We’re such suckers! Here we thought we had this 1976 GM Mystery Concept all figured out. I accepted Jim Cavanaugh’s rational deduction/guess of a design concept for the upcoming gen2 Isuzu Faster/Pup/LUV as logical; at least more than any of the others. I did continue to have some serious nagging doubts, as it was looking more full-sized to me and the rear spring hanger is actually quite different than the one on the Isuzu. Frankly, I was just getting a bit eager to see the whole episode go away. I don’t like being stumped, and I’ve never been this stumped.
But CC’s Don Andreina wasn’t satisfied with that outcome, and contacted the GM Heritage Center to ask if they had more shots and any info. And what they sent back makes it certain that Jim’s guess is way off base. You’re going to have to send that prize back, Jim.
As soon as I (and Don) saw this shot, it was 100% obvious that this was not a styling exercise or concept, or ever came out of the GM design Center. Nothing like this utterly generic front would ever have been done there. The setting is all wrong too; a crude floor and curtains.
And that was confirmed by the response Don got from MGHC:
Hi Don,
Here are 2 contact sheets of 8 photos of the truck from our database and
a reply from a retiree from GM Truck Design.Definitely not at design staff.. looks like something that might have
been done at Fisher Body or Chevrolet engineering.. don’t remember ever
seeing that…door frame and windshield from the 1967-72 truck, rear
bumper from a 73 truck.. my guess would be a 2 door Blazer concept using
the longer wheelbase and overhang of the Suburban chassis. Probably a
clinic / engineering evaluation model showing a lift glass and mini drop
gate concept that never made it to production.
Yes, definitely not at design staff. And yes, possibly done at Fisher Body or Chevrolet Engineering. But I can’t agree with the rest of it. The door frame and windshield are definitely not from the ’67-’72 truck, or any other production truck. I absolutely ruled that out by careful examination. And it’s definitely not sitting on a Suburban or Chevy pickup chassis. The rear springs are totally wrong for that. And that alone is a big part of the mystery. As well as why all of the rest of the truck is unique, and not just a redone Chevy Blazer, Suburban or pickup.
So there’s the part about the tailgate. Yes, it’s not a stock tailgate as used on the Blazer or Suburban. Even the bumper isn’t from a Blazer or Suburban, although its pretty close. But not close enough, so they made a new bumper that looks similar but is slightly different. Makes sense. And look at that front wheel negative camber. I’ll bet there’s no front suspension up there at all. And the rear spring are looking like they’re not even be attached to that “axle”. Dummies. I suspect the frame is just two straight rails to mount the body to, and the axles are rigidly attached to it. And the handle on the rear hatch is drooping. Dummy indeed. The only items we can be reasonably sure about as being from the GM parts bin are the wheel covers, and maybe the door latches. Maybe not.
The highly innovative tailgate has an 80/20 split, with a mini-tailgate and a large hatch above it. Seems kinda’ dumb to me. What possible advantage would it have over the stock tailgate and hatch?
Here’s the tailgate down and the hatch closed.
Don also buys into it being an engineering/body exercise for the purpose of evaluating the new tailgate design:
My opinion; an engineering study purely for the feasibility of the rear hatch, nothing to do with current GM models – deliberately anonymous. Note the pockmarked surfacing on the front fender, this was a no-budget (for GM) effort – maybe even only produced for an internal clinic, but more likely for some outside testing. Total parts-bin effort with a hint of 67/72. That face says everything about how this is not a Styling job
Well, it’s about as good as any explanation. But it’s still highly unsatisfactory. If the body/engineering folks wanted to evaluate a new tailgate design, why the hell would they create a complete new dummy vehicle to do so? Yes it is a dummy, as it has no hood opening whatsoever, and I’m now totally convinced that the chassis is a dummy too.
Why not just use a production Blazer or Suburban for this purpose? That would make 1000 times more sense than building a fiberglass dummy vehicle to evaluate a tailgate. And why build it as a long wheelbase version, when that didn’t seem at all a viable concept, given that the four door Suburban was a much more practical configuration. And build a tailgate with that odd and impractical 80/20 split?
Don thought perhaps this might have been built to test the overall lwb/Blazer concept at a clinic:
Further to that. If this was to be shown in a clinic, they might have deliberately anonymised it as is sometimes done – hence not using a real C/K.
Well, there’s a problem with that line of thinking. When the Big Three test concepts at consumer clinics, the vehicles are finished inside and out to look production-ready. They might lack badges, but they have to be attractive and nicely detailed, otherwise how would anyone compare this to an existing Blazer, Suburban or Bronco? it looks like something from Romania, back then.
Look at the interior of this. It looks military-grade. Primitive, crude, and absolutely not something that GM would consider showing at a consumer clinic. Yuck!! But it’s not military, as per the carpet in the back as well as so many other signs to the contrary.
And again, what’s so odd is that the Suburban had a similar interior configuration, in how its middle seat folded down. But I’ve compared the two, and there are zero recognizable Suburban parts here. And look at that folding front seat. They could have used the Suburban’s middle seat, which also has a split and folds up on the right side to give access to its third seat. But the backrest split on the Suburban is roughly 70/30, meaning two folks could be sitting on it while the right portion folds up. This split is more like 60/40, and again looks crudely put together. Look how high it lifts up. Who knows what that metallic handle is for? And the left side of the seat has a decided tilt to it.
It all looks more than a bit like a wagon from the late 40s or early 50s, except for the carpeting.
Although the Suburban’s spare tire is mounted in the same general area, its spare is significantly lower, partly recessed in a well in the floor.
A completely new dummy truck, nothing apparently shared with a production Blazer or Suburban, except its general size (I’m now quite certain it’s not Isuzu-sized, as some significant general proportions/sizes don’t jive).
So what is this?
I’m totally stumped, probably because I’m too logical. Why would some division at GM build a lwb “Blazer” concept with a silly tailgate, and build a complete fiberglass (presumably) body and interior, and not use a real Blazer as a starting point? Or even any parts? It makes absolutely no sense.
Here’s the best thing I can come up with: it was simply an exercise given to a group of new hires/trainees to teach them skills in this kind of work. But that still doesn’t make sense. It’s just too crude for mid-late 70s standards. Why would you teach them that?
Does anyone have a better answer? I sure hope so.
Wild guess. Trade school class project. Prototyping 101.
Perhaps it was a design exercise for engineering or design students in their last semester before graduating instead of wet-behind-the-ears rookies? Maybe to see who was worthy of being headhunted? The copious amount of parts-bin bits would support that.
An unaccepted vehicle for the filming of Deliverance?
A specially made truck for John “L” DeLorean? Look at the plate 🙂
John “L” Delorean, must be a fictitious relative of John Zachary Delorean, aka John “Z” Delorean. Is this another item of current fake news? “L” for loser sounds excellent, Bravo Doug D.
Even our ROMANIAN COMRADES would disavow any association with “this endeavor”. We assume that no nationalistic slight was intended, Comrade Neidermyer. If a humorous slight was intended, consider yourself reproached, but forgiven. Humour absolves virtually “all”.
The silver handle looks to be to lift the passenger seat up, perhaps by whoever is sitting back there. Lifting it that far and forward would make it a lot easier to get into the back.
Some Range Rovers and Land Cruisers have a similar hatch design where the lower portion is much shorter/smaller than the upper portion. It works fine in practice and reduces the distance caused by the lower tailgate needed to lift over into the vehicle while lightening/shortening the upper portion compared to it being full size. It’s very nice to only open the upper and have easy access to what’s inside without everything wanting to roll out (groceries, loose shotgun shells, dead quail, etc.).
But I have no real idea as to the purpose of this study. It looks too crude for some purposes but much too finished for others. It might just be me but the whole front clip looks to be a different shade of silver than the rest or at least was sprayed at a different time causing the metallic particles to align differently.
Hopefully JPC hasn’t been crowing about his prize too much around the house. This takedown might hurt his Hoosier Pride a bit. 🙂
The Fiat Chroma wagon from the mid 80s had a similar split tailgate, IIRC.
I’m thinking this was some kind of rough packaging study, again possibly for a truck-wagon for LATAM, AP or South Africa? See what it looks like full size?
Back in my architecture school days, we’d do similar, but scale massing models – simple blocking to get a sense of how a building or group of buildings would look, particularly when placed in an existing environment.
I wonder il GMHC has any similar – or more refined – shots from the same time period.
I don’t know that there was a wagon version of the original Croma. The 90s Tempra had this setup, and I suspect its 80s predecessor the Regata Weekend might have too.
I’m sure it made some sense to play around with different tailgate ideas, but why the rest of it? That could have been done a whole lot easier on an actual Blazer or Suburban.
Maybe something from Latin America (Brazil? Mexico?) that’s a mix of American and European parts? It certainly reminds me of the Brazilian-designed-and-made VW Fox wagon.
What American and European parts? The only part that’s identifiable are the whee covers.
I meant to say that the production model, if built, would have likely utilized more familiar parts. I’m assuming that what we see is a design study.
I think from what we know now, we should entirely dismiss the wheel covers as providing any clue as to who built it. Do you really think whoever threw this jalopy together was careful to use hubcaps made by the same corporation? And if so, why not also borrow a taillamp lens or suspension bits or headlamp bezel that’s lying around the warehouse somewhere? The wheel cover could easily have come from a competing make or Pep Boys or the J.C.Whitney catalog. I remain unconvinced that any major auto manufacturer built this. Build-wise, it reminds me more of the Dale than anything from GM or any of the established imports. At least the Dale (one of them) could run under its own power, until it quickly broke. But there’s something about the Bondo-y bodywork, the awful body fits, interior fittings that look like folding office furniture, and a crude suspension that does little than hold up the body, not providing any shock absorbtion or max traction.
These photos also answer a question I had from the original pic: Is that glass or something else? They didn’t seem to have any effect on the color or brightness of the curtains behind them, which real glass would. Could it be molded fiberglass? Flexible mylar?
This is clearly not something GM ever intended to show to the public, the industry, or even small test study groups.
Well, I was at least right about the GM part! 🙂
You are right about this being a real mystery. I had always considered that this was a Blazer or Scout-like proto SUV but that tailgate makes clear that this was no removable roof, unless that little stub of a tailgate was all that was meant to be there with the top off. Which makes less sense than most everything else about this.
I wonder if this had been a rough mock-up/proposal for the original Blazer (or the 73 update) that was shoved to the back of the warehouse when that project went a different direction, and that it might have been pulled out for someone to play with that odd tailgate idea? Pure wild guess.
Also, it looks narrower to me than the production dimensions of the Blazer. Perhaps GM was considering a sub-Blazer-sized SUV that was closer to the dimensions of a Scout or a Bronco? The Blazer was the outlier in size in its early years and maybe some product planners wondered if something smaller was needed?
Sorry, that’s all I got. And return the prize? Damn, Paul – the shipping to get the Chinook out here was bad enough the first time.
Perhaps GM was considering a sub-Blazer-sized SUV that was closer to the dimensions of a Scout or a Bronco?
Well, GM did originally consider a smaller Blazer, as we saw the clay for that the other day. But they decided it would be more expedient to go full size.
What chassis would it have sat on? And there’s absolutely no way they would have considered it as a lwb version, substantially longer than the actual Blazer. That part is perhaps the biggest mystery. if this was on a swb, the whole thing would be a lot easier to digest. Why would anyone want a lwb Bronco-type vehicle?
Apologies JP. I sent this to GMHC after Paul’s first post, but before you won the Chinook – which is presently enroute to Melbourne Australia.
Nyahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The IH Traveler had a fiberglass lift off roof with a hatch and yeah if you removed the top you had no tailgate. Of course the Scout being so modular means that you remove the hatch strike plates, replace them with the tail gate hinges and add the striker in its hole. In fact a number of people have installed a standard tail gate and cut their hatch to make it work like the standard length Scout II.
This prototype’s top construction mimics the 73- blazer design with the seams on each side of the side windows and the interior trim panel does look like it is intended for removal to access the bolts that hold the top down very similar to the Scout.
Oh, the humanity.
I’m wondering about the “L” license plate. Presumably it means something; otherwise why bother with one at all? “Long,” perhaps, given previous guesses about wheelbase, so possibly there was an “S” mockup as well. Or “M,” even.
The tailgate puzzles me too. Maybe you could slide a surfboard in there? All very mysterious.
I’ve heard about a WWII British tank that was so badly designed an example was kept as a lesson of what NOT to do; maybe this fell into that category. “New designers, take a look and tell us what’s wrong here.” 😉
I could see sliding a short stack of plywood in there…
You beat me to it. I was thinking the same thing.
I was wondering about the long wheelbase. With the rear seat folded flat it could probably handle 8 ft or longer length items. Either 4×8 plywood boarding or stack of 2x4x8 lumber.
The 80/20 split tailgate is interesting. As interesting as the 80/20 Izuzu Trooper rear doors.
My thought on the tailgate is that the whole vehicle was to serve some specialized purpose. For example, the vehicle could house some specialized equipment (say, a generator or a pump) which could explain the 2-door, extended layout. The tailgate could function to provide access to hook up to the equipment while still allowing the truck be locked up to keep people out.
On the other hand, the interior mockup doesn’t support this as it looks like its supposed to be a real interior, and if GM was to build such a beast it would almost certainly be based heavily upon one of their existing trucks and not some whole new unrelated model.
I have figured out the unique tailgate. This vehicle was designed to be used for camping with Amazon women. With the bottom gate open and the top gate closed, you both could sleep without the damp night air settling on you, but your treetop lover could extend her big Fred Flintstone feet out into the night so that her legs didn’t cramp up.
You, Sir, have a unique vision.
Looks like a mock up to test new features, instead of an actual model.
Ask “The Shadow.” Rumor has it that he knows. 😉
Kudos to GMHC for providing the additional photos! These pictures have made a fun set of posts.
Yep. Special thanks to John Kyros at GMHC and the anonymous truck stylist he consulted upon my query.
This to me smacks of what we call in our industrial design shop a ‘low fidelity mockup.’ It’s intended to be a quick-and-dirty way to prove out an idea and is generally never intended to be seen by other than the immediate workgroup and perhaps one layer of management up.
Styling is quite obviously not the purpose of this mockup, and I’d hazard a guess that it is indeed the blazer-esque top and tailgate arrangement that was being evaluated. The rest only needed to look enough like a pickup/proto-SUV for context.
That sounds logical. I still wonder what that tailgate was meant to aid in carrying, though. Pipes? 2x4s? Punt guns? Really long pizzas? Such a setup would help keep things from bouncing around, but you couldn’t stack very many of whatever was poking out the back, it seems. Very curious.
And why not just put the new tailgate mock-up on an actual Blazer? Build a whole vehicle to show a different tailgate? That’s the part that doesn’t work for me. And a lwb one at that.
You ever tried getting budget approved to hack up a brand-new vehicle just for a mockup? (c:
Then my question would be – would it be cheaper for GM to spend all those man hours hand building a mock up, or to hack up one of their own cars? (which in reality would cost them a fraction of the retail price)
I’m quite convinced it would have been cheaper to pull a semi-finished car/truck off the line. The doors on this are operable; it takes some doing to fab up unique doors and windows, never mind the rest of it.
Or just pull the rear stampings out of inventory, tack them together and have rear 1/2 or rear 1/4 section, if the only purpose was to evaluate a different tailgate.
If the mounting points are the same, there’s no reason a truck off the line can’t be converted back to stock and sold (at least as a program car). Come to think of it, this applies even if hacking up the roof section was necessary; it probably would be since Blazers had a rear window that cranked down into the tailgate, but at least for mockup purposes any mods could be confined to the fiberglass roof section which would then be replaced before resale.
Perhaps L for “Leak” ( to Chrysler executives, so that they would throw out all of their truck division plans and re-design them for the coming year). I have no idea what this thing is, it is so generic. The door and rear springs looked very Isuzu, until I saw the rest of it.
Perhaps L for “Leak” ( to Chrysler executives, so that they would throw out all of their truck division plans and re-design them for the coming year).
You win!
Thinking along similar lines. A McGuffin, not a real planned vehicle but just enough to make competitors spend money coming up with something to compete with it. I remember seeing a “prototype” of a ’57 Chrysler 300 that was incredibly over the top styling wise, instead of the sleek vehicle they were. It was a fully driveable car, which Chrysler later admitted was there to throw off competitors. In recent years I’ve seen photos of this same car stating Chrysler decided to tone down the original plans for the 300, when in fact it was a McGuffin.
The L could be for lemming, to hopefully lead competitors over a cliff.
Another thought: maybe a proposal by a company/coachbuilder like ASC or Valmet, which would have based it on a production truck?
It’s obvious that GM is involved with this, but I still wonder if this was not actually an officially sanctioned GM project, but someone’s side project who worked at GM? Or perhaps one of their satellite offices did it on their own?
Also, if you look closely at the pictures with the back open, I’m pretty sure that the tailgate is being held open by a piece of string hung from the ceiling. A dummy indeed.
Didn’t some tailgates on some 1950s and earlier wagons and trucks have a string to help support the weight when it was open?
Maybe L is for loser, which is us for falling for the bait some 40 years after the fact.
My final position is, I have no idea what that thing is and I’m good with that.
Is it possible this is not a GM vehicle at all? Again, it might be something done by a Comecon car maker – their idea of a Blazer (Blazersky?).
Well, it came from the GM photo archive. Why would they have anything from anybody else?
It’s a GM “thing”. That much is pretty certain. What, why, when and by whom within GM, that’s another matter.
OK, here’s my new theory.
It’s obvious from the A-pillar forward this is not even attempting to be a functional mockup. There’s no hood, suspension, and barely any attempt to even style the front end. However, the interior seems to be at least somewhat appointed, and the tailgate and side doors open and close.
My guess is that this is an internal mockup meant to try out new ideas in packaging- long wheelbases, folding seat configurations, unique tailgates, etc. that could later be used on real GM trucks.
Why not use as many existing interior parts as possible? The folding rear seat is essentially the same as the Suburban’s. The front seats could have been used out of a Suburban or Blazer. Why fab everything up from scratch?
The only answer I have is “because GM.”
As you said, logic makes figuring this out more difficult. 🙂
Perhaps if you wanted to try out new seat-folding or tailgate configurations, it may have been easier to cut them from big clay or foam blocks than to modify parts from a real vehicle.
It’s a collaboration between GM and one of the major insurance companies, for use in advertisements. They built this because all of their airbrushes got stolen, and the cat ate their homework. There is no other possible explanation.
Mitsubishi actually put that tailgate into production with the Outlander, although I’m not convinced they got their inspiration directly from this…
We’ve got one. It does give a nice low opening, and a good place to sit when you’re parked at a sports event. Pretty pointless otherwise.
An opening bumper – what next!
See Citroën GS Break!
Is there any possibility that this…thing is some sort of proof of concept for the materials used in the truck? Maybe the tailgate or body is aluminum? Interior has some sort of upholstery that costs less to procure vs. more traditional stuff? I’m just spit balling here.
If it was just a design mock up it wouldn’t make sense, because I’m pretty sure clay could be used for that type of work, no?
What of the mentioned up-close comparison is convincing that this not based on ’67 C-truck cowl and greenhouse?
Sure looks like it from casual observation.
The take a serious look at it. 🙂
I thought I looked close and my strong hunch was that it’s a ’67 “C” based greenhouse.
But okay, I’m game, let’s have a serious look…
I hunted for and snagged a random but somewhat comparable size and vantage point picture, thanks to Google Images.
The plan is a more serious comparison by way of a ’67 “C” overlay onto the Mystery vehicle.
To be continued because only one image is allowed per reply.
Seen below is the original image that we will use for the comparison.
Continued…
Next I cut the door out of the random stolen image and made an overlay of about 30% transparency; that turned the black door grey.
The overlay was stacked atop the Mystery image, using the lock cylinder as the match-up target.
Nothing was twisted, stretched, distorted, etc.
The circles are areas erased through the overlay to allow for better comparison of details.
Obviously the leading edge of the Mystery door is different, the rest, to me anyway, is too close to be any other cab.
Seems like it has to be ’67 “C” based, but let’s hear it.
IMHO it has to be ’67 “C” based, but let’s hear it.
What is based on the ’67 C? The windshield? Sure, makes sense. But as you noted, the door itself is a different length. In order to have a longer door, the whole body structure, such as it is, has to be different. Plus this “body” is just a fiberglass dummy. And I don’t see the top of the window frames matching up. The only thing I see that I feel comfortable saying is likely the same is the windshield.
You’re missing the bigger point: this whole thing is a dummy. The chassis is a dummy, there’s no drive train, etc… But sure, why make a new windshield? But that hardly makes this “67 C based”.
We were unsure of its pedigree before.
Now that we know that so many dimensions “hit” spot-on, we know that it has to be brethren to the ’67; that is what was in question before.
The lock-cylinder-to-handle orientation seems exact. Ditto the distance to bottom-edge and top-of-frame. Too many matches to be a coincidence.
As to the windshield… Actually I thought the windshield was different than ’67. I thought the windshield opening was a rework, about on the order of when G-vans switched from gasket-set to
“glued-in” windshield.
We were unsure of its pedigree before.
This following line was from what the GMHC sent,and I included in the post:
door frame and windshield from the 1967-72 truck,
I’ve noticed the obvious similarity from the very beginning. Yet the fact that the door front leading edge is well forward of the stock door proves that although there are similarities, it’s clearly not the rear thing. Why would they modify a door to make it a couple of inches longer, which also means that the inner structure would have been modified too.
My point is this: there’s absolutely no evidence or strong suggestion that any components from the ’67-’74 trucks were used in this, despite certain similarities. meaning, they didn’t start with an actual truck cab/body and modify it. I’m convinced that every component in this is cab was mocked up in from fiberglass or other materials suitable for the job. Except possibly the windshield.
So the point is this: it’s not “based on the ’67 C truck”. it may well be dimensionally similar, so one could call it something like a very crude imitation, but to me “based” means that incorporates components of it, or it was used as a starting point. That apears not to be the case.
Which of curse adds to the mystery. They could have bought a used truck in 1976 for peanuts to use as a starting point for an exercise like this. Instead, they fabbed this all up from scratch.
I’ll second (or third) the cheaply and crudely done comments. Personally don’t think it was done for the North American market. Possibly Latin America. East European?
One thing I noticed is this car has no exhaust, suggesting there is no engine either. The front turn signals and rear tail lights look fake, they appear to be pieces of plastic glued directly onto the body.
The side windows in the cap look wavy, as if they’re made of clear Visqueen roll plastic.
When I saw the front view I thought it could be an early test mule for a Brazilian Chevy Varaneio 2 door Bonanza.
Maybe you are on to something here. The Brazilian Chevrolet Bonanza (1989-94) has a lot of similarity with the mistery concept. There was a GM designer named Lou (Louis? Luke?) Stier thar worked on truck styling at the South American branch and he could have brought this project with him. Also, GM Brazil produced a Chevrolet Veraneio, a 4-door version of the Bonanza. This might explain the stretched rear section. However, those vehicles never had a split tailgate.
The Bonanza is a swb vehicle, like the Blazer. This concept has a much longer wheelbase and body, which by itself is a dubious concept. long wheelbase 2-door utility vehicles like this were long out of fashion by the 70s, for obvious reasons.
I’m really impressed with the feedback from the GM Historical Center. I had no idea that they would have this sort of information. Now I’m curious on that Nomad II FWD X-Body (or FWD A-Body) minivan concept–which was it? Am I right, that it was a design study on a product destined to appear at the same time or after the A-Bodies, or is Scoutdude right, that this was actually an earlier image of an X-Body program that was cancelled in 1978? Or are we both right, ie was there an X-body minivan program that was scapped in ’78 (not this image, but perhaps something else) along with an A- or X-Body minivan program restarted sometime during 1979…. Enquiring minds want to know!!
Good question. Maybe I’ll ask them.
I’m seeing a bit of ’71-2 Chevelle in that nose, especially the “turn signals”.
Could this have been some sort of last-gasp effort of a prototype from Studebaker? They were always scrappy and forward-thinking, and maybe they were working on an idea for a Wagoneer/Suburban rival, or something.
I dunno.
I, likewise, have given serious consideration that this might not have been something from the “Big 3”.
Strange concept for sure. The majority of shots here seem to indicate it was a mule for a rear hatch/folding rear seat configuration. L plate for liftgate? That said, nobody has yet to notice the rear hatch has no glass?
Nor a latching mechanism. Methinks a dummy mocked up simply to see how the idea works at scale.
I see a latch on the side of each piece and what looks like some sort of strike plates in about the right location in the body. There isn’t a latch in the bottom of the lift-able portion since it appears to be intended to be latched down when the lower portion is left open.
It does not however look like a latch from a vehicle from the 60’s onward it looks more like a household door latch.
True, but the smooth surfacing at the top of the lower portion and the base of the upper portion seem a bit too… smooth for a production proposal.
Certainly, far from production ready, there is a complete lack of sealing between those two pieces.
The other crazy idea I had is that it is not a real concept, but a prop for a TV show or a commercial. It almost certainly can’t drive, but I think it would otherwise be passable as a real vehicle. That might also explain the looks if they wanted something that looked very generic. If they needed interior shots, the removable roof and windows would help with that. Doesn’t really explain the weird lift gate, unless that was part of the intended role of the prop.
That sounds about as likely as anything else people have speculated about. It is a real possibility.
Here’s what my bet is . . . this is something significantly older than the ’73 Blazer. This concept was made before the new truck was in production and the public had seen it; hence why the taillights/rear bumper are similar, but not spot on. It could also be that by the late ’70’s GM was thinking of downsizing their trucks to go with the times, explaining the smaller size and proportions similar to a Scout (the leading small SUV at the time.) This could be an earlier engineering mockup for a feature on the upcoming S10 Blazer which ultimately wasn’t used.
that 20% tailgate. perfect way to haul a short stack of plywood (all the weight it was rated for, anyway) in your light duty suspension vehicle without sucking in a buncha exhaust fumes.
Since nothing else is really making sense, I’ll throw this out there.
Are we sure that is a full size vehicle. What if those overhead lights are 4′ tubes instead of 8′ and the truck is a half scale model?
I looked closely at the light fixtures to provide scale. I’m quite sure those are 8′ fluorescent tube fixtures which were common at the time – note that they’re made from two 4′ fixtures (also common) fused together; actual 4′ fixtures are almost always a single piece. Also note the standard sized electrical box visible beneath the spotlight in the corner, which also suggests the nearby fluorescent lamps are 8′ long, helping to provide scale for the mystery SUV.
Trailer Special? That short drop gate clears the crank on the trailer frame when full down, while the hatch isn’t full length to hit the crank while swinging up.
I looked at the pictures before reading text and thought, crazy camber, dummy springs, generic Holden or Opel front end, maybe a functionality buck for some feature rather than styling.
Could it be that if a feature is cliniced on an ugly generic buck but receives favorable ratings it is easier to know that this is due to the feature, not the styling of the vehicle it is demoed on?
Sometimes, today, suppliers build their own generic vehicles to make a point or demonstrate a competence (think Magna’s Hummer in the early 1990’s, or TK’s Incar Concept), only Problem in this theory is that there were not really any suppliers in that era that were not already owned by the Big 3 (Who didn’t need much outside help.)
That’s why I’m thinking ASC.
It does seem like a kitbashing/mashup of a variety of vehicles: door sill ’67-72 chevy truck; front grille chevelle, hubcaps look like from deluxe trim ford, wraparound rear tailights elongated ’73 chevy truck; side body panel looks familiar but can’t place, maybe late model ford courier?.
I rather like it. Reminds me of the late model 7′ long bed Chevy Luv with extended top with split tailgate/hatch and added folding rear seat. Wouldn’t mind having a functional truck like it.
Does the license plate “L” hold any clues?
Whatever it was, I have really enjoyed this piece of Automotive Archaeology., thanks for sharing this.
Its amazing that as crude as it is, they bothered with things like wheel arch trim and sun visors, they went to so much trouble, and for what, it really raises so many questions.
There is more than a little resemblance to Holdens in the early to mid 70s. Could be a design study for a new Ute for down under.
The front grille looks similar to the IH Scout. The 80/20 tailgate would be really nice to have for hauling lumber.
Yup I was thinking the same thing
I am still thinking it was a concept for a foreign market Chevy.
However, I can’t help but think about the book I started last hunting season, “From a Buick 8”, and didn’t get back into until this hunting season… something to do while sitting in a blind. It looks like a truck but isn’t really a truck, like the Buick in the Stephen King novel. Just park it at a gas pump, leave and freak out the local police department.
Maybe it’s a decoy, designed to get everyone’s attention before wheeling out the future mid-engined rotary Corvette on the other side of the building. I’m running out of ideas…..
my guess is that was a prototype in brazil or some european market. im 100% sure its not an american design. i think its brazil.
my best guess is that this concept Blazer was a research study which pre-dated the S10 – at the time GM was partnering with Isuzu when the LUV was marketed as a compact truck and domestic production of a GM compact truck might have originated with this – at first some C/K features eg lift off camper top and a SUV body designed first would have foretold what became the S10 yrs later
That is one strange looking creature.