backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by Reflex.. on Jun 5 at 6:10 PM


Hummer H2

Hummer H3T
Investor will reportedly buy the Hummer brand's non-military assets

Recently, one of GM's most toxic assets has been the iconic Hummer brand.  The lineup of gas-hungry mammoth vehicles fell out of favor among consumers last year as gas prices soared.  Sales plunged by double digits month-to-month in a free fall.  With GM now officially in bankruptcy, one of its top priorities was to offload Hummer.

It now appears the company has found a buyer and agreed to terms, according to a press release by the company aired this morning.  Hummer spokesman Nick Richards told PickupTrucks.com, "GM has signed a memorandum-of-understanding with an investor.  Both parties have agreed to the basic terms [of the purchase] but the financial details and buyer's name are not being released at this time. That’s expected to be announced some time in the near future."

He says the buyer meets GM's basic criteria in that they have experience in the international market, where Hummer sales are stronger.  Also, they have a long-term development plan and look to stick with the brand even if it struggles.  Troy Clarke, president of GM North America, states, "Hummer is a strong brand.  I’m confident that Hummer will thrive globally under its new ownership. And for GM, this sale continues to accelerate the reinvention of GM into a leaner, more focused, and more cost-competitive automaker."

The purchase will not include the military technology or military trucks developed by AM General, the original developer of Hummer vehicles.  GM acquired the license to the rights to use the Hummer name and develop a civilian heavy vehicle brand under it from AM General a number of years ago.

Mr. Richards speculated on the expected current and upcoming models, stating, "The [Hummer] H4 [also known as the HX] and H3T concepts are good examples of where Hummer’s future products could go.  The H3 SUV and pickup and H2 [full-size truck] will also continue in the portfolio. We’re working on ways to change the H2 beyond [its most recent update in] 2008."

The upcoming Hummers will likely include alternative fuel and diesel powertrains to help them adopt leaner fuel economy footprints.  They are expected to remain pricey luxury vehicles.

The deal safeguards 3,000 U.S. jobs in manufacturing, engineering and at Hummer dealerships around the country.  The move saves GM's Shreveport, Louisiana facility, which produces the H3 SUV and H3T pickup truck.  However, the contacted workers from AM General at GM's H2 plant in Indiana will be released. 

One major shift is that the Port Elizabeth, South Africa plant which builds right-handed H3s will close, returning its production to Shreveport.  The right handed SUVs, soon to be produced in the U.S. will be sold in Europe and Asia.  Currently, thirty percent of Hummer's sales are outside the U.S., but the new management wants that number to rise.

GM plans to provide engineering and transition assistance to the new owners for some time.  It also will continue to honor pre-existing warranties.  Additionally, the deal still hinges on government approval, with the government GM's new majority owner.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Great News
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 9:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The lineup of gas-hungry mammoth vehicles fell out of favor among consumers last year as gas prices soared.


This is great news. Despite, the author's opinion he injected here, these vehicles remain very popular with certain groups of consumers. I used to own one and have since sold it, and I can attest -- it was an extremely useful vehicle.

It could fit extremely large loads, such as a large plasma TV I purchased, or cabinets I purchased for a remodelling. While I may now be saving on gas costs, I've been getting bitten on the added delivery costs. I also miss the extra passenger space.

I would have been sad to see this brand go, this is definitely good news. The brand produces solid vehicles that meet the needs of a number of consumers, and the recent models have posted relatively healthy gains in fuel efficiency, for all the criticism, as well.




RE: Great News
By amanojaku on 6/2/2009 9:17:54 AM , Rating: 5
Why not rent a $20/day U-Haul? That's what I did when I moved large items. I had to do all the work, which you're doing anyway, but it was cheaper than paying a moving company or delivery service and I didn't have the hassle of owning a big vehicle. I'll admit to being biased as I live in the city and don't own a vehicle, but when I move I don't think I'll be interested in anything other than a sedan for the family or a sports car for me. The wife can go get her own. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhaul#Rental_rates


RE: Great News
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 9:27:22 AM , Rating: 3
Admittedly, that is a decent solution for those with lesser demands, but as someone who does a great deal of remodelling of my house and landscaping of my property in my spare time, I can tell you, you'd be making several runs a month to pick up loads of stuff. Those rental fees would quickly add up.

Further, you can't beat the convenience of having a large vehicle on hand -- time is money, and as a professional, I found the time savings equally, if not more valuable.

To each their own. No one's stopping you from driving a sedan, and that certainly makes sense, if that vehicle meets your needs.


RE: Great News
By GaryJohnson on 6/2/2009 9:32:26 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
you'd be making several runs a month to pick up loads of stuff. Those rental fees would quickly add up.


Yeah, that could be like $700 or $800 dollars a year. Better to just buy a $60,000 SUV.


RE: Great News
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 9:39:28 AM , Rating: 5
The Hummer also is a luxury vehicle. You would likely not question a person going out and buying a more fuel-efficient Cadillac CRX. So the real question here is whether the amount of utility is worth the extra gas you use. I would argue it is.

Have you ever owned a Hummer? You might be pleasantly surprised.

Regardless, unless you hate capitalism, you would agree that its best to allow the consumer to decide. You may not care for Hummers, and its fine if you complain and tell people they shouldn't buy them. What's troublesome is when politicians try to make buying decisions for the consumer with fuel economy fines, and when people support such decisions.


RE: Great News
By ikkeman2 on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 10:27:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I love capitalism, but I prefer responsibility over the whims of individual consumers. While driving an Hummer you wear out the road below you, accelerate any man made global warming that may exist, decrease the air quality everywhere you go and generally show an irrisponsible disposition towards society (compared to almost any other kind of vehicle besides trucks).

Are you joking me? How can you sit there with a straight face and even attempt to combine the two? If you love capitalism, then you would go off on a rant about your liberalism. Loving capitalism and giving power to the consumer is not what you want when you are proposing that they only be allowed to choose from a handful of items that YOU deem acceptable.
quote:
Now, if you drive that Hummer because it provides something you need, and cannot obtain otherwise, I'll defend your right to buy it

Who are you to demand and decide anyone elses needs? You know what - why dont you get off your computer, turn off your electric, get rid of your car all together, sell your house and build yourself a mudhut in the middle of the mountains. You dont NEED anything else you have either man. Don't be such a hypocrite that you think its ok for you to judge what everyone elses needs are and what their excesses are. Get a life.
quote:
No - I have no answer on how to objectively calculate that cost, but the basic idea that those that create costs should pay for it is just.

There has not been a single thing you have said so far in your entire rant that comes from an objective point of view.
quote:
my rabbit was just great to transport my 50" flatscreen... no hummer needed.

Thats just great for you. I prefer not to want a coffin on wheels with a go kart engine. You can buy whatever you want, I could care less. But the moment you start thinking you have the right to decide everyone elses needs, wants, and excesses...then we have a problem. That IS the problem with socialism and liberals. You call it empathy, I call it activism.
quote:
Therefore I claim you did not buy the hummer (primarily) for it's utility - but (mostly) for it's "Cool" factor. A wholly irresponsible choice

Ahh there we go. Wealth envy, and hate that other people prefer things that may give them what they conceive to be a certain status. Get a life dude. The only irresponsible choice I see so for is that your parents have decided to reproduce.


RE: Great News
By psychmike on 6/2/2009 10:50:35 AM , Rating: 3
I for one do not love capitalism. I love freedom. I think capitalism is a profoundly powerful tool. It drives innovation and increases local efficiency. But capitalism is a tool and can be used well or used poorly and capitalism has certainly put its interests squarely in conflict with those of democracy in the past.

With its many strengths, capitalism also tends to propagate existing inequities in society. Capitalism pushes for consumption versus sustainability. Capitalism tends not to work for projects where revenue generation is not the primary purpose (e.g., building public parks, transit routes to service low density areas, etc.).

I understand your revulsion for people limiting others' freedoms and choices but in my humble opinion, we live in such a complicated and interconnected society that we should be encouraged to consider the common good and not just our own desires.

I admit that the common good is a difficult concept to operationalize but I would wager that fair use of public infrastructure and clean air would count. I live in Toronto where virtually every summer day is a smog day. A lot of that particulate matter comes from coal-fired electrical plants but a fair amount comes from cars as well. Perhaps the more wealthy can afford to live in the 'burbs or to keep the windows rolled up and crank the AC but that just perpetuates the problem as more people drive and use electricity during high-demand hours. Passing idling bylaws and placing progressive costs for electrical consumption seem like better alternatives to me.

I don't think Hummers should be banned but given that they demonstrably pollute more than alternatives, I would support slapping a luxury tax on them and giving a rebate to those people who genuinely use SUVs for work purposes (not impressing clients but hauling material).

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes


RE: Great News
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 10:58:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I understand your revulsion for people limiting others' freedoms and choices but in my humble opinion, we live in such a complicated and interconnected society that we should be encouraged to consider the common good and not just our own desires.


Again, this is not capitalism or democracy. The idea of a "common good" overriding personal freedoms is a reoccurring hallmark of totalitarian regimes (e.g. Stalinist Russia).

quote:
Perhaps the more wealthy can afford to live in the 'burbs or to keep the windows rolled up and crank the AC but that just perpetuates the problem as more people drive and use electricity during high-demand hours. Passing idling bylaws and placing progressive costs for electrical consumption seem like better alternatives to me.


And should laws or fines be passed to try to prevent the evil wealthy from owning large homes? Or perhaps we should fine them for taking expensive vacations? After all, the latter consumes far more fuel than a jaunt in the "evil" "gas guzzling" SUV!

quote:
I don't think Hummers should be banned but given that they demonstrably pollute more than alternatives, I would support slapping a luxury tax on them and giving a rebate to those people who genuinely use SUVs for work purposes (not impressing clients but hauling material).


And yet again you're seeking to legislate the buyers' decisions and adopt a control scheme, while admittedly having no good way of determining the supposed line between appropriate/necessary and "abusive" use.


RE: Great News
By psychmike on 6/2/2009 11:22:44 AM , Rating: 1
I agree that the issues are complicated. The idea of a common good is not just put forth by totalitarian regimes but in fact is the role of all governments. The libertarian view (modern conservatives) states that government should be as small as possible and emphasizes equality in treatment. The socialist view (modern liberals) states that government should create equality of opportunity. Neither is completely right and different approaches may be appropriate for different situations.

Let's say that your neighbor moves in, decides to blast music all night, and leave trash on his lawn. Would you not say that his freedom is interfering with the fair enjoyment of your property? Where does the 'line' of reasonableness end? Music at 10pm? 11pm? To say that that line is arbitrary is NOT to say that it shouldn't be drawn.

Now let's say that I have asthma. If you decide to move into my neighborhood with your Hummer and leave it idling all day, is my only recourse to apply for relief through tort law?

Perhaps it's a personal issue but I am equally concerned with corporations' abuses of power as I am governmental abuse of power. Corporations are happy to motivate sellers to buy things and externalize those costs to everyone else. Perhaps you call that the freedom to choose but I call that manipulation. When pharmaceutical companies started direct marketing campaigns (TV commercials), sales for those drugs shot straight up without a commensurate increase in health benefits because physicians felt pressured to prescribe those drugs even when they were not likely to provide benefit.

Perhaps the issues are simple to you. Perhaps you are far brighter than I am. What exactly do you propose? That people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not directly interfere with the freedom of others? Well again I ask what exactly constitutes interference? Who in your opinion should moderate those conflicts? You don't think government should. Tort courts?


RE: Great News
By dever on 6/2/2009 12:21:02 PM , Rating: 5
a) Perhaps a better distinction: Libertarianism has a mixture of fiscal conservatism (little government interference in my rights make a living) and social liberalism (little government interference in my rights to do as I please - sex, drugs, rock & roll).

b) Socialism/liberalism do not promote equality of opportunity, but rather equality of outcome. These are not compatible. The drive to promote equality of outcome necessarily squashes the freedoms that underpin equality of opportunity.
quote:
What exactly do you propose? That people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not directly interfere with the freedom of others?

Bingo.


RE: Great News
By dever on 6/2/2009 12:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well again I ask what exactly constitutes interference? Who in your opinion should moderate those conflicts?
This actually should be the definition of a government. To protect freedoms and provide a mechanism for settling disputes regarding these freedoms.

It sounds like you're proposing that we should have a near infinite number of laws... such as "individuals are not allowed to continuously run Hummer vehicles all day within 50 feet of another's property line."

Great idea? No, laws create loop holes. If someone is excessively generating fumes that are polluting your air, then you should and do have a right to use government to settle that dispute. But, hopefully, that would be After trying to settle the matter yourself.

If the law above was in place, and the person momentarily stopped his engine to refuel, or bought a different model, etc., he may have found a loophole. Since he was not in direct violation of an applicable law, a law which gave guidelines, this actually gives people greater ability to infringe on other people's freedoms. Without the law in place, you could probably successfully challenge his pollution (in court if necessary). With the law, he's safe.

This is one of the overlooked detrimental effect of all regulation. They essentially outline what infringement of other's rights are palatable.

The other main detrimental effect is the concentration of power. Concentration of power exposes large and attractive surface areas for corruption.


RE: Great News
By psychmike on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great News
By psychmike on 6/2/2009 1:31:07 PM , Rating: 1
Mandrews accuses me of not being able to operationalize my term of the common good but I note that neither he nor you have replied to my specific questions about what constitutes interference and how these conflicts should be resolved. All that I have heard is that government should not interfere with the actions of an individual.

How about conflicts between individuals? Must interference be direct or can it be indirect? If I have asthma, can I make some claim as to my fellow citizen's polluting activities? Must the outcome be absolute or can it be probabilistic? Must I have developed an impairment before I have standing or can I present a body of evidence showing that an unwanted outcome is likely? Who decides? Legislative bodies or civil courts?

Let's hear some specifics.


RE: Great News
By Rhaido on 6/2/2009 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
I like talking specifics and would enjoy answering those type of questions with a pint in my hand. But for internet forum posts, let us be practical and keep this high level. In the USA we have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. and many people vote based on party affiliation. Last year, I made the switch to the Libertarian Party based on their platform.

http://www.lp.org/platform

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment

In general, one can read the platform for each party and vote accordingly without needing to debate the number of hours idling is allowed in order to protect asthma sufferers. In the case of local ordinances regarding your hypothetical, then city council meetings would be a great place to have that type of discussion. People express their opinions and the local officials vote to decide.


RE: Great News
By Solandri on 6/2/2009 2:04:09 PM , Rating: 4
Most people don't realize there are different types of problems. Regular problems (e.g. what should the price of potatoes be?) are solved very well by capitalism. The best choice for the individual ends up coinciding with the best choice for society.

A special class of problems typified the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma (e.g. how many fish should a fishing boat catch?) are not solved very well by capitalism. The best choice for the individual ends up being the worst choice for society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Where libertarianism gets into trouble is believing that because capitalism and freedom of choice works well for most problems, they must work for all problems, and thus individual liberty must always be of paramount importance. Likewise, where socialism gets into trouble is believing that because capitalism arrives at the worst choice for society for some problems, that it is unsuitable for solving any problems, and hence government regulation is always justified or needed.

The truth is that rather than subscribe to one philosophy which you apply to all problems, you have to be smart and apply the appropriate philosophy to the appropriate problems. Sometimes libertarianism works best, sometimes socialism works best. It all depends on the problem you're trying to solve.

Getting back to the original issue, pollution is one of those tragedy of the commons problems. The costs of it are externalized, and the negative consequences of excessive pollution are borne by all of society, not just the polluter. As such, government regulation of vehicle emissions is warranted. However, our government already does this. There are fuel taxes added to raise the cost of gasoline beyond its market price (thus redirecting the cost of the pollution back to the user), and large SUVs with poor mileage are charged a luxury vehicle tax. A purchaser of a Hummer is already paying for any additional costs borne by society due to the Hummer's environmental unfriendliness (as decided by our government).

So within the regulatory structure set up by our government, his choice to buy a Hummer (with additional fees and taxes) is just as legitimate as someone else's choice to buy a Prius (which has tax credits). The environmental impact of each has been equalized to the best of our government's consensus and ability. To single out the Hummer owner for additional public scorn is undemocratic. If you feel SUVs need more government-imposed penalties, then write to your Congressman. Do not take it out on individuals who are already paying the excess costs the government has already decided are sufficient penalty to offset the additional pollution and gas consumption of these vehicles.


RE: Great News
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great News
By pequin06 on 6/2/2009 12:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As the above op points out there are cases where most would consider freedoms of action or purchase needing to be limited.


Most?
Mob rules do not make good policy especially when they are based on emotion.


RE: Great News
By TedStriker on 6/2/2009 1:58:53 PM , Rating: 1
great job on the non-tech related news. It's always nice to see your liberal opinion interjected with random articles on a tech news site.


RE: Great News
By Nightraptor on 6/2/2009 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 5
You know I love how the term "capitalism" has been hijacked to mean everyone doing whatever they want to satiate their desires without any thought whatsoever to the effect their actions may have on others. Anyone who has actually read Adam Smith would know that he talked about the "common good" nearly as much as Marx talked about class warfare. In fact the whole goal behind his economic theory was that it was the best way to promote the common good.


RE: Great News
By Solandri on 6/2/2009 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
The reason capitalism works so well is because for most cases, the best choice for the individual coincides with the best choice for society. Thus people "doing whatever they want to satiate their desires without any thought whatsoever to the effect their actions may have on others" is all that's needed to arrive at the best common good. You don't need to the consciously aware of or always consider the common good to arrive at the best common good. In fact that's the core capitalistic argument against excess government regulation - a bureaucratic decision as to what is the best way to promote the common good is usually a less efficient way than just letting individuals decide what's best for themselves.

There are some exceptions to this, which I've outlined in a post above. But for most cases, the selfish behavior you seem to be criticizing is all that's necessary to arrive at the best way to promote the common good.


RE: Great News
By Schrag4 on 6/2/2009 9:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The reason capitalism works so well is because for most cases, the best choice for the individual coincides with the best choice for society.


I'm not totally shocked that you got rated down, but I for one think you're ABSOLUTELY right. It's the excess that we strive for that drives progress. The same progress makes possible cures for diseases, safety measures, etc etc etc. The excess that we strive for drives individuals to produce more, ensuring better lives for their own families (selfish yes, but would you rather you children suffer?). When individuals succeed in our (somewhat) capitalistic society, they pay higher taxes, which go to social programs, environmental programs, grants for scientific research, etc etc etc.

Of course these are generalizations to which there can always be found exceptions, but overall, I think Solandri is right on the money with his post.


RE: Great News
By TA152H on 6/3/2009 12:01:58 AM , Rating: 1
Common good is part of every society. You're very, very confused with communism and capitalism.

As Winston Churchill said, capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, communism the equal distribution of misery.

The fundamental difference is communism does not recognize that people are selfish, and reward is a very powerful motivator. That's it.

Communism is not inherently anti-freedom, that's just been the implementation. NAZI Germany was capitalist, and far more efficient than our democracy, but was also totalitarian. So, freedom and capitalism are not the same thing.

More to the point, it's completely fair that people using destructive vehicles pay a surcharge for them. I am for this, and would pay it without whining. I am not for them being made illegal though, unless it's something egregious like drinking and driving, etc...

Freedoms are always compromised for public good. You can't yell fire at movie, you can't drive 200 mph on most freeways, you can't buy destructive drugs, etc... These are all examples where the common good overrules freedoms.

So, it becomes a balance between how destructive an action is, and whether it can be tolerated. A Hummer is not as destructive as, say, drinking and driving, so it's legal, but you have to pay society back for your privilege of driving a vehicle that is slightly harmful in the sense you use a lot of resources, and create more issues with nature. These heavy vehicles all wear out the roads faster too. So, since your purchase of one of these vehicles costs others money, it's completely fair that the purchaser pay more, just like cigarette buyers have to pay taxes because of the extra health costs society has to bear.

You still have the freedom to buy one, and I'd support that 100%, unless it were obscenely destructive, which these vehicles are clearly not. But, by the same token, if you're buying something that does have a negative effect, even though it's slight, I don't think you should whine about paying a surcharge for it. It's not about freedom - you can still buy it. It's about responsibility - pay for what you do. If you can't handle that, don't buy it. Don't push your costs on everyone else and then complain when society just wishes to pay for the impact of your choice. Why should everyone else pay for it? That's freedom? That's irresponsible.


RE: Great News
By Verran on 6/2/2009 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ahh there we go. Wealth envy, and hate that other people prefer things that may give them what they conceive to be a certain status.

Why is it always wealth envy for you?

Besides, the H2 is the embodiment of my previous argument of road-safety concerns. The H2 isn't just a threat to "coffin-on-wheels" small cars like you suggest. It's a threat to EVERYTHING with that raised bumper and horrid curb weight. Mid and full-sized sedans, sports cars, luxury cars... even some small trucks. The raised bumper brings a whole new threat to collisions and makes any collision MUCH more dangerous and MUCH more life-threatening.

If you were out protecting our borders in your H2 or making sure the milk was delivered to the grocery store on time for me to buy it or whatever, then at least it's a trade off. But when people make the roadways more dangerous to everyone just for their own social status, then yeah, people get a bit tweaked and it's got NOTHING to do with wealth envy.

I'm not saying H2s or any big car should be banned. I don't think they should. That's not how this country and our economy work and that's for the best. Generally I don't think CAFE standards are all that bad but I do agree this most recent round are a bit too hefty and I'd even call them unreasonable. But I still think there's something awful crappy about someone who would drive a considerably more dangerous vehicle just to one-up the neighbors or whatever.


RE: Great News
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 10:33:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I love capitalism, but I prefer responsibility over the whims of individual consumers. While driving an Hummer you wear out the road below you, accelerate any man made global warming that may exist, decrease the air quality everywhere you go and generally show an irrisponsible disposition towards society (compared to almost any other kind of vehicle besides trucks).


You obviously have a poor grasp on the capitalism you so love, if you would prevent consumers from buying products they want. That is not the way of capitalism.

quote:
No - I have no answer on how to objectively calculate that cost, but the basic idea that those that create costs should pay for it is just.


And who does? Who should be appointed judge and jury and decide what consumer should and should not be allowed? Should citizens only be allowed a one bedroom apartment, or is it acceptable to have a four bedroom house? Who should decide what is acceptable and moral for customers to purchase?

quote:
and BTW, my rabbit was just great to transport my 50" flatscreen... no hummer needed.
Using a rented trailer (I guess I could own that trailer) I transported all my furniture when I moved. Therefore I claim you did not buy the hummer (primarily) for it's utility - but (mostly) for it's "Cool" factor. A wholly irresponsible choice


You obviously missed my above post. The Hummer is a luxury vehicle. The debate here is whether the added utility, outweighs the poor fuel economy for some. For some it does, others not. You are applying your own situation on others, while failing to understand they may have needs that you do not have.


RE: Great News
By reader1 on 6/2/2009 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You obviously have a poor grasp on the capitalism you so love, if you would prevent consumers from buying products they want.


Masher, the roads are public property, just like the airwaves and the airspace. The government is entitled to control them as they see fit. You don't have the right to do whatever you want to on public property. I guess you were against the government forcing the DTV transition. I guess you're against airport security, too.

quote:
Who should decide what is acceptable and moral for customers to purchase?


The citizens decide by voting for politicians who share their views. It's called, 'democracy'. We elected "Save the planet" over "Drill, baby, drill". Cry more.


RE: Great News
By sgw2n5 on 6/2/2009 2:34:02 PM , Rating: 3
I think the simple solution would be a tremendous rise in fuel prices. I'm not that into to giant, goddy, penis-extenders, but you should be allowed to buy them if that's twists your nipples.

My Exxon shares would be more valuable, you would pay your fair share for the damage you cause to the public road and environment (and potential damage to other drivers if a collision were to occur), and best of all... you would still be able to drive your penis extender to pick up groceries all you like!

Voila!!! Everyone Wins!


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
share for the damage you cause to the public road and environment
Like another poster mentioned, Hummer owners already pay extra for the privilege of owning said vehicle.

1. Increased sales tax and registration fees at purchase
2. Increased personal property tax (where applicable)
3. Increased fuel costs at the pump


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/3/2009 1:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
You guys can rate me down all you want, but everything I said was true and factual. I challenge all you to PROVE otherwise.


RE: Great News
By wempa on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great News
By 91TTZ on 6/2/2009 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love capitalism, but I prefer responsibility over the whims of individual consumers. While driving an Hummer you wear out the road below you, accelerate any man made global warming that may exist, decrease the air quality everywhere you go and generally show an irrisponsible disposition towards society (compared to almost any other kind of vehicle besides trucks).


I've never been a fan of driving big trucks but I'll defend anyone's right to own one. Unless you're a militant socialist that wants to force everyone to adopt your political views you should have no problem letting the consumer decide what he wants to drive.


RE: Great News
By reader1 on 6/2/2009 7:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...but I'll defend anyone's right to own one.


You don't have the right to drive whatever you want on public property. Just as you don't have the right to drive down the wrong side of the road or not wear a seat belt.


RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 8:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
As long as what you're driving meets the legal standards, yes you are. In fact, I can drive a 1MPG steamroller down the road if I wanted to and was licensed for it.

What you are comparing to are things that are traffic citations. I don't see anything in the law that states I cannot drive whatever car I want that is sold in US dealerships on any public road of my choosing. After all, since I help pay for those roads through my taxes (income, state, local, and gasoline) why is it that only you get a say and I dont?


RE: Great News
By callmeroy on 6/2/2009 12:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your reasons for liking the hummer, I further agree with your sentiments of each to their own kind of thing....where you lost me though was this --- if the Hummer you had was so beloved by you and you still could use it with all the work you do and hauling...furthermore if it saved you so much time and your time is valuable -- why then did you get rid of it --- if it was just for the gas, I'd have thought the time savings and your usefulness of it would have cancelled out the gas expense.

That was the own odd thing I got out of reading your posts on it.


RE: Great News
By ClownPuncher on 6/2/2009 12:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's great that you can buy whatever you want. I have owned only trucks and SUV's for the last 15 years.

Do me a favor though? Stop justifying your Hummer purchase as a "utility" purchase. Utility and "I don't want to dent or scratch my $60k status luxury vehicle" don't go together.

You bought one, which doesn't bother me in the least. Just say you bought it because you wanted it. Trust me, I will never see you out 4wheel driving or doing anything but driving cabinets and groceries around.


RE: Great News
By smackababy on 6/2/2009 2:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Being from Texas, where utility has decent meaning when it comes to vehicles, I've only ever seen Hummers driving to the mall. If they wanted a real utility Hummer, they would buy the original ones. Being in the military, I've rode in those and they get stuff done, albeit with a .50 cal on the roof.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 2:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Good post here. When I was living at home our pickup truck has dents, dings, and scratches all over it. Live on a farm and actually use the vehicle as it was intended. For grocery shopping, we had a sedan and a minivan.


RE: Great News
By iFX on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great News
By Samus on 6/2/2009 4:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
these vehicles remain very popular with certain groups of consumers.


gangsters and white-people-wannabe-gangsters?


RE: Great News
By Spivonious on 6/2/2009 9:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious how you put cabinets in your Hummer without cutting the leather seats.


RE: Great News
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 9:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
The second row of seats are split folding (in the H2), and can be reclined down to accommodate large loads.

http://www.hummer.com/html/h2.html
http://assets.clickmotive.com/ail/stills_white_064...

You still have to be careful of the exposed leather, but its just a matter of properly securing the cargo and not being careless when loading and unloading. Not too problematic in my experience.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 10:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
Crappy utility vehicle. When it's used for utility purposes, most ppl don't care about the amenities within.

I'd just get a panel van and call it a day. No need to be careful about anything you're tossing in the back.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 12:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
What if he wants a luxury and utility vehicle, but doesn't have anywhere to park 2 cars just 1 or 1 more than he currently has?


RE: Great News
By xsilver on 6/2/2009 12:55:30 PM , Rating: 3
what you're saying is that people that buy hummers are NOT smart enough to build extra parking spots or park on the street? the hummer is 60k; cant spend an extra 5-10k for a garage?
eg. get a cadillac + panel van = too hard?

I actually think a lot of large SUV sales are due to the load behind the steering wheel (think 250lb+) and not the load in the back.

but hey.. I dont mind hummers, just hope they dont crash me when I'm in my hatchback!


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 1:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
What if you can not park on the street? Not allowed or no more room because of other cars. How about no room for a larger garage, or doesn't like how another larger one will look on his property. Smarts has nothing to do with this. There are several good reason not to buy a luxury car and a panel van just as their are several good reason to buy both cars. It just depends on the persons circumstances, needs, and wants.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 1:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'd get a Lexus RX. Over double the gas mileage and feels more luxurious than a Hummer. It doesn't have the military image behind it either.


RE: Great News
By Hiawa23 on 6/2/2009 11:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
not sure how to feel about this, but every time I see one of these mammonth vehicles on the road, all I can think of is a gas pump. I would never want one of these vehicles as gas mileage is always my top priority & I only have one small child, but I guess GM is doing what it needs to do to get the company back on square footing, so given the situation, I guess this is good news they have something inked so soon into bankruptcy.


RE: Great News
By Reflex on 6/2/2009 12:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Do what the rest of us do: Buy a trailer. My primary vehicle is a small/medium diesel SUV(Jeep Liberty CRD) with 5000lb towing capacity. Picked up a nice trailer that has more storage than any Hummer for a bit more than a grand and I have the best of both worlds, good fuel economy(compared to any Hummer) and hauling capability for when that is needed.

If you really want luxury, there are higher end Grand Cherokee diesels available that also get great mileage, and I'm sure there are other SUV's that can do similiar without resorting to a vehicle as stupidly wasteful as a Hummer.

There is a reason god invented the tow hitch. ;)


RE: Great News
By sgw2n5 on 6/2/2009 2:26:04 PM , Rating: 3
That makes the most sense... except for the fact that you can't use your trailer and tow hitch as a penis extender like Masher does with his H2...

I support his right to buy what he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a penis extender and nothing more. (Unless of course he is a extraordinarily fat fellow, then there actually is real utility in buying an H2).


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 5:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you really want luxury, there are higher end Grand Cherokee diesels
Can't get those in the US. I don't even think they sell the Liberty CRD anymore. On another note, why is it that only the Hummer is "stupidly wasteful" but other luxury vehicles are not?


RE: Great News
By Reflex on 6/3/2009 12:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Liberty CRD was sold in the US for the 2005 and 2006 model years. The Grand Cherokee CRD was sold in the US for the 2007 and 2008 model year, with some early 2009's having it as well. Right now you can still find them new on some lots(and deeply discounted, thanks bankruptcy!). The 09/10 model years do not have diesel planned, but it will be making a return with the GC redesign in 2011, and is on my list of potential future vehicles.

And when I refer to the Hummer as 'stupidly wasteful' its not because its a luxury vehicle. I don't decry someone buying a BMW or Lexus SUV. Its stupidly wasteful because it gets fuel economy as low as half of the gas version of competing large SUV's, and when compared to the diesel Jeeps available, it gets about a third of thier fuel economy. That would be the definition of stupidly wasteful in my book.

Combine that with the fact that its a pretty piss-poor 'utility' vehicle in the first place, compared to alternatives and yeah, its not a brilliant purchase.


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/3/2009 1:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And when I refer to the Hummer as 'stupidly wasteful' its not because its a luxury vehicle.
Oh, so it's wasteful because you say so therefore it is? Or is it because it's the "in thing" to pick on Hummers and their owners? I think all Jeeps are wasteful. You'll never see one in my driveway. What purpose do they serve other than to go off road and trample all of the wildlife? Tread lightly my a$$.


RE: Great News
By Reflex on 6/5/2009 6:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no, its wasteful for the reasons I articulated, not simply because I declared it to be.

And the reason I mentioned Jeeps was because of the justification of buying a Hummer for its hauling or 'sport utility' capabilities. In the case of hauling, you could do far better with a trailer as I pointed out, and in the case of its 'sport utility' capabilities, there are far better options as H2's and H3's are terrible in that regard compared to others in their class(any Jeep, Land Rover or Toyota FJ come immediatly to mind). Plus, as I stated originally, they get terrible mileage for a bloated price compared to competition that outshines them in quite literally all catagories.

Once again, I have nothing against people being stupid in thier car purchases. I also consider the Prius to be a idiot purchase(seriously, a VW Jetta TDI accomplishes the same thing, for less money and is a whole hell of a lot more fun to drive and cheaper long term maintinence costs). I'm not proposing to ban all these vehicles. I'm simply saying that the justifications given by the posters in this thread are false, and I backed that up with specific examples as to why.


RE: Great News
By theapparition on 6/2/2009 12:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll admit to being biased as I live in the city and don't own a vehicle

No offense, but sounds a lot like someone without kids telling others how to parent. :)

quote:
but when I move I don't think I'll be interested in anything other than a sedan for the family or a sports car for me.

This is where EPA numbers are a problem. They were intended to be a common rating used to judge equivalent models. Problem is, you are not comparing equivalent models. A sports car, while on paper, can get drastically different actual milage based on how you drive. It is much more susceptible to driver input than most other cars are. Some cars just beg to be driven. I can personally attest I drive our families SUV much different than my sports cars.


RE: Great News
By Amiga500 on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great News
By iFX on 6/2/2009 9:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
Relative to the size of the vehicle and what it's able to haul/tow and the utility it can provide one can argue that the amount of gas it uses is acceptable for the tasks being performed. So yes, saying it guzzles gas is an opinion, not a fact.


RE: Great News
By Amiga500 on 6/2/2009 11:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
How many diesel engines do they have again?

Gaz guzzling is an opinion, not a fact eh?


RE: Great News
By iFX on 6/2/2009 11:37:00 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, it's absolutely an opinion. A semi truck guzzels gas compared to a Honda Civic but relative to what it can do that the Civic can't it doesn't guzzle gas. The same logic is applied to the Hummer. I suppose asking you to do some critical thinking is asking too much?


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what it can do, it matters about it's mpg. No one is denying that an SUV, Semi, or truck can haul more equipment, weight, etc than a Honda Civic. We are saying it uses more gas. Which is fact.

Does a semi use more gas than a Civic? Yes. Bam. End of discussion. I don't care what the semi can do.

If you want to discuss whether the utility of the vehicle offsets the lower mpg, than so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that an suv, semi, or truck uses more gas.


RE: Great News
By iFX on 6/2/2009 12:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
See, that's where your logic is flawed. The Hummer uses more gas than what? A lawn mower? How about a weed eater? Tiny cars with tiny engine are not the "standard" by which all other vehicles will be judged when it comes to acceptable fuel usage or even what "low" or "high" fuel millage should or shouldn't be because the intended purpose and ability of the vehicle will determine the acceptable fuel usage for that specific vehicle.

A Honda Civic guzzles gas compared to a weed eater - my god, it doesn't matter about utility, the weed eater can operate on 1/100th the amount of gas the Civic can, therefore, the Civic is a gas guzzler. Do you understand why that reasoning is flawed?


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 12:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
Now you're comparing non-similar products. A vehicle is built to go from point A to point B with passengers. Some are built bigger than others, but it's not the standard to have more than just a few passengers, let along more than a single driver.

But if you really want to compare the Hummer to an equivalent vehicle, we can do that too.

Hummer - 10 mpg
Ford Expedition - 20 mpg
Nissan Armada - 18 mpg
Chevy Suburban - 19 mpg
Dodge Durango - 22 mpg

ZOMG! It's a gas guzzler among it's peers.


RE: Great News
By Solandri on 6/2/2009 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It doesn't matter what it can do, it matters about it's mpg. No one is denying that an SUV, Semi, or truck can haul more equipment, weight, etc than a Honda Civic. We are saying it uses more gas. Which is fact.

Does a semi use more gas than a Civic? Yes. Bam. End of discussion. I don't care what the semi can do.

So by your logic, we should get rid of buses for public transportation, because they guzzle a lot more gas than Civics?

Thinking only in terms of MPG is a horribly naive and usually inaccurate way to assess the fuel consumption of vehicles. A Hummer regularly used to haul a family of 5 uses less gas per person-mile than a Prius regularly used by a single occupant.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 3:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
The point of public transportation is more to help with traffic congestion and those who can't afford a car. Not so much on fuel savings. Ever see a full bus? I have yet to ever see one. Never seen one in LA, London, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin, Amsterdam, or anywhere else. It's usually like 10 ppl or less. It's worse at night, where the bus has no one but the driver.

MPG is hardly a naive and inaccurate way to assess the fuel consumption of vehicles. It's a baseline to work with.

Hummer - 10 mpg. Even less with 4 additional passengers
Prius - 50 mpg. 100 mpg with modification

Sorry, but any calculations I have the Hummer comes up short. So long as the 4 passengers in the H2 weigh 0 pounds, do I have them come in at the same gas per person per mile.


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 5:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hummer - 10 mpg. Even less with 4 additional passengers
What's your source for fuel mileage figures?


RE: Great News
By croc on 6/2/2009 7:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Ever see a full bus? I have yet to ever see one. Never seen one in LA, London, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin, Amsterdam, or anywhere else."

Visit Sydney, mate... Typical bus loads are 110% of rated capacity from 06:00 to 20:00 weekdays, you might get a seat on Sundays. And our trains are almost as stuffed as Tokyo's. 140% to 160% of rated capacity is typical.


RE: Great News
By Swaid on 6/2/2009 9:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen many many buses that are extremely packed and I have seen many subways that are extremely packed... then again I am refering to Beijing...


RE: Great News
By Amiga500 on 6/2/2009 12:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Christ on a bike!

Why do you think I specifically mentioned diesel engines?

You want to do some towing? Buy a LandCruiser or Trooper with a turbo diesel, you'll do more while burning less fuel.

Go get a coherent argument, then come back.


RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 1:25:39 PM , Rating: 3
If you want to do towing, you buy a Ford F-series truck with a V8+ or turbo diesel, or you get a Chevy full size with a v8+ or turbo diesel.

You want to tow with an SUV, then you get a Tahoe V8.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 11:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's not opinion, but fact. Doesn't matter what it can do. It sucks more gas than other vehicles.

It's up to the consumer to decide whether the utility makes up for the low gas mileage.


RE: Great News
By iFX on 6/2/2009 11:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
It absolutely is an opinion and your refusal to admit it shows your bias against SUVs.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 11:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
How is it an opinion? An SUV will use more gas than majority of other consumer vehicles. They have a lower mpg. It doesn't matter what it can do, it's about how much gas it uses.


RE: Great News
By iFX on 6/2/2009 12:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
The article stated that the Hummer "guzzles gas" which has no reference to what the vehicle does or what is considered "good mileage" and whether or not that number would have been correct or not the author didn't include it. Therefore, the statement that the Hummer guzzles gas is 100% opinion.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with iFX, just "guzzles gas" doesn't say much. I can call a civic a gas guzzler because my new Volt which I only drive 40 miles a day uses less. A hummer is a gas guzzler for just caring 1 person, but for hauling a family and pulling large boat it is not. That term really should be linked to the job.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 12:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
When hauling a family and pulling a large boat, the H2 would suck even more gas. Hell, wouldn't be surprised if it dropped to 5 mpg, when a smaller SUV would be just as capable and provide a higher mpg.

But as I mentioned before, it's up to the consumer to decide whether it's worth it or not.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 12:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
I civic sucks even more gas when hauling a family and trying to pull something also, whats your point? More work always requires more energy.

At a certain point an H2 would get better mpg than a smaller SUV, at some point the smaller SUV wouldn't haul the same load at all. All cars have an optimal hauling/mpg ratio. Just as they have an optimal mph/mpg ratio. Slower is not always better.

I hope consumers always have a choice to decide if its worth it.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 1:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Reason for hauling rates isn't so much about the actual hauling, but safe braking. Any SUV can haul the same load as an H2. It'd just take longer to get up to speed and probably hella unsafe in an emergency braking situation. Hence the rating.

As for optimal hauling/mpg ratio, yes. Slower is not always better. Neither is larger is always better. With the Hummer's terrible mpg to begin with, the odds are pretty low that it'll ever get a better hauling/mpg ratio than a smaller SUV.

Also, I never said that consumers shouldn't have a choice. If someone wants a hummer, by all means. I like sport compact cars. I'd be pissed it they stopped allowing little 4 cyclinder 300+ hp sport compact coupes to be made.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 1:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
True about safe braking. However the H2 can tow 8200 LB. I know all SUV's cannot tow that. My Envoy XUV can only tow 5800 LB, and it is pretty good size SUV.

Assuming we forget about braking being the limiting factor then no at some point my SUV will never move forward where the H2 will, due to engine and transmission differences. As you approach this limit the H2 will pass my mpg rating which is 19.2 mpg for the lifetime of the vehicle.

I never said you said anything about consumers choice. We agree with each other here.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'd just get a Nissan Armada. 9000 lbs towing capacity and 19 mpg. That or a Dodge Ram 3500 and a campershell. 16000 lbs towing capacity and 20 mpg. Could always just go with a trailer that has brakes. This would increase your towing capacity.

As for a smaller SUV will stop moving where the H2 will, yes. That will happen at some point, but I can guarantee the weight required would be well over the H2's towing capacity also.

Let's just say, I've towed well over the capacities of many vehicles. Towed around 6000 lbs with a Mazda pickup. It was one of the smaller ones they made back in the late 80s. When they were just called a truck and had no name. It's towing capacity was probably only 1500 lbs.

I took country roads the whole way and if I didn't know where hills were, I'd end up spending forever getting up them. I did a lot of farm work at home.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 3:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
Those are nice choices. Although I like the look of the Hummer better.

Yeah it would so be over the H2's towing capacity. What would be nice is if they gave mpg for towing vehicles while towing different loads, say in 1000 LB increments, so you could see how they perform.

Never though much of the old Mazda trucks, but that says alot about yours.


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 5:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd just get a Nissan Armada. 9000 lbs towing capacity and 19 mpg.
The Armada gets 12/17 according to the EPA. A Chevy Suburban gets 14/20. The 'Burb also has a 9600 lb tow capacity.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of facts within an article, doesn't mean lack of facts in general.

If it's the middle of the night and I say the sun gives off light, does that make my statement opinion, simply cause I didn't provide the facts surrounding it?


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 1:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but this would be like if you said the sun gives off alot of light. For that to be a fact you must explain what you are comparing it to, other stars or a light bulb. Without that it means nothing. You need a unit of measure or something to compare it to.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 2:55:47 PM , Rating: 1
Seeing as the sun gives off the most light in our galaxy, there's not much need for me to compare it to anything if I were to say it gives off a lot of light.

It doesn't change the fact that the sun gives off a lot of light. If you want to solidify the fact with some evidence, then go ahead and compare it to something else.


RE: Great News
By radializer on 6/2/2009 6:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seeing as the sun gives off the most light in our galaxy


Er ... what?!

Is this some really fancy/twisted definition of the word "our" or of the phrase "the sun"?!

The point being made in opposition was valid ... this example does not serve well as a rebuttal at all.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/3/2009 11:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
The Sun is one of many many stars in our galaxy and gives off very little of the light that is in it. I assume you mean solar system not galaxy. But in either case galaxy, solar system, planet, country, state, county, city, or house, you cannot assume the area of included and excluded objects. Because the reader and the writer may be looking at things in different areas.

If I write "My big den TV." Well big TV is a "fact" for my house as all the other ones are smaller, but if someone else reads it he may include his house, all the TV's of his friends, or all the TV's you can buy. That may or may not change the "fact" that my den TV is big. Considering it is only 27 inches I am pretty sure it would not be a "fact" anymore when read by just about everyone.


RE: Great News
By pequin06 on 6/2/2009 1:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Stating that the Hummer is a gas guzzler is not an absolute.
You're example fails.


RE: Great News
By Iaiken on 6/2/2009 1:32:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
one can argue that the amount of gas it uses is acceptable for the tasks being performed


Yup. Spending the majority of it's time transporting one person from point A to point B, 10/15 MPG is quite acceptable. Maybe if you compare it to a Lamborghini Murcielago that is being driven hard as hell and even then it's pretty close.

Get real.


RE: Great News
By SpaceJumper on 6/2/2009 10:07:37 AM , Rating: 1
The majority of the people who bought Hummers do not go to Iraq or Afghanistan anyway, they are just driving around town or shopping malls.
This vehicle is classified as HPV (High Pollution Vehicle). The fuel to weight ratio is way off for Hummer vehicles. If you put a different engine and transmission in the Hummer you will save more than half of the gas.


RE: Great News
By Hiawa23 on 6/2/2009 12:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone tell me what kind of mileage these vehicles get, cause I was shocked when I just saw the Cadillac Escalade hybrid commerical that bragged the vehicle gets 20MPGs. I was thinking, Wow, if 20 is great what does the regular Escalades get, 10MPG or something. Honestly, I don't think people that are able to buy these expensive vehicles care about the fuel economy or they probably wouldn't be buying these, but I guess it was a necessary evil for GM to dump the brand if they were no longer profitable.


RE: Great News
By CU on 6/2/2009 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
The H3 get 13 / 16 mpg with the V8. The i5 gets 14 / 18 mpg. Considering you lose 60hp when dropping down to the i5 I would get the V8.


RE: Great News
By 67STANG on 6/2/2009 3:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the Chinese will be able to get some more efficiency out of the Hummer line-- since Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. of China is buying the brand.

LoL. This just keeps getting better. If the Russians buy Saturn, the circle will be complete.


RE: Great News
By SpaceJumper on 6/2/2009 5:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Great News
By 67STANG on 6/2/2009 6:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Perhaps they wanted the real thing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31059625/


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
The H2 has no rating, due to it's weight, but car mags and review shows have it around 10 mpg. Expect any supersized SUV to be below 20 mpg.

I prefer smaller SUVs, as I don't need the size of a larger one. A Rav-4 would be perfect. Course I don't have a need for an SUV at all, hence why I'm driving an Opel Tigra.

I'm more of a sport compact car lover. Small car, high speed. I probably only get 15 mpg anyways with the way I drive.


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 6:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Expect any supersized SUV to be below 20 mpg.
Not all of them are below. Most of the GM stuff is 19-20 mpg.


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 5:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This vehicle is classified as HPV (High Pollution Vehicle).
Never heard of this. Post a link.


RE: Great News
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 10:44:29 AM , Rating: 5
You'll always find a justification to personally own a 6000lb vehicle that runs with 97% of its cabin space empty 90% of the time.

A $30-50 delivery fee every few months vs. cost of ownership of a Hummer. Hmm, let's see. When you fill the tank from near empty is it possible to spend less than $50?

Anyway, I'd love a private jet because these airfares are killing me.


RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 11:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
And that wasn't an attack on the previous poster. Just don't get why people feel the need to get so involved into the needs and wants of other. Just because your wants and needs are the same as mine, doesn't mean yours are any better or more correct....no matter what your political party or Obama tell you.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 1:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually read the argument, instead of your personal attacks, you'd know I was speaking of other people laying off the personal wants/needs of others. I said nothing about what anyone else wants or what they can have - I merely stated that I don't care what they want me to have.


RE: Great News
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 3:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
So in other words, you wasted a huge amount of spam to say nothing more than "I don't care what they want me to have."


RE: Great News
By Spuke on 6/2/2009 6:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a new Tahoe and a new F-150 4 door.
How do you like the F150? My wife and I looked at some. I liked the new payload ratings but the power was lacking for towing. We bought an 06 F250 diesel instead.


RE: Great News
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 8:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely love it. In fact, I drive it more for regular running around than I do the Tahoe. I don't really tow anything, but it has been so useful for moving to a new house and trips every weekend to Lowes for renovation items.

If I had a large boat or something of that nature, I'd have looked at the F-250 crew cab like you did!


Unfortunately...
By Beenthere on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Unfortunately...
By PorreKaj on 6/2/2009 9:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
So it's Obama's fault?

Shitty management killed GM. If they arent capable to keep their company alive themself, then let it be so.

Sorry GM, but u failed


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 9:55:08 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, poor management is what got GM into the mess its in.

However... we (the tax payers of the United States) gave GM (through the Fed at the behest of President Obama and President Bush) $50,000,000,000.00 to [i]keep them from going bankrupt[/i].

Now after "bailing them out" President Obama has basically forced them into bankruptcy anyway. So what was the point of giving them all that cash again? Besides buying votes from the union folks for the next election?


RE: Unfortunately...
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 9:56:20 AM , Rating: 5
There was no point. It was all attempting to please the corrupt UAW. Now, he has wasted more of our money - in fact more of it than any other president in history.

Here we go Obama...you may as well rename GM to Amtrack Motors.


RE: Unfortunately...
By mcnabney on 6/2/2009 2:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
You really have no idea how business works. All that money did was buy a soft landing. An outright liquidation of GM would eliminate a half million jobs immediately and many more after. The actual guys that bolt the cars together are the tip of the iceberg. The taxpayer will likely get most of the money back, but more importantly the governemnt will keep a lot of taxpayers in the business of paying taxes instead of perusing the want ads.


RE: Unfortunately...
By 67STANG on 6/2/2009 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, the number is closer to $55,000,000,000.00 if you count GMAC, the credit branch of GM. But that's ok, since the number will be up to $70,000,000,000.00 next month when they get their second $15,000,000,000.00 post-bankruptcy handout.

Anyone sick to their stomach yet?

The best story I read this morning was that Ford's sales are surging right now because people (who are being ignored by the government) are sending a message by buying from the only company that didn't use our money. Whether or not Ford can compete with the government backed Chrysler/GM duo is going to be anyone's guess.


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 3
I would be one of those people. I will never buy another GM or Chrysler product again. If I buy a domestic car it will be a Ford.

The US Congress and Mr. Obama just don't get it. They can ignore our protests but they can't ignore out wallets.


RE: Unfortunately...
By theapparition on 6/2/2009 12:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't give GM 50bil, we gave them ~20bil. During bankruptcy, they are expected to need another 30bil.

So if you want to argue that 20bil was wasted before bankruptcy, than go ahead, just don't skew the numbers.

Might as well support GM now, since we all own a piece of it. As much as I dislike the idea, I'd like to get a return on my tax dollars.


RE: Unfortunately...
By 67STANG on 6/2/2009 1:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
According to the sources I could find (although they all show different numbers for some reason):

GM Pre-Bankruptcy:
GM: $20.6 billion
GMAC: 7.5 billion

GM Post-Bankruptcy:
GM: $30.1 billion ($15b first 30days/ $15b following)
GMAC: $5 billion

Total: $63.2 billion

I don't think that even counts what they are paying to support GM's parts suppliers...

Don't worry about supporting GM. You'll never see a penny back (that's why we took equity instead). Support companies that don't take our money. It is the only way the government will *hopefully* get a clue.


RE: Unfortunately...
By theapparition on 6/2/2009 3:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite. GMAC is not GM. GMAC is a separate company of which GM owns a share. So take that 7.5bil off the books, and that leaves you with ~20bil, exactly what I stated before.

An excerpt from USA Today:
quote:
While General Motors' bankruptcy-court filing will not disrupt any services at GMAC Financial Services, the lending arm will still feel some effects.
GM's filing will "allow its direct business with GMAC to continue in the ordinary course during GM's restructuring," GMAC said Monday.

But if GM's reorganization makes consumers shy away from GM cars and trucks, GMAC will suffer because a third of its revenue comes from financing GM vehicles. GMAC is partly owned by GM and private-equity firm Cerberus.


I have no idea where you got the 5bil post bankruptcy reguarding GMAC, but last I looked they were looking to repay early and not need another lifeline. The bankruptcy shoudn't affect them too much.

quote:
I don't think that even counts what they are paying to support GM's parts suppliers...

Who is paying what to whom? If you're talking about suppliers who are going into bankruptcy, than that's just part of the fallout of a tiny portion of GM failing. Imagine what would happen if it all went away. Even Ford's biggest fear was that GM would fail since it would cripple thier supplier base.

quote:
Support companies that don't take our money. It is the only way the government will *hopefully* get a clue.

You and I both know that will never happen. Politicians are only interested in the next election. No one actually gives a damn about the country anymore.

First off, every company takes taxpayers money in the form of tax cuts. If a company didn't have those cuts, the local tax payers burden would be less. However, those tax cuts are smart because they spur spending and job creation.

Second, what of the Euopean and Japenese brands? Since those respective governments have handed over billions to them, is it OK to screw other taxpayers, just so long as it's not you?


RE: Unfortunately...
By 67STANG on 6/2/2009 6:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
GMAC is not GM?
GMAC = General Motors Acceptance Corporation

While it's true that it isn't "technically" part of GM anymore, their divested interest in the company up until recently when they sold off some of it-- and even more recently when GMAC became a bank (so they could qualify for more free money) is undeniable.

quote:
I have no idea where you got the 5bil post bankruptcy reguarding GMAC, but last I looked they were looking to repay early and not need another lifeline. The bankruptcy shoudn't affect them too much.

Like I said, the numbers are listed differently on different sites, but here's a popular one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmac

quote:
Who is paying what to whom? If you're talking about suppliers who are going into bankruptcy, than that's just part of the fallout of a tiny portion of GM failing. Imagine what would happen if it all went away. Even Ford's biggest fear was that GM would fail since it would cripple thier supplier base.

Again, we're paying the parts suppliers. http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2...

Tiny portion of GM failing? Aren't they liquidating half of their brands and shuttering 2,000 dealerships in the next 2 years? Isn't the ENTIRE North American division considered an epic fail-- since it's in bankruptcy?

quote:
First off, every company takes taxpayers money in the form of tax cuts. If a company didn't have those cuts, the local tax payers burden would be less. However, those tax cuts are smart because they spur spending and job creation.

The logic is flawed. GM (and Chrysler) not only took their taxpayer money in the form of tax cuts, they ALSO took additional Billions of Dollars of tax payer money-- above and beyond.

As for the foreign auto makers taking government handouts: You're right... I could really care less. It doesn't affect me or this Country. It also has zilch to do with this article, or discussion for that matter. What does affect me is throwing good money after bad.

Listen, I wasn't trying to dispute your numbers, or the person that posted other numbers. I was just posting everything that I found that was pertaining to GM or its subsidiaries.

I think we can both agree that the situation stinks.


RE: Unfortunately...
By theapparition on 6/2/2009 11:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well I think we're in agreement for the most part, but I wanted to bring up a few points.

Yes, it is only a tiny portion of GM. Them shutting down or selling 2/3's of thier brands also only equates to about 20% of overall sales. Plus most of those sales are non-profitable. Thier core divisions fare much better, hence the reason for trimming.

GM is a collosal blunder right now, and the fund that was set up (not a dime has been paid yet) was to fund auto support companies if GM went out of business. It is intended to protect Ford, which could also find itself in bankruptcy if thier parts suppliers went under. I have no doubt that many of those companies will have thier hands out waiting for a payment.

And just because it's called GMAC still doesn't alter the fact that it is for all legal purposes a completely separate company. Any profit or loss generated at GMAC does not affect GM. No money changes hands between companies.

As for your comment about foreign companies, I have to disagree. If those companies are getting competitive advantages from thier governments to compete in our marketplace (even at the expense of thier citizens), than that's a huge issue. They have effectively bought thier way into our market. We don't pay now, but our children will have to pay.

I'm not making excuses for GM, thier structure had to change and bankruptcy was maybe the only way. However, it is undeniable that they have arguably the strongest line-up in thier history with numerous brands and models winning awards.


RE: Unfortunately...
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2009 10:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shitty management killed GM. If they arent capable to keep their company alive themself, then let it be so. Sorry GM, but u failed


No out of control labor and benefit costs killed GM. The domestic automakers had to become reliant on high margin vehicles to stay afloat (of which trucks and SUV's made up a sizable portion) and when the market collapsed the companies could no longer maintain solvency.

quote:
So it's Obama's fault?


No, it's not his fault. However this administrations handling of the bankruptcy ultimately favors the UAW which was a large part of the problem. Rather than the bond holders and other investors. The excuse given is "special circumstances".

In my opinion GM should have been put into a sheltered bankruptcy before the first bailout. Severing the crushing labor contracts and allowing the company to restructure.


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well, GM management voluntarily entered into those labor and benefit contracts - they didn't have to, they chose to. I'm not saying the unions don't play a part in this because they do, a huge part but in the end the people running GM decided who they would get their labor from and who they would get their benefits from.

Unions are like snakes... if you play with them enough you're bound to get bit.


RE: Unfortunately...
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 11:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, GM management voluntarily entered into those labor and benefit contracts - they didn't have to, they chose to.

Not true. The UAW had them by stranglehold. It turns out to be more expensive to let the factories sit idle than it does to pay their huge salaries and benefits even if your losing money on every car produced.
quote:
a huge part but in the end the people running GM decided who they would get their labor from and who they would get their benefits from.

Not true. This is all controlled by the unions. You don't think GM would have rather went and hired an entire non-union labor force who they don't have any contractual obligations with?


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 11:56:04 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong. No one twisted GM's arm - the horrible managers decided it would be cheaper in the long run to stick with the horribly expensive union labor rather than deal with moving plants outside of where the UAW operated. Again, no one MADE GM do this, no one MADE GM sign these ridiculous contracts with the unions. They made the concise choice to NOT relocate facilities and utilize non-union labor. End of story.


RE: Unfortunately...
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2009 1:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because moving all the infrastructure, retrainging new employees, and getting the supply chain setup to replace all existing plants would be so simple. As Mdogs stated above, the UAW had a stranglehold and they knew it. That is the only way they could get these companies to sign for such outrageous sums. What made GM do this is the fact that not doing it would have destroyed the company.


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 3:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
No one said it would be simple. Short term it would have cost GM more money but long term they would have saved money and been afloat right now instead of $50+ billion in debt to the US Taxpayer and in bankruptcy. The horrible management took the easy way out and caved to the demands of the unions. Horrible management is the reason GM has failed, bottom line, zero way around it. Please, no more apologists in this thread - we've heard the BS arguments long enough. GM has failed because of actions made by GM management, period.


RE: Unfortunately...
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2009 5:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one said it would be simple. Short term it would have cost GM more money but long term they would have saved money and been afloat right now instead of $50+ billion in debt to the US Taxpayer and in bankruptcy. The horrible management took the easy way out and caved to the demands of the unions. Horrible management is the reason GM has failed, bottom line, zero way around it. Please, no more apologists in this thread - we've heard the BS arguments long enough. GM has failed because of actions made by GM management, period.


There would have been no short or long term. The company obviously couldn't sustain such a change. You want to blame this on mismanagement, yet if the logic of moving the plants to get out from under the yoke of the UAW is so apparent, then there has to be a good reason why it wasn't done.

Why is it easier to believe that the management of one of the largest businesses on the planet are morons who aren't interested in more profitability and long term viability rather than they were bent over a barrel and milked dry by a greedy organization? You don't think anyone but us could see that roughly twice the labor cost vs. your competitors is bad?

As I stated earlier, I think GM should have been forced into a sheltered bankruptcy rather than receive the first bailout. You can call this an apologist posting if you like, but I simply won't subscribe to the theory that GM's management were blundering idiots that couldn't do basic math or at least listen to someone who could.

To approach this from another angle if it was viable for GM to divorce itself from the UAW, then how did the UAW think it could possibly get away with the concessions it kept demanding?


RE: Unfortunately...
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 11:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No out of control labor and benefit costs killed GM. The domestic automakers had to become reliant on high margin vehicles to stay afloat (of which trucks and SUV's made up a sizable portion) and when the market collapsed the companies could no longer maintain solvency.


Yet, GM was able to control labor and benefit costs before the boom in truck/SUV sales took off.

This was all piss poor management. Instead of putting more work into higher fuel efficient vehicles, they went for higher profits from trucks/SUVs. So all their money was going into their pockets and very little into R&D.

When gas prices skyrocketed, this bit them in the ass. Why? Cause they didn't bother to make fuel efficient cars, nor had the ability to produce cars as fast as a truck/SUV.

This is why Japanese companies, who were constantly working on perfecting their cars are doing fine. It costs over ten times as much to design a car, than to design a truck/SUV. Hence why GM failed.


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 11:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
Honda, Toyota and Nissan are hardly "doing fine" - they are doing better than the Big Three US automakers but that isn't saying much. Honda is getting bailouts of its own in Japan. Everyone has lost sales partly do to the gas spike but mostly due to the falling economy.


RE: Unfortunately...
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between needing a bailout and taking one. The Japanese companies asked for a bailout, as it's a low interest rate loan. It's a relatively better option than getting a high interest rate loan from a bank.

Any of them could survive without a bailout.


RE: Unfortunately...
By iFX on 6/2/2009 12:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
They did in fact take bailouts and you stated that they aren't having any problems. Which is it?

Are they doing better than the Big 3? yes, are they doing well in general? No. Do they have problems like every other auto maker right now due to recession? Yes.


RE: Unfortunately...
By afkrotch on 6/2/2009 3:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
They are doing fine. As in, they aren't going to go bankrupt. All the Japanese companies still have money in the bank and they aren't head over heels in debt.

Did any of them take a bailout? No, none of them did.


RE: Unfortunately...
By DrKlahn on 6/2/2009 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet, GM was able to control labor and benefit costs before the boom in truck/SUV sales took off.


The domestic auto industry was continually losing automobile market share to foreign competitors. It went to the market that it was making in to stay solvent.

quote:
This was all piss poor management. Instead of putting more work into higher fuel efficient vehicles, they went for higher profits from trucks/SUVs. So all their money was going into their pockets and very little into R&D.


GM makes some of the most fuel efficient vehicles in their respective classes. The only area they are lagging currently in is the sedan and compact hybrid arenas.

quote:
When gas prices skyrocketed, this bit them in the ass. Why? Cause they didn't bother to make fuel efficient cars, nor had the ability to produce cars as fast as a truck/SUV.


There are no shortages of fuel efficient cars on GM lots. What bit them was the only vehicles that they were able to make a large enough margin on to sustain themselves was the truck/SUV market.

quote:
This is why Japanese companies, who were constantly working on perfecting their cars are doing fine. It costs over ten times as much to design a car, than to design a truck/SUV. Hence why GM failed.


So show me where the Japanese have markedly better mileage in anything other than a hybrid?


RE: Unfortunately...
By Hiawa23 on 6/2/2009 1:56:32 PM , Rating: 1
So it's Obama's fault?

Shitty management killed GM. If they arent capable to keep their company alive themself, then let it be so.

Sorry GM, but u failed


LOL, I agree, can't blame Obama for this one, as this is decades in the making. To me GM should have filed for bankruptcy last year when the other side was in office. Sounds like a management issue not this President or the last Presidents fault. If you want to fault the government we can also go back decades because it's a shame the great United States of America, of which I am a proud citizen of, is dependant heavily on foreign oil from countries that hate us, & owes China, & debt that may never be paid back. Yep, I more blame our government for these issues than GM's downfall although the government also has a hand in it with all the resrtictions they imposed over the years for the auto industry.


By paperdetective on 6/2/2009 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 1
If America is indeed selling the Hummer factories and technology to the Chinese, we are truly on a suicide mission.

The Chinese are our enemy. They will be getting control and knowledge over a big chunk of our military production capacity of our military version Hummers (note that the chassis is built in the same factory, and the civilian Hummer only differs in some insignificant details/components).

Our military has to stop the sale to their future military opponent, China.

And our politicians should be dragged for this into court for treason.




By Rhl on 6/2/2009 5:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
You're crazy. All the Chinese have to do is buy one Hummer and reverse-engineer it... and even then, come on now... them getting a hold of Hummers isn't going to give them a big advantage in modern warfare. You truly are a paper defective... a soft breeze blows your nutty theories away.


By SpaceJumper on 6/2/2009 5:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wake up!! Go to Google and search for "Chinese Humvee"
The Chinese makes their own Hummers. The Chinese version is actually has a better engine (less fuel) and can run at higher altitude than the American version.
Now the Chinese is making the civilian version for sale but it is not a gas guzzler.
http://www.chinacartimes.com/2007/05/28/chinese-hu...


By ClownPuncher on 6/2/2009 6:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
The Chinese are our enemies? I am thinking...no. Wake up, Mao is dead. Maybe you played too much Fallout.


By Spuke on 6/2/2009 7:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
The military portion of Hummer will not be sold just the consumer portion.


By Bender 123 on 6/2/2009 9:25:18 AM , Rating: 5
Thank goodness I read the article and it was the Hummer BRAND they are selling. I thought things were so bad for Hummer that the article title implied they managed to sell one Hummer to some guy. Although that would be newsworthy as well.

(Sarcasm\)




Hummers are ugly as sin...
By callmeroy on 6/2/2009 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but they are about the ugliest utility vehicle on the road......but they are well built (not so sure about the H3's...I mean the original hummers and maybe even the H2).....they could take a beating like no other civilian accessible vehicle.

The funny thing -- just like SUV's , statistically the majority of folks that buy large vehicles -- or more appropriately vehicles built for off-road or "rough" use....NEVER take advantage of those capabilities -- they are driven and pampered just like a car is by most people.

I always thought that was kind of funny...because it seems like such a waste in fuel and money...but again if that's what you like for the "looks"....and you can afford it -- more power to you.




RE: Hummers are ugly as sin...
By CU on 6/2/2009 12:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
I use to do a lot of car shows. I had truck in high school that I would never drive in the rain, just to keep it cleaner. I have seen cars with gold plated frames, which I assume are never driven. Driving an off-road vehicle only on the road is very easy for me to see. But yes it very funny sounding when you say it or tell someone about it.


False statement...
By roostitup on 6/2/2009 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
"The lineup of gas-hungry mammoth vehicles fell out of favor among consumers last year as gas prices soared."

Comon buddy, this statement is totally based on opinion and is false. The Hummber lines get better gas mileage than most trucks and SUV's. They also are no larger than any other SUV or truck. Do your research or think a little before you post outlandish statements.

I don't understand why people attack the Hummer line so much when clearly the large F-350's, 3500's, Suburbans & Expeditions get MUCH worse gas mileage. Hell, even some of the half ton trucks and SUV's get worse gas mileage! Get real and set your priorities straight!




RE: False statement...
By Gul Westfale on 6/3/2009 12:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
they can't get better mileage than other GM SUVs because hummers ARE simply rebodied GM SUVs... do a little research, indeed.


Get Real
By Pintogary on 6/2/2009 2:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Hummer Brand was produced because it did, for a while, make money. All previous blogs are ridiculus! A product is produced to make money, not because the company wants to be an environmentalist, capatalist, socialist, or to make a statement. If the product doesn't make money, it wouldn't be produced. People are attaching personal feeling and beliefs onto something it's not. It's just business, plain and simple (or was), not a political statement.




RE: Get Real
By Chernobyl68 on 6/2/2009 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
I've always thought that the hummer brand in general was extremely redundant, except the very first civilian model of the Humvee. Every model SUV (both of them) that is produced for the hummer line can be found in other vehicles - Suburbans, Tahoes, Jeeps, GMC, etc. All you're paying for really is body style. They certainly have a distinctive look, but the Hummer H2 is not any more capable off road than a Suburban.


A Sad Day for Hummer Lovers
By Technomage on 6/2/2009 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, man. This fascism stuff sucks. I always aspired to buy a Hummer when I got enough money, but I refuse to send that big a check to China.




RE: A Sad Day for Hummer Lovers
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 8:09:31 PM , Rating: 1
While true...I also refuse to send such a big check to the government for a company that I partially own...or so they say lol.

If this happened last year, I would have never bought that Tahoe. Id have opted for an Expedition.


By Technomage on 6/3/2009 3:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, though I'm not much of a Ford fan.


Who would buy them?
By iFX on 6/2/2009 9:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
They aren't selling, they are expensive to manufacture and the brand name has a reputation for being a gas guzzler.

I know it's popular on DT for users to claim all America has been doing for the last ten years is buying Hummers but obviously that isn't true since the brand has basically been in a free fall for years.




Sick
By Danger D on 6/2/2009 12:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
The things they'll do for money now.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki