Goodbye Hummer!

[ErikCLDR]

But that was pre-SUV days as in Jeep Wagoneer and IH Scout era.

*Pulls out childhood memories*

The good old Jeep Grand Wagoneer. I must have been 3-4 when that picture was taken since my sister looks 7-8. I loved that car. I was so small when my parents owned that i remember my legs sticking to the hot leather seats in the summer. IT probably got like 13mpg, weighed a lot and had a massive V8.

 

[killr_b]

Propaganda much?

Truth.

This doesn't make the Hummer OK. Or any of those trucks for that matter.

A few people's opinions doesn't make them not OK.

A Subaru does just as well and gets better gas mileage.

No they don't. Not even close.
Check out the stock H3 action.

An H2 and H3 have the same "Hummer specs." That is, the same ground clearance, step-up and water fording depth. The H1 has almost twice the ground clearance at 16", six inches deeper water fording, six inches higher step-up, and 2.9 times the price tag of my H3. H1's are huge. My friend's father-in-law has one.

Stock Hummers outperform all other stock vehicles. That's what they do. They don't skimp on the parts, which is why they are so heavy. The H3 Alpha added even more forged iron and steel parts to replace aluminum for added strength and durability.

 

[K3mp]

They are a prestige/"look at me" vehicle. I've ridden in two and they are really uncomfortable, small cabin space, hard ride and have poor handling.

What kills me is I bet 95% never leave the road. If they did, I'd have more respect for the brand and its owner.

Hopefully Suburban is next. Then Expedition. Than Sequoia.

RIP.

I agreed with you on the first part but some people need expeditions and f-150's or whatever V-8 you want to make fun of. Not everybody lives in a urban area where everything is paved and there is no need for a 4x4 V-8 truck/SUV. If that was the case I would agree but there are still rural areas. Where I live most people have a small car for town and a truck/SUV for hauling and going off-road to do work. As a matter of fact my cousin is on the list for a smart car. He and is dad always use an f-150 for work though. My dad lives in a VERY rural area and we have both a f-150 and 2 cars. He is a lawyer but his family has been in the logging business for over 150 years. We have over 1100 acres of pine. Although most of the time we use 4-wheelers to cover our land, we still need a truck. My Mom live in the city where we have an X5 and a 330ci. They do what we need them to do. And it is the Merc owners that act like they own the road.

 

[luckygyrl83]

I blame Hummer

I am soooo happy to hear this. Hummer gets like 10 mpg on hwy. No one should have this car. Even the military have access to better cars nowadays.

 

[cycocelica]

Truth.

Thank you for proving my point.

No they don't. Not even close.
Check out the stock H3 action.

I already said that this was the extreme. I will go ahead and adventure that 90% of all Hummer owners don't do that kind of off roading (Same could probably be said about Subaru as well).

For the standard off roading people do, the Subaru works just as great.

 

[quagmire]

Thank you for proving my point.





I already said that this was the extreme. I will go ahead and adventure that 90% of all Hummer owners don't do that kind of off roading (Same could probably be said about Subaru as well).

For the standard off roading people do, the Subaru works just as great.

The thing is though, the H3 was designed to do that stuff. Same with the Wrangler. Vehicles like the H3, Wrangler, etc were designed to do those extreme cases of off roading. It is another case if the owner actually does it.

 

[chapel321]

Well, I have a 2002 GMC 2500 HD(I use it to pull my heavy equipment for my side job.( I do landscapes on the side..tractors and such must be hauled) I also have a 2003 H2 Hummer, which I use for fun OFF ROAD and rarely drive on the highway. As the others have noted...my Hummer and my GMC truck have the same exact engine and same fuel consumption( like the soccer moms in the Suburbans). There is NO WAY any smaller vehicles would pull my 8000lb to 12000lb trailers. So....you can hate on me for the Hummer I use for fun but I must have the GMC 2500 HD for work. Oh well, at least I'm "going a little green" with the Macs I use!!

 

[ErikCLDR]

Truth.



A few people's opinions doesn't make them not OK.



No they don't. Not even close.
Check out the stock H3 action.

An H2 and H3 have the same "Hummer specs." That is, the same ground clearance, step-up and water fording depth. The H1 has almost twice the ground clearance at 16", six inches deeper water fording, six inches higher step-up, and 2.9 times the price tag of my H3. H1's are huge. My friend's father-in-law has one.

Stock Hummers outperform all other stock vehicles. That's what they do. They don't skimp on the parts, which is why they are so heavy. The H3 Alpha added even more forged iron and steel parts to replace aluminum for added strength and durability.

Hummers are not that impressive off road. Personally I'd take an H3 over an H2. The only real hummer is the H1, which I think is the only one they should be making. First off the H2 is too big, making it difficult to maneuver. More importantly they're so chunky and have such bad visibility, I don't see why you'd want to take one off road.

I wouldn't say they outpreform all other stock vehicles (we're talking about the H2 and H3 since they don't sell the H1 anymore).
I could get an LR3 and wade through 27.6" of water or get a range rover and have 11" of ground clearance (vs. 9.7 in the H2, or 8.5 in the H3) , be able to see where I am going, and I wouldn't look like a d-bag. The rovers also have cross linked Air suspension meaning all the air can deflate out of one air shock so you get maximum articulation. You also get a nice car that has been built from the ground up, not something that takes part from every other car GM is making. My parents touareg is equipped with the air suspension package and has a whopping 11.8" of ground clearance and a rear locking differential. Yes, thats more than 2" on the H2.

Personally best stock offroad car would be a series land rover or antique land cruiser. They will go anywhere.

 

[killr_b]

Thank you for proving my point.

Denial much?

Hummers are not that impressive off road. Personally I'd take an H3 over an H2. The only real hummer is the H1, which I think is the only one they should be making. First off the H2 is too big, making it difficult to maneuver. More importantly they're so chunky and have such bad visibility, I don't see why you'd want to take one off road.

I wouldn't say they outpreform all other stock vehicles (we're talking about the H2 and H3 since they don't sell the H1 anymore).
I could get an LR3 and wade through 27.6" of water or get a range rover and have 11" of ground clearance (vs. 9.7 in the H2, or 8.5 in the H3) , be able to see where I am going, and I wouldn't look like a d-bag. The rovers also have cross linked Air suspension meaning all the air can deflate out of one air shock so you get maximum articulation. You also get a nice car that has been built from the ground up, not something that takes part from every other car GM is making. My parents touareg is equipped with the air suspension package and has a whopping 11.8" of ground clearance and a rear locking differential. Yes, thats more than 2" on the H2.

Personally best stock offroad car would be a series land rover or antique land cruiser. They will go anywhere.

First of all, no land rover has 11" of ground clearance. And definitely not the LR3. I'm not even gonna bother going to the site, I can see my neighbor's from here. What are those? 35 series tires, what a joke. You have to have fat tires and deflate them slightly to do real off-roading. That thing's riding on rims.
H3 w/ off-road package, 9.5" clearance. I got it.
You could get air suspension if you wanted for your Hummer, but it already has a crazy amount of wheel play. And independent suspension for rear wheels is not a good idea because the differential will get caught and scrape. Off-road package also includes locking rear differential.
Maximum fording on a land rover is most likely the same 24" as the H3.
And visibility- I can see just fine. I know it seems like it would be limited, but the way the blind spots actually work is great. If you can't see the car in your side mirror, then it has to be right out the rear passenger window, plain as day. And with the back-up camera, I have no problems driving and parking on sunset blvd. in those crazy little parking lots.

And LR3s cost 10-15k more than the H3 Alpha.
And they're FORD made…

 

[hulugu]

I dont know how they can kill the H2 and continue the brand. the H3 hasn't been around that long so when people think Hummer, they think of the H2....

I disagree with this, the H3 is a fairly well-designed version of the H1 and carries the brand better than the H2. Frankly, the H2 seems like a half-assed effort compared to the H3.

...Stock Hummers outperform all other stock vehicles. That's what they do. They don't skimp on the parts, which is why they are so heavy. The H3 Alpha added even more forged iron and steel parts to replace aluminum for added strength and durability.

I'm not sure about this, having never seen an H2 or H3 in the dirt, much less doing anything impressive, but according to this article, the H3 does pretty well against even the vaunted Wrangler. Although, I'd like to make the caveat that this is the new Wrangler, which for old-school Jeep-lovers, just isn't as good as previous models.

The problem with the H2 (and H3 ) is the drivers. I hate to make such a prejudicial remark, but H2 owners drive like complete idiots, it's as if there's a stupid-ray attached to the dashboard. I blame the overall design of the vehicle.

The H3 is pretty good, I'd like to see it survive GM's culling, although I think GM needs to work hard on the MPG numbers.

Is the H3 using the 5-cylinder engine or was that phased out?

 

[quagmire]

Is the H3 using the 5-cylinder engine or was that phased out?

It is still using the 3.7 Inline 5. The V8 is an option.

 

[tjcampbell]

Hummers are for C _ _ _ S!

 

[SubaruNation555]

My big issue is that I always hate pulling up at a light next to a Hummer/Suburban/Expedition/Sequoia/etc and thinking if I was ever in a collision with any of them how screwed I'd (or my passengers) would be.

 

[cleanup]

This thread has ridiculous commentary.

First I just want to say, those nickel-hydride batteries for electric cars… where do you think they get all that nickel? Answer: from the largest source of air pollution in North America, a nickel mine in Sudbury, Ontario. And it's not CO2 that mine ejects, its sulphur dioxide.

I grew up in Sudbury, and I have to ask, what kind of comparison are you making? The largest source of air pollution? Larger than what? Than any other nickel smelting plant? Than a city? Sudbury's been heralded for how well they've managed to restore the ecological integrity of its surrounding ecosystems. Some damage has been done, but that damage is being reversed. During my 15 years in Sudbury I inhaled the cleanest air I've ever encountered. If you want air pollution, go to Los Angeles or Shanghai.

 

[cycocelica]

Denial much?

I am just curious if you even read that article?

Evidently not or if you did, than the Big 3 and Oil Companies have got you right where they want you.

Let me break down a couple of things, and try to explain why CNW Marketing Research was a joke of a report.

The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.

This is probably the funniest thing I have ever read. First off, Toyota offers a 150,000 mile warranty in some states, so who the hell knows where they got 100,000 from. And a Hummer lasting 300,000 miles? Seriously, where is a tissue box, I am crying.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

Umm, yeah, so? This has been happening for years, well before the Prius ever came along. It would happen regardless. Plus if you look up Sudbury, you would see it has cleaned up. Oh and the Hummer actually uses more nickel in its frame than a Prius. Imagine that. AND nickel is an easily recoverable material in the recycling of a car.

To continue further, yes, it does take more energy to research and make a brand new car. But the fuel saved while driving a Prius makes up for this.


Oh and your buddy who wrote the article, yeah, he wrote a recantation.

So like I said "Propaganda much?"

 

[robbieduncan]

So like I said "Propaganda much?"

I'm not going to defend Hummers. They're hilariously terrible. But the Prius is not particularly fuel efficient. The Times here in the UK tested one against a BMW 520d (yes a diesel car, shock horror for the US) in a real world situation. The big BMW returned 50.3mpg, the Prius only 48.1mpg. Now they could have done the test with a smaller car, closer to the Prius size, or a less powerful (more efficient) diesel closer to the Prius performance, but they didn't need to.

 

[iJohnHenry]

OK, remember when GM killed the electric car?

Get ready for this one kiddies.

Th!nk.



Particularly the Ox, due out around 2011.

 

[cycocelica]

I'm not going to defend Hummers. They're hilariously terrible. But the Prius is not particularly fuel efficient. The Times here in the UK tested one against a BMW 520d (yes a diesel car, shock horror for the US) in a real world situation. The big BMW returned 50.3mpg, the Prius only 48.1mpg. Now they could have done the test with a smaller car, closer to the Prius size, or a less powerful (more efficient) diesel closer to the Prius performance, but they didn't need to.

This "study" has its flaws as well, but I will stick to the topic.

 

[ErikCLDR]

Denial much?



First of all, no land rover has 11" of ground clearance. And definitely not the LR3. I'm not even gonna bother going to the site, I can see my neighbor's from here. What are those? 35 series tires, what a joke. You have to have fat tires and deflate them slightly to do real off-roading. That thing's riding on rims.
H3 w/ off-road package, 9.5" clearance. I got it.
You could get air suspension if you wanted for your Hummer, but it already has a crazy amount of wheel play. And independent suspension for rear wheels is not a good idea because the differential will get caught and scrape. Off-road package also includes locking rear differential.
Maximum fording on a land rover is most likely the same 24" as the H3.
And visibility- I can see just fine. I know it seems like it would be limited, but the way the blind spots actually work is great. If you can't see the car in your side mirror, then it has to be right out the rear passenger window, plain as day. And with the back-up camera, I have no problems driving and parking on sunset blvd. in those crazy little parking lots.

And LR3s cost 10-15k more than the H3 Alpha.
And they're FORD made…

'
Denial Much
ground clearance (inches): 11.1 (range rover)
(http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/land-rover/range-rover/specifications/index.html)

Tires make a huge difference and yes, the stock tires that come on rovers suck. But that's because it gives a better ride to have appropriately sized tires for cars instead of a 6" sidewall.

The LR3/RR sport can go through 27" of water. I don't know if I have to cite that too for you.

The Hummers Air suspension isn't crossed linked, meaning air cannot be let out of one shock but not the others. Therefore the Land Rover has a better air suspension system.

 

[jb60606]

Couldn't they put a hybrid engine in it?

So it can get 12MPG?

 

[Sdashiki]

There will ALWAYS be vehicles for the purposes noted in this thread:

farm work
construction/building
commercial
trailer/towing

Always has been and always will. It is the SUV/Hummers that were crammed down the American public's throats as "THE" vehicle to have. When most didnt need them whatsoever. Suburbans, Yukons and the like will always be there for the Texas rancher or the large family with trailer and boats. So, I wouldnt take personal offense when people say "good riddance" to a horrible idea: a large car in every garage.

I am never astounded anymore when I read MPG ratings on cars. When the EPA did their little "re-evaluation" on how they calculated it a couple of years ago, and most cars dropped a good %....it was sad.

Personally, I dont understand how in over a century the internal combustion engine isnt MORE efficient...especially today. Id rather not get into the politics of why engines are perhaps not getting the MPG we all want.

But still, my 6yr old car gets 30-35MPG. And there isnt a single non-hybrid from the same manufacturer that gets more in the real world. In 6 years, no advances in efficiency. Why the hell not!?

You shouldnt need to turn your SUV into a hybrid to get the same MPG as a sedan.

 

[robbieduncan]

But still, my 6yr old car gets 30-35MPG. And there isnt a single non-hybrid from the same manufacturer that gets more in the real world. In 6 years, no advances in efficiency. Why the hell not!?

Maybe not where you live. We have plenty of cars here in Europe that will do more than 40mpg in real work usage. Hell my Elise managed to return 32mpg blasting up the motorway at 95mph. If I drove at 60-70mph I'd get to near 40mpg.

 

[QuantumLo0p]

I hope they kill off civilian Hummers. I'd be more for them if they had better MPG but they're just an absolute waste.

I could not disagree more. Exactly, what is wasteful and what is not? What is the specific value for thermo dynamic efficiency at which we decide the magic number as a vehicle being acceptable or not acceptable?

What if a Hummer were hydrogen powered? Perhaps it could be more efficient than a prius. Not to mention the data suggesting a prius has huge carbon footprint (much more than many vehicles) before it even rolls of the showroom floor. Time is marching on. Nothing is written in stone. (except taxes and death) Technology marches on, with or without you and our kowledge is increasing. The prius probably won't exist in five years in the form as we know it today. Its replacement will be much more efficient and make today's prius look like a tired old honda cvcc death trap.

It is all quite relative and I try to apply perspective to everything. I see most of the knee jerk reactions to large vehicle decline has more to do with neo Marxist social re-engineering than anything else. If rash alarmists would be a bit more patient everyone could be satisfied in the short as well as the long term.

I also see the neo Marxists desire to eliminate the classes but this is in total conflict with free market not mention a free, democratic republic.

Neo Marxists hate people who have more than they do regardless that the "haves" see the need to be educated, work hard to earn their wealth and, in the case of business, risk much to become self sufficient and grow a business to employ workers.

That is my two cents but I do not expect pseudo open minded people to understand logic and fact because they are mired in situational ethics.

Don't shoot. I am just a messenger with hope that common sense will prevail.

 

[ErikCLDR]

I don't think the future of cars lies in hydrogen technology, or at least thats not how it's looking at the moment.

To get the hydrogen you either run electricity through water or get it from oil. In that most of America is powered by fossil fuel power plants it just means more nonrenewable resources will be used elsewhere. Yes, we can develop nuclear, and we should but too bad we're years behind and it'll never happen because of environmentalists. We could use wind, but its not that efficient and doesn't work if it's windy, and solar is extremely expensive and doesn't work 1/2 the time.

Furthermore hydrogen cars have saftey concerns and storing hydrogen is dangerous and takes a lot of energy because it needs to be compressed.

 

[quagmire]

I don't think the future of cars lies in hydrogen technology, or at least thats not how it's looking at the moment.

To get the hydrogen you either run electricity through water or get it from oil. In that most of America is powered by fossil fuel power plants it just means more nonrenewable resources will be used elsewhere. Yes, we can develop nuclear, and we should but too bad we're years behind and it'll never happen because of environmentalists. We could use wind, but its not that efficient and doesn't work if it's windy, and solar is extremely expensive and doesn't work 1/2 the time.

Furthermore hydrogen cars have saftey concerns and storing hydrogen is dangerous and takes a lot of energy because it needs to be compressed.

Hydrogen is no more dangerous as gasoline is. If a hydrogen tank does rupture, the hydrogen will disperse too fast for a decent chance of ignition where gas will just leak and create a puddle.