Hummers why?

[dpaanlka]

Things get personal in flame wars, unfortunately. But much like the title of the thread, it's the Hummer brand that I question. Not SUVs in general. Nor the drivers.

Actually, the H2 and H3 both have quite impressive capabilities for their class. It's not their fault that people buy them with no intention of using them.

Hummer is GM's Jeep. Only they don't have anything small and Jeep doesn't have anything big. They sortof Overlap with the H3 / Commander. The Hemi Jeeps are just as wasteful and polluting I don't see anybody bashing them.

 

[brad.c]

Actually, the H2 and H3 both have quite impressive capabilities for their class. It's not their fault that people buy them with no intention of using them. If they had minds, I'd bet most of them would be incredibly bored with their lives.

Okay, true confessions time. I actually love the look of the Hummer (H1 in particular), which is why I can't fault people for buying them. And as a city dweller who rides the subway any chance I can get, it's just not a practical choice for me. And my inner-environmentalist won't let me have one. There, I've said it.

But I do feel that the Hummer glorifies conspicuous consumption at a time when we should be going in the opposite direction. That's my issue.

 

[dpaanlka]

But I do feel that the Hummer glorifies conspicuous consumption at a time when we should be going in the opposite direction. That's my issue.

But again some people don't think or care about going in the opposite direction. That's just your opinion. Hummer buyers obviously don't care about the amount of gas they use and they have every right to think that way.

Basically, if you want change, it's your job to make the typical Hummer buyer "see the light" for themselves. The solution is not banning the cars or fining people who don't agree with you and wish to buy them. Can't you see why that just isn't right?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Okay, true confessions time. I actually love the look of the Hummer (H1 in particular), which is why I can't fault people for buying them. And as a city dweller who rides the subway any chance I can get, it's just not a practical choice for me. And my inner-environmentalist won't let me have one. There, I've said it.

I like the H1 myself, though if I got one it would have to be an ex-miltary beater, because I would use it like a truck and it would get dinged up. The H2 and H3 look "squished" though, the proportions are all wrong.

But I do feel that the Hummer glorifies conspicuous consumption at a time when we should be going in the opposite direction. That's my issue.

There are two seperate issues here - the SUV as conspicuous consumption and the SUV (and the automobile in general) as a pollutant. One can conspicuously consume without egregiously polluting. I would argue that people who wear their environmentalism on there sleeve are practicing a form of consumption every bit as conspicuous as somebody who drivees a Hummer. They are simply consuming different things. I know of a guy who uses biodiesel in his van - he has stickers advertising the fact all over the thing, and will tell anyone who cares to listen about it. That's pretty conspicuous.

 

[brad.c]

But again some people don't think or care about going in the opposite direction. That's just your opinion. Hummer buyers obviously don't care about the amount of gas they use and they have every right to think that way. Basically, if you want change, it's your job to make the typical Hummer buyer "see the light" for themselves.

Maybe fuel rationing is the way to go. There's been some gas supply issues around Toronto recently, leaving lots of gas stations running on empty. If people were limited to 40 litres per fill, that would change a few priorities.

The solution is not banning the cars or fining people who don't agree with you and wish to buy them. Can't you see why that just isn't right?

Who's talking about banning? It's still legal to make cigarettes. Hey! How about a Hummer that ran on cigarettes!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Maybe fuel rationing is the way to go. There's been some gas supply issues around Toronto recently, leaving lots of gas stations running on empty. If people were limited to 40 litres per fill, that would change a few priorities.



Who's talking about banning? It's still legal to make cigarettes. Hey! How about a Hummer that ran on cigarettes!

40 L per fill would not really limit any thing. All they have to do is fill up multiple times.

Now limiting some one to say 40 L per weak would do some damage.

I still think SUV and trucks need to get gas guzzler tax put on them. it would cause a lot of people to think twice about getting one having to pay an the extra few grand for one.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

But again some people don't think or care about going in the opposite direction. That's just your opinion. Hummer buyers obviously don't care about the amount of gas they use and they have every right to think that way.

I don't think legislating against SUVs is the only answer. Getting more fuel-efficient cars on the road is part of the solution, but ultimately the best solution is to get people to drive less.

We don't need to criminalise certain vehicles in the name of the environment; rather, we need to get people thinking about the ways they can alter their behavior to be more efficient.

Heck, if you can afford an Hummer to cruise around in, you can probably also afford a small used car for a daily driver that gets good gas mileage and meets ULEV standards. I also like the idea of tax incentives for efficient vehicles - this should be expanded to include the new, clean diesels that will be arriving in the states soon.

Carrot and stick, people.

 

[dpaanlka]

I don't think legislating against SUVs is the only answer. Getting more fuel-efficient cars on the road is part of the solution, but ultimately the best solution is to get people to drive less.

We don't need to criminalise certain vehicles in the name of the environment; rather, we need to get people thinking about the ways they can alter their behavior to be more efficient.

Exactly. Convince them. Make them "see the light." Thats the job of the people that want change.

Heck, if you can afford an Hummer to cruise around in, you can probably also afford a small used car for a daily driver that gets good gas mileage and meets ULEV standards.

A lot of people can't stand used cars. Those are usually the people who always buy new cars. It's like used clothes.

 

[brad.c]

40 L per fill would not really limit any thing. All they have to do is fill up multiple times.

Some of the line-ups I've seen would make that prohibitive.

Now limiting some one to say 40 L per weak would do some damage.

I thought that as well, but that would be hard to police.

I still think SUV and trucks need to get gas guzzler tax put on them. it would cause a lot of people to think twice about getting one having to pay an the extra few grand for one.

I haven't priced a Hummer, (or Navigator, or the Escalade, etc.) but I would imagine that status outweighs cost.

 

[dpaanlka]

Maybe there should be a smug "i'm saving the world - you should too" attitude tax as well.

 

[Poseidon]

...
It's also a fact that there are a heck of a lot of cars on the road that get similar gas mileage to SUVs. Where are you going to draw the line? Anyway we still pay much less for fuel than just about everyone else, I think it's selfish to demand cheaper fuel when we alread pay so little. I think the problem lies more with how much we drive and how many cars we own, not the efficiency of the cars per se.

I would tend to disagree with you. While I haven't done a large scale comparison, a little digging at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ (look on the left side where it says "Compare side by side") tells me the your standard car is almost always getting better gas mileage then your standard SUV - by at least 2-4 MPG.

Heck, even if I take my car (2004 Nissan Maxima) which was rated at ~21/28 and drive aggressively (which I do ) - which lowers that mileage - I'm still getting noticeably better results then most of the SUVs I looked at.



As an aside, I wanted to mention something called Terrapass to everyone. Nifty little site you can find at http://terrapass.com/ - basically allows you make up for some of your energy consumption and CO2 emission by donating funds that in turn are used to invest in renewable energy sources and purchase energy credits. Good investment me thinks - I've purchased it for both my car and home; makes me feel a bit less like the fat, lazy American everyone tells me I am.

 

[brad.c]

Maybe there should be a smug "i'm saving the world - you should too" attitude tax as well.

Why would you think it would be smug?

 

[nbs2]

Maybe fuel rationing is the way to go. There's been some gas supply issues around Toronto recently, leaving lots of gas stations running on empty. If people were limited to 40 litres per fill, that would change a few priorities.

And how about restricting the amount of power that people use in their homes?

 

[TheAnswer]

binky2033,

I'm sitting here trying to figure out you rationalize your stance on HUVs with your signature. At least add a qualifier to indicate that we are going to need a bigger, more fuel efficient boat.

 

[brad.c]

And how about restricting the amount of power that people use in their homes?

That's another imprtant concern--and I believe another thread. Too many ideas, still at work.

 

[brad.c]

binky2033,

I'm sitting here trying to figure out you rationalize your stance on HUVs with your signature. At least add a qualifier to indicate that we are going to need a bigger, more fuel efficient boat.

The quote is from Jaws. But it could be a sailboat...

 

[e²Studios]

The difference between my car and my SUV is negligible according to the .gov site that someone posted above.

It's a personal choice as to which car someone decides to buy. I don't see where i would have the right to inflict my opinions and my choices on to someone else, its their money and bottom line its their choice.

I would never own a Hummer, but i certainly wouldnt put someone down or insult someone that did buy one. If you don't like their choice in cars for whatever reason it really doesnt matter, there is no reason to insult them for their choice. Ever heard of that old saying, "if you dont have anything nice to say"...

Ed

 

[takao]

The difference between my car and my SUV is negligible according to the .gov site that someone posted above.

It's a personal choice as to which car someone decides to buy. I don't see where i would have the right to inflict my opinions and my choices on to someone else, its their money and bottom line its their choice.

and it's also my air for breathing

if cars would be actually running on just _money_ nobody would have a problem with others using excessive amounts of fuel

and i would rather much have a few hundreds years more of keeping plastic (8% of all oil is going into (plastic) products.. and looking around us there are are a hell lot of plastic products)

 

[smueboy]

Ed H, that looks like a fair difference over time.
Plus, if one buys a manual (or stick) car over an auto you can save a fair bit of fuel. Also, if i wanted an SUV (or my next car for that matter) i would consider a diesel.

 

[nbs2]

That's another imprtant concern--and I believe another thread. Too many ideas, still at work.

I know - I started that one. My point was that attacking the driver of a fuel consumuing vehicle for his consumption demands that you attack owners of large homes, those that travel extensively (wouldn't it be less damaging to the planet to stay local rather than trot the globe), etc. There is always something to complain about. People just need to get their panties unbunched.

 

[takao]

the problem is that car companies for most part don't care _at all_ to reduce consumption further ...

for example in germany a school for engine engineering tried 1 year ago in a students project to reduce the fuel consumption of a stock car with as little money used as possible

they reduced the consumption of the VW Golf V TDI (hardly a fuel guzzler in the first place) by 15 % ... and that with parts which summed up for 300 bucks ... (without losing power ... actually they gained a handful of HP)

if a class of students can do that together with their teacher in a half-year project i'm sure car companies who use years on a car could do just as well

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I would tend to disagree with you. While I haven't done a large scale comparison, a little digging at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ (look on the left side where it says "Compare side by side") tells me the your standard car is almost always getting better gas mileage then your standard SUV - by at least 2-4 MPG

Fair enough...frankly I'm surprised that larger cars like the Cadillac DTS and Mercedes S-Class get mileage as high as they do - of course that number will probably drop when the EPA revamps the mileage-measuring process. The difference in mileage between these and SUVs is probably due to weight.

I think the thing that really kills mileage in SUVs is that people complain they're slow (due to weight), so the manufacturers cram increasingly powerful engines in them to give them a power-to-weight ratio more similar to a car. So you've got a big gasoline engine that's always working hard, leading to poor fuel economy.

To make SUVs more efficient, they either need to be lighter or have smaller engines - diesels would be a good compromise...

Heck, even if I take my car (2004 Nissan Maxima) which was rated at ~21/28 and drive aggressively (which I do ) - which lowers that mileage - I'm still getting noticeably better results then most of the SUVs I looked at.

My '99 Nissan Altima (5-speed manual) has proven to be quite a fuel sipper. Despite it's large 2.4L 4 cylinder engine, 2900lb weight and my lead foot, I average 31mpg - significantly above its rated mileage, BTW. Cruising at 80mph yields around 29-30mpg, and I have observed 39.5mpg on several long highway trips by setting the cruise at 60mph. I can do about 495 miles on a tank of gas by my estimate (I've actually done 489, and based on what was left in the tank I guessed I had around 6 miles left)...PLUS she runs on good 'ol regular 87 octane.

the problem is that car companies for most part don't care _at all_ to reduce consumption further ...

they reduced the consumption of the VW Golf V TDI (hardly a fuel guzzler in the first place) by 15 % ... and that with parts which summed up for 300 bucks ... (without losing power ... actually they gained a handful of HP)

Manufacturers would love to have a greener image, but I imagine they'd get hung up on the 300 bucks part.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The difference between my car and my SUV is negligible according to the .gov site that someone posted above.

It's a personal choice as to which car someone decides to buy. I don't see where i would have the right to inflict my opinions and my choices on to someone else, its their money and bottom line its their choice.

I would never own a Hummer, but i certainly wouldnt put someone down or insult someone that did buy one. If you don't like their choice in cars for whatever reason it really doesnt matter, there is no reason to insult them for their choice. Ever heard of that old saying, "if you dont have anything nice to say"...

Ed

um I would not call what you have neglibible. There is quite a difference between your 2 vehicle. To be more exact there is bout a 25% difference between the the 2. I don't know about you but I call that a pretty big difference over all.

 

[brad.c]

I know - I started that one. My point was that attacking the driver of a fuel consumuing vehicle for his consumption demands that you attack owners of large homes, those that travel extensively (wouldn't it be less damaging to the planet to stay local rather than trot the globe), etc. There is always something to complain about. People just need to get their panties unbunched.

I'm not attacking any driver or vehicle owner. I'm questioning the validity of the product named in the thread name.

I do agree to your panties position.

 

[e²Studios]

um I would not call what you have neglibible. There is quite a difference between your 2 vehicle. To be more exact there is bout a 25% difference between the the 2. I don't know about you but I call that a pretty big difference over all.

I think 25% is being overly generous, but to me its negligible. I didn't even factor in my commuter car, which would get far better fuel economy than either of the two i compared. I don't keep my cars long enough to make a huge difference either. I turnover my cars every 3 years, im due for a new commuter this year.

I have a 04 Civic that i commute in daily, i drive the BMW on weekends or whenever im not commuting, the Acura see's maybe 2 tanks of fuel a month when im hauling more people or things that wont fit in either car around.

Yes, 3 cars for 1 person. But its my choice, hate me for my choices if it makes you sleep better at night.

Ed