an instrument panel shaped like a Mad Magazine fold-in. And it’s got all the drawbacks of the Suburban but none of the usable space.
The question I’m struggling to answer, then, is: What was the point of this Chevy Blazer, particularly the C-10 / 4×2 version? I’m sure there was one – GM probably wouldn’t have made these for almost two decades without some sort of justification. My skimming of a few online forums, articles and blogs further impressed on me the fact that this generation of Blazers and Suburbans were not exactly great quality vehicles, on top of everything else (especially the later ones, it seems, though YMMV). They are definitely “iconic,” because everybody says so, but that is probably more a function of their long production life, rather than their intrinsic qualities. I can understand the appeal of the 4×4 version or of their gigantic Suburban sisters, and I really like the earlier full drop-top ones, but this one escapes me.
Related posts:
Curbside Classic: 1980 Chevrolet K5 Blazer Silverado – The Charlton Heston Of Chevy Trucks, by Stainsey Stainselstein
Curbside Classic: 1971 Chevrolet K5 Blazer – It Redefined The SUV Genre, by PN
Auction Capsule: 1972 Chevrolet K/5 Blazer CST – Don’t Mess With Grandma, by Jim Grey
In-Motion Classic: 1981 Chevrolet Blazer K5 – The Shape of Things to Come, by Yohai71
Curbside Outtake: A Chevy Blazer (K5) in the Blazing Sunshine, by PN
CC: 1978 & 1979 Chevrolet Blazers – Tall, Wide, And…, by Andrew Turnbull
It looks lowered to me a bit, maybe that’s why the front wheels appear “off center””?? 305 or 350 is likely engine, but even the 292 I6 was available with auto transmission. My first vehicle was a 81 C10, and it was definately taller than this Blazer is.
Believe it or not, Blazers, Broncos, and Scouts are red hot in America right now. Add in that the “Squarebody” Chevy trucks of ’73-’87 are also peaking, and this Blazer would be a dream truck for a lot of people.
I think that originally, the Bronco and Scout were popular because they were originally bigger than a CJ-5, but still small enough to be capable off-road vehicles and fit into tight spaces. As the ’60s became the ’70s, even the original Bronco was considered to be a little small and spartan, so the bigger Blazer became a hit, probably in some cases because people wanted to look the part. Like many SUVs, it’s more of a lifestyle look than an actual need.
That Blay-zer has certainly traveled a few miles in its life. My speculation is the name is a shortened version of Trailblazer, one who proudly and triumphantly makes new paths. GM did later use the Trailblazer name.
Fuel economy isn’t great but likely not as bad as you think. My grandfather had a ’79 C-10 with a 305 and an automatic; it got around 15 to 16 mpg, slightly better than my father’s ’84 F-150 with its ever so endearing 300 straight-six.
This is a real catch as most of these were four-wheel drive and rusted into oblivion long ago.
In the 70’s 4wd was not considered a necessity like it is today, it also carried a lot more compromises than it does today. If you wanted an Automatic trans and 4wd and then you got the full time 4wd that got even worse MPG than the standard (part time) system. In the case of the Blazer that also meant a leaf spring front suspension that didn’t ride nearly as well as the 2wd and its coil spring IFS.
Say you tow a moderately sized trailer. This will do better than a car based option, can still carry 5 people w/o moving up to the extra bulk and lower fuel economy of a Suburban or a 3+3 that wasn’t available in a 1/2 ton.
So yeah a more economical, easier to handle option for certain applications.
4-place power window master switch and hard steel shift lever knob – hot stuff!
Doors obviously swapped from a Suburban.
A PW Blazer should only have a 2 switch panel like a pickup.
Perhaps they use one of the spare switches to operate the back window.
It’s obvious that you’re not a truck person based on this article. This, and the smaller versions that came after it, S-10, Bronco II, and the Cherokee were the beginnings of the modern day SUV.
You miss the point entirely when it comes to this vehicle. In the 70’s if you needed something that fit the requirements of a truck e.g. off road capability, towing, hailing gear, etc. and needed to carry more than two people comfortably and wasn’t a Suburban this was your only option. This vehicle could haul a two plus two family and all their gear to go camping, etc. and still fit in a regular parking space when mom needed to get groceries.
And now that all of the Gen X’ers are nostalgic for their childhoods these vehicles continue to climb in price as they are modified into what we really wanted as children.
I sometimes wonder if the Blazer’s multi-decade popularity and longevity surprised GM. First envisioned as a niche vehicle that combined open-bed attributes of a pickup along with the closed-body-and-second-row flexibility of a utility vehicle, it really excelled at neither. But along the way, people kept buying them, and the fiberglass tops rarely came off.
Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, whoever would have guessed that such a formula would have enduring appeal?
The appeal of the Blazer was largely in its size: it was the first full-sized SUV of its kind. It’s pretty clear that Ford and International misread the market by making theirs so compact.
The buyers of the Blazer were typically the same kind of youngish men who today drive big jacked-up pickups. The Blazer was a key player in the creation of that segment of the market. They could drive it to work and use it to bounce around river beds and other off-road sites on the weekends, with plenty of room for big coolers of beer and a few friends.
The Blazer was never taken very seriously by the old-school off-road crowd, as its size was a relative disadvantage. But it created a huge swath of buyers that resonated with its in-your-face swagger, typically sitting on oversize tires and a lift kit.
Of course that didn’t apply to all of the market for them, especially the 2×4 versions. In Texas and other parts of the country where the lack of mountains and snow made 4×4 unnecessary, the 2×4 versions were just a simple, rugged utility wagon.
” It’s pretty clear that Ford and International misread the market by making theirs so compact.”
Well there wasn’t really a market to read when IH introduced the Scout. Sure Jeeps existed but they were very crude and didn’t work that well as a daily driver. IH certainly did misread the market with the original Scout in thinking that only about 25% of the people would buy order the “All Wheel Drive” version. In fact when the first year was over only about 25% ordered 2wd.
Ford clearly thought that the Scout couldn’t go unanswered and they copied the Scout’s formula pretty closely.
It wasn’t until the Bronco’s relative success that GM decided that they needed to answer that. The Blazer was just the cheapest and quickest way to get something to market.
I’d bet it was as much dumb luck that it found a wider audience as it was due to their better reading of the market. However by the time they did get around to bringing out the Blazer there was an actual market to read. Many times it is beneficial to be second, or third to an emerging market.
The other thing that did help them of course was the fact that it was based on a full size truck which meant it was capable of towing more. That also helped when car towing capacities started to fall.
I also think the fact that they offered the IFS 2wd version broadened its appeal significantly. It was definitely the best riding of the bunch. But again that was more making due with the parts available in the bin than anything else. It was simply the cheapest way to build it and offer the lowest “starting at” price they could to get people in the door.
I agree that my wording there is not really reflective of the circumstances. You’re right; the market for 4x4s was still in the early days. And at the time, the 4×4 Suburban and Travelall weren’t nearly as big as the Suburban got to be later.
I agree; it was essentially dumb luck. And it’s not like the Blazer set the market ablaze in its first few years. It really came into its own in the ’76-’79 years, when the boomers had money and off-roading was the new hot thing, having effectively displaced hot rodding. That’s what really made the Blazer: a shift in interests of younger men.
The Blazer essentially became the Tri-Five Chevy of a new generation. Affordable, gobs of cheap parts, and easy to keep going, It lasted for a long time. There’s still some out there like that, jacked up with big wheels and noisy exhausts. Although it’s becoming a nostalgia thing now,like the Tri Fives were.
It definitely replaced hot rods for a segment of young males. My next door neighbor of my first house had a Nova when I moved in. We were both in our early 20’s
It was the cliche hot rod, big and little Cragars, Radial T/As, slapper bars, headers, lumpy cam and even bow ties sand blasted into the quarter windows. He had started building in HS but had retired it from daily duty and used a LUV for that.
About a year later he brought home a Blazer. It was a low mile grandpa rig that had almost all of the option boxes checked. The strange thing is that it had the 4sp behind its 305. He did leave it stock, though when time for tire replacement came around he did go large than the stock.
It did become his commuter, and the Nova came out of the garage less and less.
To my mind these were the 4 door pickups of today for their time. In the 70’s pickups were still mostly regular cabs and a true crew cab was a serious work truck. The people who I remember buying these were people who wanted a pickup, needed a back seat and felt the Suburban was way to much vehicle.
In musing about its model name (haha! too funny), I will just add that I do like “Blazer” a lot better than “Trailblazer”, which was retired. When the 2002 Trailblazer replaced the outgoing Blazer, I thought to myself, “that extra syllable is just one too many”. It seemed obvious to me that the Blazer would be blazing trails without that being explicitly stated.
I have a soft spot for these K5 models. A factory in my hometown of Flint, Michigan used to build them.
I agree about the name Trailblazer… it seemed unnecessarily forced, like if Ford named a new model the “Wild Mustang.”
The name is back, a new “Trailblazer” was just recently introduced in the U.S. for the 2021 model year. This time around it’s a lot smaller, and will be in the showroom with the regular midsize Blazer.
Somewhere I read that Henry Ford II wanted to base the original Bronco on the F100 but Lee Iaccoca talked him out of it.
The F-100-based Bronco was planned for 1974, but the energy crisis put that on the back burner for another 4 years.
I had it pegged as a 2WD as soon as I could see it had 5 lug wheels(4WD had 6 lug wheels) . This was really the first to be labeled as a Sport Utility Vehicle at the time if I recall correctly. I Had 3 Blazers that I drove on the beach in Massachusetts. All with 350 4speed with a granny low and manual hubs- the real deal. Being exposed to salt year round, rust was a problem as with all trucks of that era. This design really fit the bill for me and lots of folks who actually utilized the 4WD for more than driving over a snow bank.to get out of the driveway after a snow storm.. BTW the 292 was never used as they where for 3/4 ton and over.
The first use of something like Sport Utility was by Ford, it was one of the models of the Bronco. It was actually Sports Utility and that was the pickup version. The other options were the Wagon and Roadster, both of which were classified as passenger vehicles, not trucks.
Ehhhh, what’s in a name?
This Blazer has probably been repainted, my recollection is that the detachable roof section and adjacent cab roof. was always white or black and never body color. The metallic grey also doesn’t look very 70s. The interior definitely matches my memories of a family friend’s 76 C5 Blazer, although theirs was from New England and deposited a pile of rust every time you slammed the doors.
I used to own a 1991 K5 4WD Blazer….The color of those door panels is identical to the interior color of my Blazer….but of course mine had two window switches rather than the 4 on the transplanted Suburban panels of the featured vehicle.
My truck was two tone….Black primary color with gold secondary color. 5.7 V8 with the auto O/D.
I owned mine from 1992 to 1999 when gas was cheap so the 10 mpg city and 15-17 highway was not as painful when filling the 31 gallon tank.
The truck was hard on rear universal joints….I had to replace them two or three times under my ownership and I did not abuse the truck..
The rear driveshaft had a sharp downward angle between the transfer case and rear axle due to the short wheelbase and I believe that this sharp angle put stress on the rear u joints.
I liked the truck….bought it used with 11,000 miles on it and sold it with 100,000 miles on the odometer.