GM has announced that it'll
no longer make the Hummer H1. When I read the title of this article, my mouth twisted into an evil smirk and I thought, "Good, serves 'em right" or something equally as catty. After all, this is the biggest and dumbest of all the big, dumb SUVs, the one that sucks up the most gasoline and spits out the most noxious gasses. But as I read on, I realized that this was more a token victory than an actual one. GM only ever sold 12,000 original Hummers, and while even one is too many, it's the more popular H2 that's doing the most damage, followed I'm sure by the H3. GM isn't letting go of the Hummer name or ideal, just that one model. And it doesn't come in hybrid. [Source: Auto123.com; Thank you Joel A for the tip]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mark F 2:09PM (5/19/2006)
My 2000 H1 turbodiesel regularly got 15-16 mpg when cruising and never got less than 11-12 mpg when towing up to 9,000 lbs of horse trailers and equipment. Many magazines, including US News & World Reports (see attached link), when testing the Hummer H2, got from 9-10 mpg in routine driving with 6-7 mpg in full tow mode. Anyone who believes the H1 is the root of all evil is just another misinformed reactionary greenie who has distorted the facts to meet a personal agenda, or who believes a Prius fleet can clean up the environment by easily tow 4X its vehicle weight (the Toyota website lists the Prius tow capacity as "0 lbs"). There are legitimate uses for all different classes of vehicles in the real world, and saying H1s are universally the worst of the trucks is no different than claiming plug-in hybrids getting 90 mpg are the solution to our needs when the electricity comes from non-renewable, 'unclean' sources.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/auto/review/hummer_h2.htm
Reply
Juan 3:14PM (5/19/2006)
I'd like to see more focus on interesting stories from of AutoblogGreen, and less editorializing.
That's not to say I don't agree with what you're saying, but being too opinionated is damaging your credibility. Editorializing also invites people to label you with a stereotype, and then dismiss you.
Reply
Eliot Hochberg 3:41PM (5/19/2006)
I second the comment on editorializing.
Look, there are people who do things like go boating, offroading, etc. Now, we can continue to offend them by using words like "evil" or we can realize that evil has a real meaning (as in perhaps Hitler and certainly Satan), or we can instead say that there are better and worse choices.
In addition, there are needs which exceed that which can be performed by compact cars, such as construction, private forestry, etc. These also need tools appropriate for the job.
While it is certainly true that some people buy vehicles like the H1 for purely aesthetic reasons, that vehicle has specific benefits for those people who use it for its intended purpose: going basically anywhere.
So the answer isn't to bash people who have those hobbies, do those jobs, or purchase those vehicles. The answer is to understand why people make the purchase, and provide solutions that are decreasingly wasteful.
Let's face it, technically, anything we do that isn't for survival is technically wasteful, that includes art and music and all the things that make life good. Fortunately, most art doesn't take a lot of energy to create, but if it did, would you say to people they shouldn't make art, that they were evil? no, you'd try and get them to do it a better way.
To address the work aspect, making vehicles that run on biofuels, or fuel cells could help tremedously. If there was a biofuel Hummer, would there be as big of a problem? No, and the fact is the military is currently trying to develop a diesel electric hybrid to replace the current Hummer. Why? Because you don't have to be interested in the environment to be interested in efficiency, which your comments miss.
For those who use such vehicles for entertainment, the same solution holds, but in addition, developing interest in less wasteful sports can also help. It would be just as thrilling to ride an electric ATV, and that probably weighs less, leading to less towing capacity required.
Finally, for the people who choose SUVs for aesthetics, swaying fashion is the way to go. Already, there is some interest in hybrids, let's foster that, but also let's figure out why people want such a large vehicle for aesthetics. It's basically to show off, and while that's not my bag, the solution there is to find ways they can show off that don't require low mileage vehicles.
The bottom line is this: in this country, we are at a point where no conversation can happen because of the way people label each other. If you call me evil, I don't have any reason to listen to you. If, however, it's clear that we are willing to listen to each others' needs, then compromises can be made, and over time, opinions, desires and eventually, changes, can occur.
You have an opportunity here - this blog has a lot of readers who aren't necessarily "green" because it's associated with a car blog. Treat them right, and you might convince them. Treat them wrong, and you'll lose them.
Reply
Doogs 5:03PM (5/19/2006)
"GM only ever sold 12,000 original Hummers, and while even one is too many, it's the more popular H2 that's doing the most damage, followed I'm sure by the H3. GM isn't letting go of the Hummer name or ideal, just that one model."
1) the Hummer H1 was never intended as a high-volume vehicle. It was rather more of a curiosity.
2) Why is even one too many, especially considering that your average owner probably has one of these as a toy that gets driven less than 10,000 miles per year. You want to talk wastefulness, how about the public transit buses I see every day on my way to and from work loaded down with one, two, maybe three riders?
3) I find it amusing that the shrillest anti-SUV voices always target the H1 and the Ford Excursion. Yes, they are big. The Excursion is so big, in fact, that it failed in the marketplace. It already made that point...so attacking it for being big and wasteful is just redundant.
4) The H2, in my opinion, is a much worse sign of wastefulness and conspicuous consumption. It is a Tahoe with a body kit and terrible gas mileage.
5) Since its release, the H3 has actually been outselling the H2 by a wide margin. Year to date, GM has sold 16,582 H3s, vs. 5,717 H2s.
6) The H2, as grossly wasteful as it is, has signs of being a fad. Sales are off by 25% this year compared to last. It's old hat.
7) For the record, I have absolutely no problems with editorializing. I would rather an author offer their opinion, so I know where they stand. But there is a difference between editorializing and blog-like ranting.
8) I had high hopes for this site when it launched...but in the intervening weeks it has paled in comparison to the likes of Green Car Congress.
Reply
Eric Simonson 12:48PM (5/20/2006)
The H1 was one of the few full-size SUV's on the market capable of running (with some modifications) on biodiesel.
Reply
REBECCA 7:25PM (5/22/2006)
My husband and I just bought an H3. I drive it to work and back and around town. It gets 17 miles to a gallon. My old car, a Jeep Liberty only got 14 miles to a gallon. There are plenty of cars and SUV's out there that get less gas mileage than my H3
Reply