I was worried that this would be a positive article on how "green" hummers are... Thank goodness there are no such stupid writers at SciFi.

H3 gets 17 in town, 20-23 highway, same as an explorer or 4runner (14 ref may be for H2)

Hi Chromey - I got the H3 mileage statistics from a recent H3 review in Automobile Magazine. Edmunds agrees, saying that the H3 Alpha gets 13mpg on the road and 18 on the highway. (http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/hummer/0711_2008_hummer_h3_alpha/index.html, http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/701) Thanks for reading!

EPA ratings for the 2008 Hummer H3 and H3 Alpha are:
H3 w/manual transmission: 13/18
H3 w/auto transmission: 14/18
H3 Alpha w/auto transmission: 13/16

source - http://www.hummer.com/#/AMERICAS/us/

"Global warming" is bunk. What, it's CO2? We should hold our breaths? Mount St. Helens put out more of that stuff than anything, and we didn't end up with melted icecaps in the early 1980s. As for future fuels, Hummer will go to new fuels if the market dictates, in the mean time it doesn't burn any more or less than sports cars and can carry a lot mroe stuff, and who cares if someone wants one and can drive one? That's their business. I don't own one but I refuse to get in the envy hate, because all the anti Hummer stuff is envy hate either from people who won't drive one or Hollywood enviroweeners who fly around in limos and private jets that burn way more fuel than any Hummer ever will. I don't deny their right to have whatever vehicle they want, they should stop the envy hate on Hummer owners too and be fair for once. Or at least be honest and have critics say they don't like that instead of fake "environmental" reasons. That's just whimpy. At least GM is planning options for the future, and if neccesary they will go with them, but the anti Hummer stuff is just sour grapes and that's all it has ever been.

First, who cares if it gets 14 or 17 mpg, that's a criminally shameful figure, especially when we're fighting a war and killing people to secure oil.

And yes, the site and channel IS called Sci Fi, but u are truly stupid if u cannot grasp the basic science of global warming. Science fiction fans LIKE science, and are generally knowledgeable and intelligent. It's a shame to be reminded that there exist people that can't tell science from fiction.

I've always loved the H1's body lines and was disapointed when the H2 and H3 came and changed it but I'm kinda liking the look of the new HX, even though at my salary i couldn't even drool on one!

Hummers should be outlawed. The only people who buy them are women who think they're men, and men who lack certain anatomical parts. Not only are they ugly, but the diesel ones stink, and the gas guzzlers pollute with Oxides of Sulfur, that deteriorate into Sulfuric acid! The idiots that drive these damn things on the road, should have their licenses revoked, because they think that they own the road. They think they are indestructible, but I saw one flip in a snow storm, just a month ago. Other people who buy these behemoths are just rich business men, who already get corporate welfare, and now they can write these garbage scows on wheels off as their "business vehicle."
GM should do the planet a favor, and get rid of this huge piece of fecal material already. It will NEVER be green in my not so humble opinion!

Yeah, 98% of the scientific community agreeing that climate change is a problem, must absolutely be bunk. I guess I better put up my "WARNING: Nearing edge of Earth" sign outside and bask in the scientific excellence of that other 2 - (highly compensated) percent.

With all the real estate DoD demanded under the hood of the original "Hummer" (the good old HMWWV) there's more than room for a low-emissions, low-fuel consuming, only running on demand small gas engine connected to a generator, a full bank of lithium-ion batteries, and electric motor at the transfer case - a hybrid Hummer. Anyone with the requisite training to maintain a 400-amp electric welder could build and keep one up, and I'd be willing to bet its mileage would be significantly higher than 15 mpg. If one was willing to think outside the box and ditch the transmission, you could use pulse-modulated control circuitry (power transistors of the type used in any elevator, $100 per, max of two required) and drop some major weight.

The point being for GM to stop self-stimulating and get on with REAL hybrid technology, not just "hybrid" pickups with inverters under each seat and the same gas mileage as well-tuned gas engines. If there were money in it for them, they'd be on the stick.

It doesn't matter what kind of gas mileage you get on any car. What matters is the kind of fuel you put in it. e85 is supposed to be better because it is grown. Hence the carbon in the fuel was absorbed from the atmosphere. When you use conventional fossil fuels that carbon has been locked away and we are just releasing it into the atmosphere that hasn't seen that carbon in a few million years....

E85 isn't that great. Ethanol may be home grown, but it's terribly inefficient. Why do you think the bush administration, known for their unwavering dedication to protecting the environment, supports ethanol? Because it just delays them from doing anything meaningful to protect the environment.

There is very little net gain in energy produced by growing ethanol. You have to invest almost the same amount of energy in fossil fuels just to grow, harvest, process, and transport it. It's almost the same as just using regular petroleum, except you add a middleman. That middleman, states that grow corn, heavily lobby Washington to ensure that ethanol takes off, not to help the environment, but because they make money off of it.

Also, in order to grow all that corn (and whatever else they want to use) you have to use fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals. That stuff gets carried downriver (or underground into the water table), and creates dead zones when they reach the ocean. Or algae blooms. Neither are good.

American car companies are using ethanol as yet another way to refuse to improve the fuel economy of their cars. If they can make cars that run on either gasoline or e85, flex-fuel cars, then they don't have to raise their pathetic fuel efficiencies. Whose going to pay more for ethanol when their SUV runs fine on regular gas? And whose going to invest that much money to build/retrofit their gas stations, especially since gas companies have SUCH a good reputation for loving mother nature?

In any case, these are just a few reasons why ethanol isn't ready yet. If they get all the problems fixed and straighten out their intentions, maybe it can be as beneficial as it theoretically is. Until then, please try to know about the issues instead of supporting them just because they seem green.

I recommend reading Bob Zubrin's book, "Energy Victory". It provides genuine, properly-documented and carefully, objectively researched insight into the reasons why alcohol fuels are not just the best way forward from an economic standpoint, but also from the standpoints of permanently ending the threat of terrorism, humanitarianism and environmental improvement as well.

@coonass: GM isnt the problem. The problem is the arrogant, self-interested, egotistical insecure idiots who create the demand for Hummers and their ilk. GM is just responding to that demand.

@blzrd: exactly :-)

@Charles17: I'm afraid you're also in need of 'trying harder to know about the issues'. I could waste a lot of time and space by refuting all your points here one by one, but instead I will just recommend that you read Zubrin's book (referenced above), then taking a look at http://www.setamericafree.org ... see if you still see things the same way.

To summarize, there's not a single valid reason for the US not to embrace alcohol fuels with open arms. To anyone wanting to argue: Brazil started doing it twenty years ago, and is now 100% hetero-fuel FFV, 100% energy independent and imports ZERO oil (its actually an exporter). To suggest that the technology "isnt ready", in fact to suggest that there is *anything* to prevent the USA from accomplishing the same feat, or any reason why it should not, is simply not credible. The only thing preventing the USA from achieving energy independence and putting an end to OPEC-sponsored terrorism is the complacency of the American public.

KAPSTAAD, there is a big glaring reason why the US shouldn't go with E85, it is inefficient. How can anyone claim it is the wave of the future when you get lower thermal efficiency leading to reduced mileage. Also, alcohol is hygroscopic, meaning it absorbs water, which in turn reduces combustion efficiency further.
If you want to get behind a fuel you should research biodiesel, 50% less co2 than gasoline emissions and no co! It can also be used to power the tractors that are farming the corn or soybeans used to produce it, tractors can't run E85. And just because someone writes a book doesn't mean they are an expert on the subject, any book that extolls E85 as the answer is a marketing gimmick designed to sucker in easily influenced people just like the book written on ozone as a health benefit.

@HINKAWAZA, As I said already, Brazil ALREADY DID THIS. Speculation as to why ethanol "might not work" etc. is therefore IRRELEVANT, it is already proven workable beyond any possible doubt.

Yes, ethanol is slightly less energy dense than gasoline. No, that's not a reason to abandon it; we just have to enrich the fuel/air mixture to the proper level, depending on what type(s) and ratios of fuels are in the tank (which is precisely what FFV technology does). Yes, that means more ethanol is used than gasoline to make the same trip (assuming monofuel). No, that doesnt matter because even at todays prices, ethanol is STILL cheaper than gasoline, and unlike gasoline, the price of ethanol will DECREASE (due to competition among producers) as US fuel consumption rises; gasoline prices will only increase no matter what US consumption does.

Besides which, even if it cost a little MORE to use ethanol than gasoline, we would STILL need to move to an alcohol fuel base, if for no other reason than it is just plain STUPID to continue to hand over a *billion dollars a day* to the primary sponsors of the terrorists trying to kill us! Quite apart from the idiocy of paying our would-be executioners to live obscenely lavish lifestyles while they plot our murders, we need that money to stay largely inside our OWN economy.

Finally, since you obviously didn't bother to read the book I cited, your opinion concerning the expertise of the author and the book is some sort of "gimmick" are not just wrong, they're utterly without merit or value. If you had bothered to read the book or research the author even a little, you'd understand that the solution proposed is _not_ to use E85 alone, but to mandate that all future vehicles sold in the US require hetero-FFV capability, i.e. the ability to burn ethanol OR methanol OR gasoline OR any combination thereof in ANY ratio. The proposed use of biodiesel for certain applications (tractors, jets) is also covered.

We're long past the stage of debabting over the relative efficiency of 85% ethanol/15% gasoline or biodiesel/paraffin.

We're also long past the time when legal arm-twisting measures would be any use at all.

The idea is to become the "creative minority: whose solutions are so much obviously better than what's out there now that word spreads on its own the people clamor to get the new stuff.

Get away from internal combustion engines totally. Use low-torque external combusition engines that do nothing but charge batteries to power electric drive motors all day. The power curve you need for maneuvering in traffic, etc will come from the batteries, which are recharged constantly by the low-tech external engines - they can be rotary engines from chain saws or two-cycle outboard motors or steam engines. Make 'em cheap and easy to keep running.

Make the power plants small enough to put in used cars. Make it all simple enough that people can do it for themselves. Make the investment in changng cars small enough that a million people show up with their little tinker shops to change the way America drives overnight, just like the personal computer took off in the 1980s. Don't ask "May I?"