Why is the Hummer hated?!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Sep 14 2007, 08:07 AM) [snapback]512438[/snapback]</div>

Hello ? You have never heard of the Oil Depletion Allowance?

I may be mistaken, but I believe in some years it has allowed some oil corporations to get off paying ZERO taxes. Even if wrong on this, this write-off, ofr using up something that they didn't create in the first place is a HUGE subsidy.

 

The Hummer (2003 H2) was listed in Time Magazine as one of the 50 Worst Cars Of All Time. This is what was written about it:

"One struggles to think of a worse vehicle at a worse time. Introduced shortly after 9/11 — an event whose causes were tangled in America's unquenchable thirst for oil — the Hummer H2 sent all the wrong signals. It was/is arrogantly huge, overtly militaristic, openly scornful of the common good. As a vehicle choice, the H2 was a spiteful reactionary riposte to notions that, you know, maybe we all shouldn't be driving tanks that get 10 miles per gallon. Not surprisingly, the green-niks struck back. A Hummer dealership was torched in Southern California. The H2 was also a PR catastrophe for GM, who happened to be repossessing and crushing the few EV1 electric cars at the time. It all contributed to GM's emerging image as the Dick Cheney of car companies."

I think it's a very good summary of why Hummers really tick some people off.

Here is the URL to the article. It's quite interesting:

The 50 Worst Cars Of All Time

 

I dont hate anything. I can dislike many things, but never truly hate. The hummer is a car that explodes your presence. People always look, smerk, thumbs up, or just dont care. My brother has a black one, and ive driven it a couple of times. when i drive it, i usually average 15-16... which is terrible. The only good thing about the hummer that i can say was that two winters ago we had 3 feet of snow and it drove right out of the driveway with no problem... and it has really comfortable seats. We do have a terrapass on it, like all of our cars, and my brother doesnt drive alot... my dad gave it to him with 2500 miles on it last year and its a 2003.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CapeCodPrius @ Sep 15 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]513003[/snapback]</div>

The low production numbers of the H1,H2 coupled with the fact that many owners don't drive them that much, makes time more of a factor in the lifespan of the vehicle, than actual miles traveled. Expecting 250,000 miles out of a vehicle is not very realistic when you only average a few thousand miles driven a year. Over time; some Hummers will be crashed out of existance, seals will fail along with all other parts of the vehicle aging and wearing, cost of replacing old parts will one day result in the scrapping of the vehicle. As fuel prices go up, the cost of operating "Old Paint" might become too high to justify keeping it. A vehicle is made to haul your arse from point A to point B, the Hummer seems to be left in the stables while other horses are ridden, resulting in wasted resources.

 

The Hummer is a big Chevette with a gasoline addiction.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(deh2k @ Sep 15 2007, 05:58 AM) [snapback]512969[/snapback]</div>

That article is pretty funny, I enjoyed looking at it.

 

Why? I don't disagree with people for the sake of a fight, I am interested in Prius and own one, infact all my cars are toyota.
I answer questions put to me.

Why is this thread about hummer in the Prius main forum?
What is the safety record of Hummer for people outside the hummer in an accident?
What is the reversing safety like? Does it have good rear vision?

Please don't get me wrong, it isn't the drivers of Hummer I disapprove of, it is the use of a very specialist military vehicle as a private car I find abhorrent! Driving a Hummer H1 is the most ostentatious thing you can do on the road. I think driving a Ferrari would be less so.

I guess one good thing about Hummer H1 is if your partner is inclined to hit you they can’t when you’re driving because they can’t reach! I think Isuzu make a better truck.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusOwner004 @ Sep 14 2007, 08:04 PM) [snapback]512827[/snapback]</div>

The first thing to do before any renewable project is to reduce your electric bill first. Effeciency is currently cheaper than extra solar panels.

I bought a "MFD" for my house (theenergydetective.com). With the ability to monitor energy useage I have more than halved my electric bill without a lot of effort.

All of my high use bulbs were replaced with compact flourescents, I've trained myself to turn off unused lights and appliances. And I have been much smarter about my A/C use.

It's just like driving your car. Simple changes can greatly improve your economy. And it's even easier with a house!

 

I watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" today. It was a very enthralling documentary, much better than I had expected. I recommend renting it!

After I was done watching it, I felt even better about my Prius purchase and even more animosity toward GM for buying the H1 from AM General and marketing it to the public.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sean Blumenthal @ Sep 16 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]513395[/snapback]</div>

I had fun watching that movie too, there were some good moments. But it really only showed how GM killed their electric car. All of the other major auto makers killed their EV programs too when California "pulled the plug" (pun intended!)

The movie showed a spot where even Toyota's own Dave Hermance was testifying against California's EV program. GM can be "evil", but they are not the only one!

 

I don't see where anybody could hate a car--perhaps what it stands for, or the people that justify driving them.
Of course, many people are dismayed by the sheer ugliness of all the Hummers--never mind a gas guzzler tax, how about a really heavy ugly tax!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Sep 16 2007, 07:31 PM) [snapback]513485[/snapback]</div>

Yes, they all stopped their programs, but GM was the only one that forceably took the cars back and crushed them secretly (or so they thought). The other folks stopped the program, but allowed the cars to remain on the road at least for a while. GM was the company that was responsible for CREATING the mandate in the first place because they were first to show that a desireable EV could be made. Once the mandate was in place, GM spent the most time and money fighting to destroy it. Others are to blame as well - GM is just the most relevant target.

True. They're just the MOST evil - in this situation at least. Imagine this: You lease a car that you love. It looks and operates like new after 30k mile. The company says you can no longer extend the lease, and you have no option to buy it. We want that car back. NOW. Thanks. It will be scrap in a week. Please buy another GM car. None of the other car makers did that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 17 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]513560[/snapback]</div>

Please don't take my post as praising GM. I do really hate them for the EV1 crushing. But GM is a big company and their staff lawyers spoke (probably loudly).

There are government regulations stating that cars have to be supported for many years after manufacture. The EV1 was the only EV to be built as a TRUE EV. The RAV4, Rangers, etc. were simply conversions of existing vehicles. GM would have had a lot of expensive parts to keep in stock to meet the legal requirements. Most all parts were already out of production. They just considered it cheaper to crush them.

It is really a shame. The EV1 was by far the nicest of the EVs.

 

Lets not forget either that Toyota, Ford and the others were planning to crush theirs. They just buckled under public pressure.

What kills me, is that the US automakers all had working HEVs in the late 90's that were 5 passenger, 72mpg+. The US gov put billions of dollars into the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. In 2001 the government program was killed and redirected at Hydrogen. Soon after, the automakers dropped all of their projects claiming they were too expensive and there would never be a market for them. They basically flushed our tax dollars down the toilet and decided instead to build the biggest, heaviest, least efficient vehicles they could. In my opinion they deserve to have their a$$ handed to them by Toyota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNGV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Intrepid_ESX
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfue...vt_fotw128.html

BTW, I loved "Who Killed the Electric Car." Does it unfairly single out GM? Sure. Does it ignore the many contributions to EV research and design that GM made? Kind of. But, I think what it does well is show the utter stupidity of the whole process. GM creates electric car. CA says, great send us a bunch. GM says, well we're not sure we want to. CA says, well you have to. GM says screw you, we don't want to. GM proves it by scrapping their billion dollar investment and destroying all traces of it. Apparently they showed us. Its also nice to see someone highlight the stupidity of the large GVW tax credit. A friend of mine was doing contract work (engineering, sitting at a computer) and was able to get a $35,000 tax write-off on the biggest diesel pickup he could find because he was self-employed.

Rob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusOwner004 @ Sep 14 2007, 06:16 AM) [snapback]512423[/snapback]</div>

Which points out a HUGE need in federal standards which would decrease the physical and medical damage done in accidents.

All cars and minivans have a required bumper height. SUVs (even small ones), cross-overs and pickup trucks do not. All of these vehicles run the same roads yet when there is an accident between a car and an SUV, there is excessive damage caused by the mismatch (if there is ANY contact at all). Even a rear end collision between 2 SUVs with tailgate mounted spare tires will cause massive damage because the tire and its support crush the tailgate of the rear-ended vehicle. ALL vehicles on the road should have the same bumper height requirements. For the rare person who actually takes their SUV off the public roads, the auto manufactures can design an option that allows the owner to remove the 'street bumper'.

 

OK, so why do I hate Hummers? We can generally exclude H1s since as you said, there aren't all that many of them out there and they are likely not on the road much.
1. They are the embodiment of excessive consumption. The "I'm an American and if I can afford something, screw the impact to society, I don't care about them" attitude.
2. It would be hard to find anything less well suited to the task of a 5 passenger public road transportation vehicle. If they got 50 MPG, it might be a different story.
3. It is also a poor 'work horse' vehicle. Gas hogs like Expeditions, etc can seat 8, get better mileage, have larger cargo areas and can tow more weight than an H2.
4. As noted in my post above - the relative damage in an accident. If you are the driver of the H2 than runs over a car and kills the occupants, how do you live with yourself?? Why do H3s have tow rings in the front, does GM think it will need to be towed frequently? They will certainly cause a lot of damage in even a minor accident.
5. You can complain about sports cars that get lousy mileage compared to a Prius, but even a 2 seater Porshe that can do 150 MPH and 0-60 in 4 seconds (both totally useless in this country) gets 3 to 4 times the mileage of an H2 and likely carries as many people most of the time.

A lot of this can be applied to SUVs and large pickup trucks in general when they are used as replacements for passenger cars. Most of the rest of the world gets by with vehicles smaller than a Prius. How is it Americans NEED big SUVs, pickups and cross-overs. I'm sure if we paid $6+ /gallon for gasoline as they do in Spain and France, that NEED will quickly morph into smaller vehicles and modified behavior. Plan ahead, pack intelligently, rent a bigger vehicle to few times you actually DO need one.

We have a serious need to reduce our use of energy. Not just oil, or ethanol, etc. Hummers are just a very visible indicator that a lot of people either don't understand that or just don't care.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Sep 18 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]514430[/snapback]</div>

I sometimes think GM is too big a company. One part of the company will do something, and it is disliked by another part. Sony is a great example of this. When they created the walkman, they created a whole new market that became wildly popular. Why are they not the premier maker of MP3 players? I believe it is due to their music business. The music side does not like MP3 players because they believe they encourage piracy. Because of this, Sony has not been a factor in the market.

The rest of GM didn't like the EV1 because there were fewer parts to replace, less maintenance for the dealer to perform, and generally less money to be made after the sale. The electric car will happen, but it may not be from one of the major car companies of today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Sep 18 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]514548[/snapback]</div>

Don't forget the one part of the movie. WE THE CUSTOMERS are to blame too.

I can just see it now. GM revives the EV1. They sell a bunch. Within a month you will see class-action lawsuits. "What do you mean I can only drive 150 miles between a charge?"

 

I think it's time to start crushing the H1's to balance out the EV1's. Let's take them by force from the owners, just like the EV1's.

Oh, and Prius004, anybody who thinks science is smoke and mirrors needs to go back to school. The science department.

So, in closing, Prius004, I just have one thing to say:

*plonk*

Nate

 

Imagine if you will a space tourist boarding the International Space Station that plunked $20M. The food rations deplete faster than they should on his account and he actually lights up a couple of times, doing some damage to the air filters.

Anyone follow this?