Who cares?
The only nice ones are the original.
Not the gaudy ghetto versions.
The only nice ones are the original.
Not the gaudy ghetto versions.
What happed to all the Hummers?
- Thread starter ET16
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
+1
see them around here, usually driving fast/aggressive.
see them around here, usually driving fast/aggressive.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Have you seen the cartoon lampooning male Hummer drivers?
The tag line is "Now everyone will know."
The point being that the average male driving a Hummer is somewhat lacking as a man, so to speak.
Never seen it, heard the inference made many times. And not just to Hummers. Everytime I've heard it, it was directed to an over-sized, spotless SUV or over-sized pickup that clearly saw nothing more heavy duty than a freeway commute.
Ironically I've seen a lot of females driving the same thing, so I'm not sure how that would apply there, given the anatomical difference.
Personally I have no issues with what anyone drives. I go the more fuel efficient route because I have no need for anything bigger, and I'd rather have that extra money in my wallet rather than some Saudi prince's Swiss bank account.
-Spyder
Have you seen the cartoon lampooning male Hummer drivers?
The tag line is "Now everyone will know."
The point being that the average male driving a Hummer is somewhat lacking as a man, so to speak.
Never seen it, heard the inference made many times. And not just to Hummers. Everytime I've heard it, it was directed to an over-sized, spotless SUV or over-sized pickup that clearly saw nothing more heavy duty than a freeway commute.
Ironically I've seen a lot of females driving the same thing, so I'm not sure how that would apply there, given the anatomical difference.
Personally I have no issues with what anyone drives. I go the more fuel efficient route because I have no need for anything bigger, and I'd rather have that extra money in my wallet rather than some Saudi prince's Swiss bank account.
-Spyder
If I had a backwoods cabin 20 miles from the closest road, I'd look at a Hummer to get there. They are surprisingly good off-road. So is a Jeep Cherokee, for that matter. Likely could find another Cherokee to salvage parts from in the woods, too...
I would always see H2 Hummer limousines in Miami Beach with 24 inch chrome wheels and I always thought they looked so ridiculous it wasn't even funny.
Say what you want, but after borrowing a hummer h2 for about a month during the middle of winter, it is a fantastic car to have in the snow.
No problems at all, and I felt totally safe.
Not a practical car for the rest of the year, but when feet of snow falls, it is nice to have. I didn't like putting gas in the thing, I'm glad I didn't have to pay for the vehicle itself..
No problems at all, and I felt totally safe.
Not a practical car for the rest of the year, but when feet of snow falls, it is nice to have. I didn't like putting gas in the thing, I'm glad I didn't have to pay for the vehicle itself..
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I would always see H2 Hummer limousines in Miami Beach with 24 inch chrome wheels and I always thought they looked so ridiculous it wasn't even funny.
Went to the baseball game with my kids last week and there was a black stretch Hummer at the stadium. My five year old, truck and mighty machine loving son made the observation loudly that there was a "WIENER-DOG CAR!"
I would always see H2 Hummer limousines in Miami Beach with 24 inch chrome wheels and I always thought they looked so ridiculous it wasn't even funny.
Went to the baseball game with my kids last week and there was a black stretch Hummer at the stadium. My five year old, truck and mighty machine loving son made the observation loudly that there was a "WIENER-DOG CAR!"
I'm not sure how "safe" a vehicle is that takes 2x as long to come to a stop.
Originally Posted By: cbear
I saw plenty when I was just down in Florida, even an civvy H1 trying to look like a military HMMWV.
Yes there are plenty of them roaming the streets in Miami-Dade and Broward County
It is actally the perfect vehicle for South Florida due to constant rear end collisions [I see them everyday] and floods everywhere when the monsoon rain comes which is very often down here...Even parts of I-95 gets heavily flooded...A lot of cars got waterlogged this year.
I saw plenty when I was just down in Florida, even an civvy H1 trying to look like a military HMMWV.
Yes there are plenty of them roaming the streets in Miami-Dade and Broward County
It is actally the perfect vehicle for South Florida due to constant rear end collisions [I see them everyday] and floods everywhere when the monsoon rain comes which is very often down here...Even parts of I-95 gets heavily flooded...A lot of cars got waterlogged this year.
I think my ex-brother in law is still driving his white H3Trailblazer.
He was trying to sell it for some ridiculous price right before GM made the announcement that they were dropping Hummer.
Knowing him, I seriously doubt that he budged on his price.
Looking back, he probably now wishes that he did.
He was trying to sell it for some ridiculous price right before GM made the announcement that they were dropping Hummer.
Knowing him, I seriously doubt that he budged on his price.
Looking back, he probably now wishes that he did.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The H2 is simply a Suburban in drag.
The H3, a Colorado in drag.
Not so much ugly as silly, pretending to be something they never will be.
Want a really tough vehicle?
Some Land Rovers, as well as some Jeeps, or an old Land Cruiser, or an H1 would fit the bill.
Their performance matches their appearance.
I can't really comment on their off road capabilities but Hummers are very popular in my area for middle & upper management types at coal, gas and logging companies. For a luxury SUV, they tend to do very well compared to an Escalade or Navigator.
The H2 is simply a Suburban in drag.
The H3, a Colorado in drag.
Not so much ugly as silly, pretending to be something they never will be.
Want a really tough vehicle?
Some Land Rovers, as well as some Jeeps, or an old Land Cruiser, or an H1 would fit the bill.
Their performance matches their appearance.
I can't really comment on their off road capabilities but Hummers are very popular in my area for middle & upper management types at coal, gas and logging companies. For a luxury SUV, they tend to do very well compared to an Escalade or Navigator.
I suspect some number have been exported to countries where gasoline is cheap (eg, Venezuela). Despite their depreciation in the US, they're not considered old and still have value. Nobody is gonna scrap a $15-25k vehicle
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'm not sure how "safe" a vehicle is that takes 2x as long to come to a stop.
Audi Junkie- I'm pretty sure it's "safer" overall.
See:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
And I'm especially sure it's "safer" than most cars, large or small, that it may crash into. F=MA doesn't bode well for the car, nor does the height differential.
I'm not sure how "safe" a vehicle is that takes 2x as long to come to a stop.
Audi Junkie- I'm pretty sure it's "safer" overall.
See:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
And I'm especially sure it's "safer" than most cars, large or small, that it may crash into. F=MA doesn't bode well for the car, nor does the height differential.
"What happened to all the Hummers?"
I've been wondering this too, but I thought it was just me. So I asked my wife - she simply said 'Don't start' and went on about her business.
We may never know.
I've been wondering this too, but I thought it was just me. So I asked my wife - she simply said 'Don't start' and went on about her business.
We may never know.
I'd rather stop short than hit something, but thanks.
Also:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
"Since 1978 pickups and SUVs have a consistently higher percentage of rollover deaths than cars."
"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 48 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2008, compared with 39 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 21 percent in cars"
Also:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
"Since 1978 pickups and SUVs have a consistently higher percentage of rollover deaths than cars."
"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 48 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2008, compared with 39 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 21 percent in cars"
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'd rather stop short than hit something, but thanks.
Also:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
"Since 1978 pickups and SUVs have a consistently higher percentage of rollover deaths than cars."
"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 48 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2008, compared with 39 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 21 percent in cars"
Audie Junkie-
Let's look at your "logic" in interpreting single vehicle vs. multiple-vehicle crashes:
"Forty-six percent of car occupant deaths in 2008 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 54 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 66 percent of SUV occupant deaths"...(and 34% occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes).
1. The conclusion you draw from the data seems to be that SUVs are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle accidents, and hence are less likely to be able to avoid such accidents (by not rolling over, or through better braking ability). But this data does NOT support your implied conclusion. What this data means is that, as a percentage of deaths in accidents involving SUVs, 66% happen in single vehicle crashes and 34% happen in multiple vehicle crashes. This states nothing about the likelihood of being involved in single vs. multi-vehicle crashes in cars vs. SUVs. Do you see the difference?
2. The multi-vehicle fatality percentage is lower in SUVs (34%) vs. cars (54%). The single-vehicle fatality percentage is higher in SUVs (66%) vs. cars (46%). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this is because the SUV occupants much more often survive in multi-vehicle crashes (involving SUV vs. car, for example), hence most of the fatalities in fatal accidents involving SUVs occur in single vehicle accidents? Of course this is simply common-sense conjecture that is not directly supported by the data, so let's take a close look at the fatality rate data in single and multi-vehicle crashes in figures taken from the same IIHS article:
You probably consider yourself to be a pretty good driver, I assume. I do, too. So if you were going to be involved in a car accident that was NOT your fault, which type of vehicle would you feel safer in after looking at these numbers and why?
3. Regarding rollovers, I'm sure you are well aware that recent developments in stability control with rollover protection and the new IIHS roof-crush tests are set to drastically change the stats in rollover deaths, but I guess that would weaken your argument so I understand why you didn't mention it. While these technologies may not apply to the now-discontinued H2 specifically, they will apply to SUVs in general, and you have no data regarding rollover deaths specifically in the H2.
Nice try, really. But none of what you've posted changes the overall accident death rate figures, which are lower for SUVs than cars as shown in this figure:
The fact remains that, if you are involved in an accident (whether it be single vehicle, multiple vehicle, rollover, whatever the crash type)-- your OVERALL chance of dying is less in an SUV than in a car. I'd rather lower my overall risk of death in an auto accident, but thanks. Your "stop short vs. hit something" argument, on the other hand, is simply not backed by data (see point #1, above). Nor does it make any sense- the best brakes in the world aren't going to save you from getting t-boned by a drunk driver, for example, and you simply cannot control the actions of other drivers and avoid all accidents. Most importantly, you have no data to show the real-world accident avoidance abilities of cars vs. SUVs. You can post braking distances all day, but they mean nothing unless you have real world data when it comes to accidents and accident avoidance as it plays out in the real world. I'm puzzled as to why you posted the statistics you did when they do nothing to support your argument. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
I'd rather stop short than hit something, but thanks.
Also:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
"Since 1978 pickups and SUVs have a consistently higher percentage of rollover deaths than cars."
"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 48 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2008, compared with 39 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 21 percent in cars"
Audie Junkie-
Let's look at your "logic" in interpreting single vehicle vs. multiple-vehicle crashes:
"Forty-six percent of car occupant deaths in 2008 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 54 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 66 percent of SUV occupant deaths"...(and 34% occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes).
1. The conclusion you draw from the data seems to be that SUVs are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle accidents, and hence are less likely to be able to avoid such accidents (by not rolling over, or through better braking ability). But this data does NOT support your implied conclusion. What this data means is that, as a percentage of deaths in accidents involving SUVs, 66% happen in single vehicle crashes and 34% happen in multiple vehicle crashes. This states nothing about the likelihood of being involved in single vs. multi-vehicle crashes in cars vs. SUVs. Do you see the difference?
2. The multi-vehicle fatality percentage is lower in SUVs (34%) vs. cars (54%). The single-vehicle fatality percentage is higher in SUVs (66%) vs. cars (46%). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this is because the SUV occupants much more often survive in multi-vehicle crashes (involving SUV vs. car, for example), hence most of the fatalities in fatal accidents involving SUVs occur in single vehicle accidents? Of course this is simply common-sense conjecture that is not directly supported by the data, so let's take a close look at the fatality rate data in single and multi-vehicle crashes in figures taken from the same IIHS article:
You probably consider yourself to be a pretty good driver, I assume. I do, too. So if you were going to be involved in a car accident that was NOT your fault, which type of vehicle would you feel safer in after looking at these numbers and why?
3. Regarding rollovers, I'm sure you are well aware that recent developments in stability control with rollover protection and the new IIHS roof-crush tests are set to drastically change the stats in rollover deaths, but I guess that would weaken your argument so I understand why you didn't mention it. While these technologies may not apply to the now-discontinued H2 specifically, they will apply to SUVs in general, and you have no data regarding rollover deaths specifically in the H2.
Nice try, really. But none of what you've posted changes the overall accident death rate figures, which are lower for SUVs than cars as shown in this figure:
The fact remains that, if you are involved in an accident (whether it be single vehicle, multiple vehicle, rollover, whatever the crash type)-- your OVERALL chance of dying is less in an SUV than in a car. I'd rather lower my overall risk of death in an auto accident, but thanks. Your "stop short vs. hit something" argument, on the other hand, is simply not backed by data (see point #1, above). Nor does it make any sense- the best brakes in the world aren't going to save you from getting t-boned by a drunk driver, for example, and you simply cannot control the actions of other drivers and avoid all accidents. Most importantly, you have no data to show the real-world accident avoidance abilities of cars vs. SUVs. You can post braking distances all day, but they mean nothing unless you have real world data when it comes to accidents and accident avoidance as it plays out in the real world. I'm puzzled as to why you posted the statistics you did when they do nothing to support your argument. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'd rather stop short than hit something, but thanks.
Also:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
"Since 1978 pickups and SUVs have a consistently higher percentage of rollover deaths than cars."
"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 48 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2008, compared with 39 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 21 percent in cars"
Audie Junkie-
Let's look at your "logic" in interpreting single vehicle vs. multiple-vehicle crashes:
"Forty-six percent of car occupant deaths in 2008 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 54 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 66 percent of SUV occupant deaths"...(and 34% occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes).
1. The conclusion you draw from the data seems to be that SUVs are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle accidents, and hence are less likely to be able to avoid such accidents (by not rolling over, or through better braking ability). But this data does NOT support your implied conclusion. What this data means is that, as a percentage of deaths in accidents involving SUVs, 66% happen in single vehicle crashes and 34% happen in multiple vehicle crashes. This states nothing about the likelihood of being involved in single vs. multi-vehicle crashes in cars vs. SUVs. Do you see the difference?
2. The multi-vehicle fatality percentage is lower in SUVs (34%) vs. cars (54%). The single-vehicle fatality percentage is higher in SUVs (66%) vs. cars (46%). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this is because the SUV occupants much more often survive in multi-vehicle crashes (involving SUV vs. car, for example), hence most of the fatalities in fatal accidents involving SUVs occur in single vehicle accidents? Of course this is simply common-sense conjecture that is not directly supported by the data, so let's take a close look at the fatality rate data in single and multi-vehicle crashes in figures taken from the same IIHS article:
You probably consider yourself to be a pretty good driver, I assume. I do, too. So if you were going to be involved in a car accident that was NOT your fault, which type of vehicle would you feel safer in after looking at these numbers and why?
3. Regarding rollovers, I'm sure you are well aware that recent developments in stability control with rollover protection and the new IIHS roof-crush tests are set to drastically change the stats in rollover deaths, but I guess that would weaken your argument so I understand why you didn't mention it. While these technologies may not apply to the now-discontinued H2 specifically, they will apply to SUVs in general, and you have no data regarding rollover deaths specifically in the H2.
Nice try, really. But none of what you've posted changes the overall accident death rate figures, which are lower for SUVs than cars as shown in this figure:
The fact remains that, if you are involved in an accident (whether it be single vehicle, multiple vehicle, rollover, whatever the crash type)-- your OVERALL chance of dying is less in an SUV than in a car. I'd rather lower my overall risk of death in an auto accident, but thanks. Your "stop short vs. hit something" argument, on the other hand, is simply not backed by data (see point #1, above). Nor does it make any sense- the best brakes in the world aren't going to save you from getting t-boned by a drunk driver, for example, and you simply cannot control the actions of other drivers and avoid all accidents. Most importantly, you have no data to show the real-world accident avoidance abilities of cars vs. SUVs. You can post braking distances all day, but they mean nothing unless you have real world data when it comes to accidents and accident avoidance as it plays out in the real world. I'm puzzled as to why you posted the statistics you did when they do nothing to support your argument. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Some other conclusions that can be drawn from that last graph that you left out:
Your chances of dying in car are at least as good or better than in a pickup. Comparing the largest cars to any size SUV or pickup, your odds are no worse in the largest car than they are in any size SUV, and much better than in any size truck; thus, your statement, while true as you wrote it, is false when applied to the largest cars. Here is another spin on the same graph:
Your OVERALL chance of surviving is better in a car than a pickup; and,
Your chance of surviving in a large car is better than in any size Pickup and just as good as any size SUV.
Which puts the truth in the statement: there are lies, [censored] lies, and statistics.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'd rather stop short than hit something, but thanks.
Also:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
"Since 1978 pickups and SUVs have a consistently higher percentage of rollover deaths than cars."
"Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 48 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2008, compared with 39 percent of occupant deaths in pickups and 21 percent in cars"
Audie Junkie-
Let's look at your "logic" in interpreting single vehicle vs. multiple-vehicle crashes:
"Forty-six percent of car occupant deaths in 2008 occurred in single-vehicle crashes and 54 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, single-vehicle crashes accounted for 66 percent of SUV occupant deaths"...(and 34% occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes).
1. The conclusion you draw from the data seems to be that SUVs are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle accidents, and hence are less likely to be able to avoid such accidents (by not rolling over, or through better braking ability). But this data does NOT support your implied conclusion. What this data means is that, as a percentage of deaths in accidents involving SUVs, 66% happen in single vehicle crashes and 34% happen in multiple vehicle crashes. This states nothing about the likelihood of being involved in single vs. multi-vehicle crashes in cars vs. SUVs. Do you see the difference?
2. The multi-vehicle fatality percentage is lower in SUVs (34%) vs. cars (54%). The single-vehicle fatality percentage is higher in SUVs (66%) vs. cars (46%). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this is because the SUV occupants much more often survive in multi-vehicle crashes (involving SUV vs. car, for example), hence most of the fatalities in fatal accidents involving SUVs occur in single vehicle accidents? Of course this is simply common-sense conjecture that is not directly supported by the data, so let's take a close look at the fatality rate data in single and multi-vehicle crashes in figures taken from the same IIHS article:
You probably consider yourself to be a pretty good driver, I assume. I do, too. So if you were going to be involved in a car accident that was NOT your fault, which type of vehicle would you feel safer in after looking at these numbers and why?
3. Regarding rollovers, I'm sure you are well aware that recent developments in stability control with rollover protection and the new IIHS roof-crush tests are set to drastically change the stats in rollover deaths, but I guess that would weaken your argument so I understand why you didn't mention it. While these technologies may not apply to the now-discontinued H2 specifically, they will apply to SUVs in general, and you have no data regarding rollover deaths specifically in the H2.
Nice try, really. But none of what you've posted changes the overall accident death rate figures, which are lower for SUVs than cars as shown in this figure:
The fact remains that, if you are involved in an accident (whether it be single vehicle, multiple vehicle, rollover, whatever the crash type)-- your OVERALL chance of dying is less in an SUV than in a car. I'd rather lower my overall risk of death in an auto accident, but thanks. Your "stop short vs. hit something" argument, on the other hand, is simply not backed by data (see point #1, above). Nor does it make any sense- the best brakes in the world aren't going to save you from getting t-boned by a drunk driver, for example, and you simply cannot control the actions of other drivers and avoid all accidents. Most importantly, you have no data to show the real-world accident avoidance abilities of cars vs. SUVs. You can post braking distances all day, but they mean nothing unless you have real world data when it comes to accidents and accident avoidance as it plays out in the real world. I'm puzzled as to why you posted the statistics you did when they do nothing to support your argument. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Some other conclusions that can be drawn from that last graph that you left out:
Your chances of dying in car are at least as good or better than in a pickup. Comparing the largest cars to any size SUV or pickup, your odds are no worse in the largest car than they are in any size SUV, and much better than in any size truck; thus, your statement, while true as you wrote it, is false when applied to the largest cars. Here is another spin on the same graph:
Your OVERALL chance of surviving is better in a car than a pickup; and,
Your chance of surviving in a large car is better than in any size Pickup and just as good as any size SUV.
Which puts the truth in the statement: there are lies, [censored] lies, and statistics.
-Spyder
- Status
Similar threads
