Maybe it's ridiculous

 

So... This might seem like a dumb question, but I have to ask: If a curved (not flat/square) facing profile would give the H3 faster acceleration and better FE at essentially no additional cost, why wasn't it designed that way?

 

My guess is because they want a Hummer, not another car. Hummers were originally designed as the civilian version of the HMMWV, and they look almost like them. HMMWVs aren't designed for FE; they're designed for utility.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as deliberately underpowering. It is more accurately a result of platform engineering.

Automakers typically build a broad variety of vehicles off of a set of chassis components, called a "platform". It makes efficient use of engineering, purchasing, and development / validation resources. It can also make manufacturing more efficient. Sometimes you can get significantly different vehicles off the same "platform". The PT Cruiser was built off the Neon component set. The Chrysler Crossfire is built off the last generaltion Mercedes SLK platform. Nissan 350Z and Infinti G35 are off the same platform. Everything from Silverado pickups to Tahoe, to Escalade, to Hummer H2 are built off the same platform.

The Hummer H3 is built off the same platform as the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon pickups. Both those pickups have an Inline 4 and an Inline 5, each with a 4 speed automatic as powertrain options. It was recognized early on that the I-4 would not work in the H3. Therefore, I-5 it is. Until such time as the platform moves to a more powerful engine the powertrain choices for the H3 are what they are.

Consumer research that was analyzed during the development of the H3 indicated that power and acceleration rated waaaay below off-roadability and rugged persona. If I recall, it may have even rated below fuel economy. So it was concluded that consumers would be happy the I-5 package. So far sales data is finding that assessment to be true.

Peace,

Martin

 

Spot on. And Ashen...., it's not a dumb question. It's a question that is asked and re-validated every time a new Hummer program comes forward. There are certain aspects of the basic design that if you take them away or minimize them, customers say "That ain't no Hummer". I know, I know....on this newsgroup that would be considered a good thing

Peace,

Martin

 

I don't know. It seems to me that if someone buys a car that looks like a tank, they may also want to buy the car because it drives like a tank. If it drove differently, (more power or more aerodynamically) it might not capture the same machismo, hulking feeling or I-don't-know-what that makes people buy the Hummers in the first place. Jason's theory makes sense to me. But I could be wrong; I certainly wouldn't claim to understand the way SUV-owners or Hummer-owners think.

 

I highly doubt GM deliberately underpowered any of the Hummers in order to make them "feel" bulkier, I'm sure it was simply an issue of saving cost by using whatever exisiting engines could fit in the chassis. That's the same reason why the Accord Hybrid has a sub optimal engine for fuel-economy (it was the only available engine of Honda's that would fit the chassis along with the motor).

Back to the mileage topic, the aerodynamics of these vehicles would make them very sensitive to driving faster than the speeds used in the EPA test. As drag goes up with the sqaure of the speed, a vehicle with a poor shape and a big frontal surface area will generate a huge amount of resistance compared to EPA if driven at say 80mph on the freeway. A streamlined vehicle would not deviate nearly as much from the EPA rating.

Hybrids tend to fall below EPA for most drivers under severe conditions, despite good aerodynamics, because their smaller engines must operate at less optimal, high RPMs if driven perpetually at high load (fast speed/accessories) and because accessories (AC, headlights, etc.) consume a larger percentage of their engine power. Though hybrids will do better than a non-hybrid by a fair margin (all else equal), under severe driving conditions hybrids tend to fall below EPA by a higher percentage.

 

They're not designed for anything. They are just for looks. There are better options than the H3 for "utility". And better options for just commuting as well.

 

I wasn't talking about the Hummers; I was talking about the HMMWV they're based on.

 

YO! That reply was just completely and utterly uncalled-for. This forum may be about challenging other people's *ideas*, but it is NOT about making demeaning, dehumanizing diatribes.

I go head-to-head with Martin all the time, so he knows that I'm no GM Groupie. But when I challenge Martin, I'm actually challenging his ideas and opinions, not questioning his worth as a man.

I also hardly think that working for GM constitutes selling one's soul (working for Dick Cheney constitutes selling one's soul).

What I've learned about Martin is that he DOES want GM to succeed through improved efficiency. He just wants different kinds of vehicles made more efficient (Trucks and big SUVs instead of compact cars and family sedans). It's still a lofty goal. 18 MPG from 2-Mode is better than 14MPG without.
Your comments were hurtful and cruel. I really think you owe Martin a direct apology. Otherwise, I personally welcome you to take your opinions elsewhere.

Chris aka AshenGrey