« Sweden: Breaking Dependence on Oil is “A Matter of Political Will” | Main | Pakistan Hits One-Million Natural Gas Vehicle Mark »
GM Cancels the HUMMER H1
13 May 2006
|
| The H1 Alpha, introduced in Aug 2005, featured a 6.6-liter, 300hp diesel engine. |
GM will stop production of the its iconic HUMMER H1 this year and the manufacturer, AM General, will convert the H1 assembly line to produce more military Humvees, which the company also produces. For many, the H1 became the symbol for petroleum excess: an overly large vehicle with overly large fuel consumption.
GM said it is moving away from very large, extremely low-volume vehicles to ones with broader appeal to a wider audience. Although a low-seller, the H1 established the HUMMER brand, which GM has expanded with a range of slightly smaller and higher-volume vehicles (the H2 and H3).
AM General and GM have sold around 12,000 of the H1 since its intoduction by AM General in 1992, and only 98 units during the first four months of this year; the H3 posted 16,582 units during those same four months.
Just last August, GM had up-powered its H1 to the H1 Alpha, using the Duramax 6600 6.6-liter turbodiesel as the powerplant. The 300 hp (223.5 kw), 705 Nm engine provided 46% more power than its predecessor in the H1.
May 13, 2006 in Fuel Efficiency, Sales | Permalink | Comments (79) | TrackBack (2)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4862547
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Cancels the HUMMER H1:
» GM Kills the Hummer H1 from Treehugger
That's one funeral we don't care if we miss. "Cheering just about every other driver on the road, General Motors Corp. said Friday that it is ditching the H1 by June," announced the SFGate. Green Car Congress said: "the manufacturer, AM General, will ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 13, 2006 12:47:36 PM
» GM Kills the Hummer H1 from Treehugger
That's one funeral we don't care if we miss. "Cheering just about every other driver on the road, General Motors Corp. said Friday that it is ditching the H1 by June," announced the SFGate. Green Car Congress said: "the manufacturer, AM General, will ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 13, 2006 12:51:39 PM
Comments
The H1 never achieved high sales volume, so its total contribution to e.g. CO2 was never significant. The importance of the press release lies in the psychological impact of taking this environmental abomination out of the showrooms. Unfortunately, production of the other Hummer models will continue. There are still folks out there who insist on driving a converted military vehicle because that's supposedly cool.
It may be a cultural thing, but here in Europe the vast majority of people find the apparent love affair of a certain segment of the US population with all manner of military hardware deeply disconcerting (cp. Prussia). It suggests a level of comfort with aggression/violence (
"kicking a** and taking names") that is also widely perceived as the core of US foreign policy - especially since 9/11.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | May 13, 2006 7:17:03 AM
Perhaps those people don't have enough "creative" or destructive outlets. Draft them and their vehicles and send them to Iraq so they can experience the joys of war and kicking ass up close and personal. This would help reduce the cost of the war and get all these scary behemoths off our highways.
One of the impediments to smaller and more fuel efficient cars is the fear by many that they are going to get run over by large vehicles. In that sense, large SUVs and trucks are a negative twofer. They get crummy gas mileage and they discourage those who might be inclined to get smaller vehicles.
Posted by: t | May 13, 2006 7:29:17 AM
If the US was really serious about global warming and feeding our unfriendly "friends" billions of dollars to use against us, congress would immediately pass a tax of 100% on any vehicle that didn't get 30 mpg.
Next year it would go to 40 mpg.
It will never happen because they are taking billons of dollars in bribes from big oil and auto makers.
Posted by: Lucas | May 13, 2006 8:16:41 AM
After serving 4 years in the military I would never want to own a Hummer (regardless of whether I have the income to buy one or not). I did not care for that vehicle at all.
Lucas, take a look at your fellow consumers; they are just as much to blame. Guess how many of your senators and representatives would have a job if they voted for anything even remotely close to what you propose and it would have nothing to do with oil or auto companies.
Posted by: Patrick | May 13, 2006 8:26:05 AM
____The vehicle (used and those few new ones still out there) could still be a testbed for new technologies. It is, after all, a large vehicle with substantial associated cargo capacity to haul around prototype equiptment, (esp if they are not downsized yet) and testing/recording gear. Besides, what a great way to demonstrate to the Pickup and SUV lovers the technologies that you could put in a 8000+ lbs truck, (and similar/larger/smaller vehicles) and demonstrate it still has all the capabilities (and more) of the conventional version.
_
____Another market be would to demonstrate a rugged, cost effective, and reliable battle hardened HMMWV would be the military. With fuel saving technologies that will serve as electric generator/air compressor/hydraulic pump/water source /water purifier, the vehicle may utilize technologies currently in development to enhance the capabilities of our forces, while reducing the logistical footprint of operations while deployed. This will reduce costs ($$$$) due to the fact that much of the cost in current military operations is DIESEL FUEL. Reduced logistical loads and a reductioon in the type/number of pieces of equiptment will reduce costs by as much as $10 BILLION a year when fully implemented. That is only combat ops. Back on bases and during training there is much that could be saved with these advances implemented. Furthermore, reinvestment/recapitalazation in current pieces of equiptment with some or all the advances will: a) reduce consumption (of fuel, funds, and time) b)enhance capabilities.
_
____DARPA has poured funds into new technologies and it is about time we see the benefits. The innovations will flow down to the civilian level, where they will meet, complement, and enhance what is out there at the declassified level. It happened with the APOLLO and Internet programs. It is high time to happen again (if politics and special interests do not get in the way).
Posted by: allen zheng | May 13, 2006 8:37:27 AM
Maybe they could slap some more sheet metal underneath those things so our guys stop dying everyday on patrol. Seems obvious to me but then again GM and US military are apparently living in a different reality then me. Good riddance, now, are there enough Excursions on the market yet?
Posted by: ed | May 13, 2006 8:52:32 AM
alright anyone who thinks this is good is crazy. because now the cheap still gas guzzling ugly hummer h2 will become the head of the hummer line.. in what way is that good???
Posted by: Mike | May 13, 2006 8:53:10 AM
Halleluya!
Simple question:
How can GM [and Ford] think to get [be perceived] a "green" image while promoting the "yellow t-shirt/ethanol" commercial on TV, while selling super-mega gas guzzlers like the Hummers and all the other [junk] SUV?
I totally agree with Lucas's posting: Slap Detroit with a huge tax on all vehicles that do not achieve at least 30mpg...and keep it that way at least until 2010!!!
SUV are a [Ford] market/marketing invention. We could live very well in this country/world without them!
Fred Sands, Ph.D.
Posted by: Fred | May 13, 2006 8:54:42 AM
I know it's a shocking concept, but the market is working. SUV sales are dropping like a rock without the punitive taxes you folks are proposing.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 9:30:55 AM
"It will never happen because they are taking billons of dollars in bribes from big oil and auto makers."
Congress is taking billions in bribes? Do you really believe that?
I guess I am one of the few people here that actually lives in reality. Raising the fuel economy of SUVs by 50% would only delay what is a much more serious problem. Even if everyone in the U.S. stopped driving China and India would simply burn the saved gas at a lower price. So instead of preventing global warming you would just be helping the economies of China and India.
Try to consider the global context of oil use before misdirecting your anger towards SUVs and U.S. auto companies.
Posted by: dc | May 13, 2006 9:35:52 AM
allen-
The next "trickle down" of technology from DARPA is about 15 years away in the form of autonomous vehicles (fewer accidents, better handling of the future increase in congestion and more efficient driving patterns). Private industries have nearly all the individual components necessary but putting it all together was demonstrated during last year's DARPA sponsored challenge (where vehicles had to show the ability to operate autonomously and drive through some areas specifically designed to block GPS and RF).
dc-
Don't worry, China already exceeded Japan's oil consumption rate in 2004 (Japan was second to the US). With the pace of their advancement they will soon be very close to consuming the same amount of oil as us (probably in less than 25 years). If we did make provisions such that we used less oil and it were cheaper for them we could avoid some nasty oil wars in the future. Just imagine what a Chinese embargo would do to US industries given that nearly all of our lower end components are manufactured in China. With a booming Chinese economy they will eventually lose their price competitiveness edge (some companies won't want to have to change their manufacturing sites every 15 years to find the latest cheap labor and will start to do more manufacturing in the USA).
Posted by: Patrick | May 13, 2006 10:21:17 AM
The "China will burn it" problem is easily eliminated by using part of the tax to buy oil for the SPR.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 13, 2006 10:31:42 AM
Just for some balance, Re the "if we didn't burn it then China would" comments, its worth pointing out that China has some fairly punative taxes on vehicles that don't achieve good gas milage.
The Chinese are well aware of what would happen if a sizable proportion of their popuation was abe to consume fuel at the American rate of consumption.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't burn any surplus market fuel, but they already have some sensible policies in place.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | May 13, 2006 10:37:30 AM
ABOUT TIME!
Posted by: haru | May 13, 2006 10:53:00 AM
"With a booming Chinese economy they will eventually lose their price competitiveness edge (some companies won't want to have to change their manufacturing sites every 15 years to find the latest cheap labor and will start to do more manufacturing in the USA)."
I'm so glad you want Americans to make sacrifices to help the Chinese economy. Oh and given the birth rates of India and Latin America, the odds that U.S. companies will ever move their factories back to the states are close to nil. Most people don't want to work in a factory anyways, so I don't consider the loss to be a big deal.
But this is all really irrelevant to my main point. The point is that attempting to prevent global warming by removing U.S. SUVs is not only futile but delusional as well.
Posted by: dc | May 13, 2006 11:18:08 AM
Poll - What's your farewell to the original Hummer?
Good riddance, nasty gas guzzler - 84%
Posted by: Lucas | May 13, 2006 12:10:39 PM
Raphael finds the militaristic peccadillos of Americans disturbing.Who was it that colonized the mideast and Africa?
Do you think the ownership by England,France,and a collection of European powers may have contributed to the foul mood of the Islamic world.During much of the twentieth century European powers were slaughtering Indians,Algerians,South Africans etc.etc.
Wasnt that hitler guy from Europe somewhere.Recently Chirac said he would use nuclear weapons if he found a state was behind a wmd attack on France.I am a little tired of Euros looking down their extremely bloody nose at mean old U.S. war mongers.
Euros who live in glass historical houses should think before throwing rhetorical stones.
Posted by: earl | May 13, 2006 12:26:00 PM
Mike and dc: This is hopefully just the beginning of a shift away from glutinous consumption of oil. I would like to see the american car companies succeed in producing fuel efficient (hybrid/alternative fuel) vehicles, maybe then I would buy one of their cars again. Do you suggest we should just keep burning it up because everyone else will? It has to start some where. SUV's have there place in the American economy but perhaps everyone doesn't need one in their driveway. The global context is that there is a diminishing supply, so we can just "burn it off" as fast as we can or we can make lifestyle and technological changes to prevent the collapse of the american auto market. My reality does not have any control over what China and India does in the future, does your's? It has to start here at home.
Posted by: ed | May 13, 2006 12:39:23 PM
dc: "Congress is taking billions in bribes? Do you really believe that?" Well, yes. Perhaps the total is a billion, not billions but if you can't believe it: www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=345. $420 million over the last six years alone. Come on, pull your head out and get with the program. The market is way behind the consumer on this issue and the government is largely responsible.
Posted by: ed | May 13, 2006 12:52:00 PM
I know it's a shocking concept, but the market is working. SUV sales are dropping like a rock without the punitive taxes you folks are proposing.
Not sure how many times you need to hear this, but demand responds to price regardless of the components of the price. Wouldn't you rather that the bulk of the $3/gallon you're spending go to things to make things better, other than just enriching a few people and perpetuating the problem? With prices at the levels they are now, the feds and some states are proposing to roll back the fuel taxes that pay to deal with roads.
Does all that seem wise?
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 13, 2006 1:06:52 PM
Earl -
it is precisely because we recognize the mistakes of our own history that we Europeans (Germans and Austrians in particular) are so averse to all things militaristic. For example, Gov. Schwarzenegger's predelection for Hummers is one of many reasons many Austrians are embarassed to be associated with him by accident of birth.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | May 13, 2006 1:11:00 PM
"Come on, pull your head out and get with the program."
If the program involves referring to legal campaign contributions of $420 million over six years from an entire industry as "billions in bribes" then count me out.
But even that number is grossly exaggerated, as it includes donations by individuals that were not forced by the company to make contributions. That site you linked to doesn't even show which individuals made donations or why those individuals were selected to be included into "industry spending," which deceptively implies that the companies themselves are directly giving that $420 million. Basically, your source is highly biased and should not be trusted.
Posted by: dc | May 13, 2006 1:36:42 PM
Okay we'll count you out!
Posted by: ed | May 13, 2006 1:41:42 PM
"If the US was really serious about global warming and feeding our unfriendly "friends" billions of dollars to use against us, congress would immediately pass a tax of 100% on any vehicle that didn't get 30 mpg."
I think Lucas is right.
And it's hard to understand, why the US is still not really serious about global warming. You 've got a lot to lose - all those cities on the shores.
Off course, neither is Europe serious enough. We should take as much transport off the highway as possible and put it on the railroad.
Posted by: scram | May 13, 2006 2:13:44 PM
Interesting to note, that Hummer is not GM vehicle. It was developed by AM General, which still produce it for military and specialty users. GM bought it image (like Chrysler once did with Jeep, also from AM General) with anticipation to benefit from its extreme image. By itself this vehicle is revolutionary for military and all-terrain transportation, and comes only with diesel engine. Thought it is highly specialized and awful performer as city passenger vehicle. Exactly this, real Hummer was axed by GM.
Other Hummers GM continue to produce are cheap fake. Actually it is just camouflaged 30 years old Chevy Tahoe/GMC Sierra platform with 40 years old cast iron gas engines. It has solid beam rear axle and has minimal off-road capabilities. So H2 and H3 is really not just a vehicle, but statement: “proud to be a moron” For this matter I am on the side of our European eco-nazi friends.
Posted by: Andrey | May 13, 2006 2:18:03 PM
Joseph:
What we have here is a difference of philosophy.
Wouldn't you rather that the bulk of the $3/gallon you're spending go to things to make things better, other than just enriching a few people and perpetuating the problem?
Because I think too much government makes matters worse. As an example, take last year's energy bill. Part of the reason why our gas prices jumped so high so fast was the ethanol requirement, and the fact that we're two billion gallons short in domestic production. Corn ethanol is dubious at best in terms of energy return. The energy bill was thus a huge windfall for heavily-subsidized ethanol producers and their lobbiests.
The bottom line is that I don't trust my government. The less they get of the money I earn, the better.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 2:19:17 PM
Steeerike one!!!
Posted by: eric | May 13, 2006 2:19:18 PM
"The bottom line is that I don't trust my government. The less they get of the money I earn, the better."
Yeah, better give that money to non-democratic private corporations. They are so responsible with their money...
Posted by: James | May 13, 2006 2:22:13 PM
Forgot to close italics.
James: It's called buying stock. And yes, those corporations *are* accountable to their stockholders. If the company isn't making money, those stockholders can make changes to the Board of Directors.
If you disagree with the business practices of a company, all you have to do is not buy stock. You don't have the choice of not paying taxes.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 2:25:24 PM
The bottom line is that I don't trust my government. The less they get of the money I earn, the better.
So you trust the oil & gas industry, including the nations which have large oil reserves more than your own government, and would rather they get your money than your own government? The reality is that the average US household is spending over $2,000 more on gasoline today then they were a few years ago, and all that extra money is going to oil & gas interests, while tax receipts have only moved as much as demand has increased (which is actually very little).
I'm just wondering, all things being equal, you'd rather have a dollar go to your local, state, and federal government for roads and transit, or to Saudia Arabia and Venezuela? When Hussein was still in power, you would have preferred a dollar go to him instead of your own government?
We can agree that demand responds to price signals, not the components of price, right? And we can also agree that almost every cent we pay in fuel taxes is currently earmarked towards roads and a sliver towards transit, right? And that a legitimate role of government is to deal with roads, right?
Assuming we agree on that, then I don't really understand why someone would prefer $2.53 wholesale gasoline (current LA spot price) and 50 cents of tax instead of $1.00 wholesale gasoline and $2 of tax. Either way it's $3 gas sending a price signal to influence demand.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 13, 2006 2:32:15 PM
James: It's called buying stock. And yes, those corporations *are* accountable to their stockholders. If the company isn't making money, those stockholders can make changes to the Board of Directors.
That's a nice theory, but we all know in practice this isn't how it works - especially with respect to small investors.
If you disagree with the business practices of a company, all you have to do is not buy stock. You don't have the choice of not paying taxes.
But when that company then takes all of its huge profits then turns around to influence your government, it very much becomes your business as a citizen, regardless of whether you are an investor or consumer of their products.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 13, 2006 2:35:35 PM
Hummers' sales going down fast (only 98 sales in the last 4 months) may be a sign that the American people are finally waking up or can no longer afford to drive 3 and 4-ton gas guzzling dinosaurs. Without sufficient buyers, GM, Ford and others would stop manufacturing unwarranted huge inefficient ICE vehicles.
Governments should impose special tariffs on oversized vehicles instead of encouraging their purchase with direct and indirect subsidies. The new revenues could be used to support the purchase of more efficient smaller vehicles, hybrids and PHEVs.
A progressive tax increase on liquid fossil fuels may not be (in the short term) very popular with most voters but it makes sense to accellerate transition to alternative cleaner energies, to reduce oil imports, to ruduce the US trade deficits and to stop financing international terrorism every time we stop at the gas pump. If properly explained, the American public would understand and even support such a move, specially if it is strictly revenue (tax) neutral.
Posted by: Harvey D. | May 13, 2006 2:43:11 PM
You know, the Hummer is intended as an off-road vehicle and not something for the daily commute.
I do remember hearing a few out there, namely celebrities, who actually run the diesel Hummers on biodiesel and thus cite them as being more environmentally friendly. Hmm...I wonder how a hybrid Hummer would sell.
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr | May 13, 2006 3:17:26 PM
Joseph:
No, I'd rather not send my money to Saudi Arabia. But the problem is that we've been forced to seek oil elsehwere because our environmental lobby practically threw the oil companies out. We need to open ANWR and our Outer Continental Shelf. MMS estimates there's over 80 billion barrels of undiscovered oil there and over 400 trillion cubic feet of natral gas. But 85% of the OCS is currently off limits to drilling. We are thus more dependent on foreign sources of oil.
If ANWR had been opened years ago, we'd be producing about a million barrels more per day. That's about the same amount we import from Venezuela or Nigeria.
I'm a big proponent of energy independence because I don't want to support these regimes. But why are we buying oil from them in the first place? Because we've been locked out of exploting our own resources.
We have 1/4 of the world's coal reserves. We have seen on GCC how various private companies are investing in F-T technologies to improve efficiency and lower capital lower costs.
We have up-and-coming technology in algal oil (GreenFuel Technologies, GreenShift, to name two private companies). Our biodiesel industry is expanding exponentially, with several hundred million gallons per year of capacity under construction. Cellulose ethanol is almost ready to go ($29US million investment from Goldman Sachs in Iogen, recently).
The irony is that as more and more fuel efficient vehicles get on the road, states have started looking at new ways of getting tax revenue to cover the shortfall. The state of Oregon has recently tested a GPS tracking method for road taxes. This raises serious privacy issues, to say the least. And a lot of states, especially in the northeast, already have both fuel taxes and toll roads. Here I thought drivers were already paying for them at the fuel pump.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 3:24:50 PM
MMS estimates there's over 80 billion barrels of undiscovered oil there
Could you provide a reference for that? I'm unfamiliar with that claim.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 13, 2006 3:40:59 PM
But when that company then takes all of its huge profits then turns around to influence your government, it very much becomes your business as a citizen, regardless of whether you are an investor or consumer of their products.
My own Congressmen went to prison for bribery. I think I have a right to be cynical. This is why I say that government is the problem, not the solution. I don't trust any of them, no matter what Party they belong to. But good government or not, it's up to individuals to take action.
I'm going to leave it at that.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 3:54:00 PM
Joseph:
Briefly, here's an article at Rigzone.
Concurrently, and as directed by Congress, an inventory of oil and gas resources on the OCS has been conducted. MMS estimates of undiscovered resources are 85.9 billion barrels of oil and 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that are technically recoverable from all federal offshore areas. The estimate for both oil and gas increased about 15 percent compared to the 2001 report."Technically recoverable" estimates represent the quantities of oil or gas that could be produced using existing or reasonably foreseeable technology. Current technologies include drilling in water in excess of 10,000 feet and subsea depths in excess of 31,000 feet.
Emphasis added. I take it with a grain of salt. But even half that estimate would be worthwhile.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 4:02:33 PM
If we are really at War, then our leaders should rally citizens to sacrifice:
Force higher gas taxes
Force a tax on low MPG vehicles
Force new homes to have solar collection
Force energy independence
This will pay for the War and to have enough energy for our Military:
But we have NONE of the above?
This begs the question; Are we really at war?
THE MORE OUR FOLLOW CITIZENS SACRIFICE, the quicker, the war will be over.
Posted by: tonychilling | May 13, 2006 4:44:51 PM
Cervus claims:
the problem is that we've been forced to seek oil elsehwere because our environmental lobby practically threw the oil companies out.Excuse me, but look at history. We had 9.5 million barrels a day of domestic production in 1970, and we still had imports. We got 2 million barrels/day from Prudhoe Bay a few years later, and we STILL had imports.
1 million barrels a day from ANWR wouldn't even eliminate 10% of our imports, and we could do TWICE as much by increasing our fleet-average gasoline mileage from 22 MPG to 27. You could cut another 2 million barrels/day by improving diesel trucks from 6.5 MPG to 13 MPG, as Wal-Mart is doing for its own.
If every car rolling off the line in 2012 was a 150-MPG (plus electricity) CalCar-equivalent, we could eliminate the vast bulk of our oil imports. No amount of drilling will get us there, it will just let the problem keep growing.
We need to open ANWR and our Outer Continental Shelf.That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 13, 2006 4:45:12 PM
I found the source report for the claim.
http://www.mms.gov/PDFs/2005EPAct/InventoryRTC.pdf
I'll take a more thorough look at it later, but just a quick glance shows substantial differences with prior assessments, especially in the GOM.
But first a question - you said "This is why I say that government is the problem, not the solution. I don't trust any of them". If this is true, why would you believe the MMS report, especially when the estimates are so different from not many years ago?
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 13, 2006 4:49:19 PM
we've been forced to seek oil elsehwere because our environmental lobby practically threw the oil companies out
And I think that's not really supported by the facts. A good deal of shift away from domestic production over the past couple decades was because global oil prices were cheap, and we're high cost producers. Naturally, this creates a lag effect in terms of new exploration. With prices where they are now, though, all of a sudden Texas, Wyoming, and Alaska are flush with cash again and what's considered "economically recoverable" has changed dramatically.
This rapid change in circumstances is not coincidental.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 13, 2006 5:23:32 PM
This is my final comment on this topic.
Engineer-Poet: Conservation alone will not do it. Any such efforts must be met coming the other way with increases in domestic supplies. Eventually you'll hit a bottom in conservation anyway, and demand will start going back up again.
You also can't replace every vehicle on the road with a "CalCar". What if I need a truck for my small business? What if I have a large family? There are people out there who genuinely need an SUV or large pickup. Are you going to tell them they can't buy one?
I'd like to point out that Wal-Mart's efforts are being done by a private company, not at the government's mandate. That one million barrels from ANWR would still displace 5% of imports, which is not an insignificant amount.
People are buying more fuel efficient vehicles without mandates. Current prices alone are enough. I've said this a few times already, but I think I need to point out that I put my money where my mouth is. Last year I bought a new Corolla (35mpg) and a Honda Reflex scooter (67mpg). No mandates needed here.
You cannot use government for social engineering, which is what many here are proposing to do with fuel taxes and increasing CAFE standards. In fact, I think it's wrong to try and make other people's choices for them. Even if they turn out to be the wrong ones, as many SUV buyers are discovering now.
SUVs sold well in the 90s because that's what people wanted to buy. The auto companies didn't force them on us. They responded to consumer demand, culminating in bohemoths like the Ford Expedition and the H1 (both of which are now out of production). But the market changes fast. Now we have the Prius, Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris, and various crossover vehicles that get better mileage displacing SUVs. The market is responding at it should.
Joseph: Which is why I take that report with a healthy amount of skepticism, but regard the exploration as worthwhile.
A good friend of mine was in college back when the oil exploration business went bust in the early 80s. He was training to be a petroleum geologist. It understandably changed his career plans. A few weeks ago I read that the industry is now booming again, and is undergoing the first retooling in about 30 years. New rigs are being built. There's a big shortage. At these prices, even shale oil is looking viable.
So no, it's not a coincidence. There was just no incentive to invest in exploration or new production at $20 a barrel. This is basic economics at work.
I have mixed feelings about the current high prices. On one hand, we're moving faster and faster towards alternatives that will reduce our dependence on imports. On the other, prices will keep increasing until something in the economy breaks. The IEA said last Friday that they're seeing signs that prices have started pushing down demand. But new capacity--if there is any and we haven't hit peak--won't come online for years. Even if we opened ANWR today it would take five years to see anything from it.
I'm done here.
Posted by: Cervus | May 13, 2006 6:34:46 PM
Cervus:
There is also a big deficit in geophysicists and similar science/engineering/technology specialists partly due to the bust in the 80's and our present fossil fuel boom. All the innovators and brains went Green, business, or I.T. (information tech/techboom)
Posted by: allen zheng | May 13, 2006 7:08:05 PM
One phrase "ed": Shaped charge. A properly constructed one will punch through 100mm+ of steel armor at 10+ meters. Sheet metal is gonna do squat. The Sadr goons and Badr boys got their training and supplies for these nasty bombs and mines from Iran (IRGC) to use against Coalition/Iraqi Army forces. Hezbollah helped out too, with training and demonstrations, in simulated and actual ambushes. The roads are the main means of travel for all three sides (a:civilians,b:Coalition/Iraqi,c:insergents /foreign mujahideen/foreign agents/criminals/organised crime). 13 Sunni/mixed cities, 13 highways connecting them. You control the cities, control the highways, the insurgency decreases to the point that political compromise/ solution will finish off the fighting. Tal Afar, and Fallujah went through this with US in the lead. Samara, Mosul, Baghdad, and maybe Basra will be next. The next two years will not be pleasant.
Posted by: allen zheng | May 13, 2006 7:30:06 PM
Looking around I think there is a significant proportion of the population who would sell off their children's future ie college tuition to be able to drive a huge Stupid Useless Vehicle. That is why some standards must be in place. The market is fine if everyone were rational. One thing ecomomists ignore is one day there will be no oil so simple supply and demand only works if you have some supply for there to be a demand. Better we put reasonable rational standards in place and stop relying on the market which fails to add damage to the environment and future supply failure in the future. Don't we have a responsibilty to future generations?
Posted by: Jim | May 13, 2006 7:48:42 PM
One more thing. Just because you may have a big family it doesn't mean you need a Stupid Useless Vehicle to drive them around in. You know before Stupid Useless Vehicles appeared believe it or not people with big families were able to get around. And if you equate big with safe you should see some of the crappy crash tests these babies get mangled in. Of course being big does mean their mass is a concern for other drivers of reasonably sized cars. Trucks! Don't make me laugh the only truck use I see generally are people who have to haul groceries. That is not to say that some do not have a legitimate use for large trucks, maybe 5% of the people who currently own one if that much. By the way I own a small Nissan 2WD pickup and own a cherry orchard in Lake Chelan Washington at the end of a rough dirt road with switchbacks maybe 10% of the time I need a big truck for hauling rock of large amounts of lumber for which I keep an old K20 chevy around which maybe sees 200 miles a year.
Posted by: Jim | May 13, 2006 7:58:03 PM
I can't believe all the posts: almost 50 and this article is not even a day old!
All I have to say is I sure am glad I own a 2.3 liter vtec four cylinder older Honda Odyssey. With only a 50 litre tank it still cost me 40 (american) bucks to fill it up here in the States today. Ouch! It's quite a bit more in Canada. It's got to hurt to own a big suv right now. maybe I can keep the odyssey another 10 years and still sell it for mucho $$$!
Posted by: John W. | May 13, 2006 9:12:13 PM
From the RAV4 EV positing. I though it made sense to appear on this thread as well...
"...sport cars are also to be thrown in the SUV fire because they do run at best at 11 mpg.
However, there are thousands of more SUVs/PU-Ts than SCs.
Anway, you're missing the point and you are hiding behind the "payload" excuse that apparently every SUV and pick-up truck owner is so concerned....yeah right!
How many thousands of SUVs and pick-up trucks have I seen never hauling a single thing. I don't disagree that [see the new H1 posting] some people needs heavy vehicles to pull heavy weights, but then those are called contractors and not 18yo "Jennifer" from Beverly Hills... or Brittney from Topeka for that matter.
The problem with the US driver mentality is old and it is time to change it. The famous say "the bigger-the better" doesn't work anymore, [never worked for decades for that matter], and people in this country must do their part in saving the planet by reducing tail-pipe pollution, as well as stop importation of blodd stained petroleum from the middle east!
FS
EV Fanatic/Visionary
Posted by: Fred | May 13, 2006 10:55:08 PM
Raf; You could afford to be averse to all things militaristic because the U.S. has provided your defense for 60 years.Do you think the USSR may have advanced beyond East Berlin without the presence of U.S. troops?
Iran has recently procured long range missiles from North Korea that put you squarely in their sights.This is why Merkel and Chirac are involved in this go round.
Arent their skinhead groups and neo nazis in Germany?All societies have their extremes.I have never fired a gun and most people I know have never done so.The American cowboy applies to a certain segment of society not to 280.000,000 people.
I wish that mankind was advanced to a postwar status but it has not.I therefore do not apologize for a robust military and a distrust of the ambitions of the mahmouds {ahmadinejab} of the world.He and his ilk will destroy your morally superior society as soon as they are able.
Posted by: gerald earl | May 14, 2006 3:40:59 AM
Wow, talk about a wild tangent. H-1 = America/Klingon Empire. Ugh. Silliness. Grow up already.
I, for one, loved the aesthetic of the H-1. Amazing off-road ability too (in the proper environment). I will probably get one in a couple years for next to nothing, convert it to run on waste vegetable oil, and use it on the farm, as well as for some fun. Not an everyday commuter, though. ;)
Posted by: Chingy | May 14, 2006 6:18:40 AM
gerald earl: 298,000,000 or more in USA.
_
____The USSR use to swap oil for food with US. Max production was in the late 80's for the FSU. They fell due to the multipunch combo of lower oil prices due to Iran-Iraq War (forcing both sides to pump like crazy) and OPEC increasing their output, Huge defense spending, Afghanistan, internal mismanagement, and Gorbachov pushing pushing reforms far enough for the USSR to disintegrate and the Commies to fall.
_
____The PRC has learned this lesson from that (perestroika) experience. Tianamen Sq. was one of the inplementation of the lesson.
Posted by: allen zheng | May 14, 2006 6:21:28 AM
This thread has gone insane.
Posted by: dc | May 14, 2006 6:50:08 AM
It's interesting how we tend to vote with our mouth here.
Those pie-in-the-sky things that will never likely be used for transportation often never get a comment. Things like Hydrogen and fuel cells. If they do it is usually negative.
Back when I was teaching, I was amazed at the collective intelligent of a class of students. In a group of 30 or so, somebody knew a lot about almost anything.
Too bad we have never learned how to develop that potential.
Posted by: Lucas | May 14, 2006 7:02:20 AM
OK, I thought you'd get my point in my last post, but I guess not. This comment area is about the H-1!!! Not Perestroika, Tiananmen Sq, ANWAR, Evil US Empire of Doom, Oil companies keeping us down (man), or the last days. Take that crap somewhere else. Let's talk about the interesting technological aspects of the H-1 and the possible uses they may have in future vehicles, OK??? Sheesh!
Posted by: Chingy | May 14, 2006 7:12:00 AM
The hummer always was a entertainment device like a dunebuggy or a jet sky or s high speed motor boat or a personal airplane or any number of other such devices.
It got better gas milage then many such entertainment cars and far better then a 3 motor speedboat or a high perfromance airplane.
But just like speedboats and speedy planes and speedy cars its a fickle small market. Where image and performance are all that matter because you have oodles of money and want something to make you happy.
Me im a geek if I were to splurge on a big toy it would be a big puter and monitor...
Posted by: wintermane | May 14, 2006 8:15:53 AM
One Stupid Useless Vehicle (I like that definition) gone, but almost 50 more to go. For those who really need larger vehicles, (to transport larger families + sport gears etc) Peugeot makes a much more practical 40+ mpg diesel mini-van.
Hummer style 10 mpg gas guzzlers are rarely (if ever) justified and should NOT be so easily allowed on city streets. Off-road fans should be able to rent them on premises(as Go-Carts) to satify their special driving demonstration needs.
Producing one more million barrel/day from ANWR would not even be a short term fix. Two more million barrel/day from Canada did not help USA and even another 2 million barrel/day would not help. We have to reduce liquid fossil fuel consumption by 50+% not continuously produce or import more and more.
Getting rid of (or stop buying) huge VUS is a first step in the right direction. Buying efficient 40+ mpg vehicles could be the next step folowed by 60+ mpg Hybrids and 100+ mpg PHEVs. The choice is our's to make.
However, most of us need a helping hand or a good reason to take this common sense decision. Much higher gas prices($5 to $7/gal like in Europe) + some financial direct incentives (much lower or no purchase taxes and annual registration fees for efficient 40+ or 50+ mpg vehicles) may be enough to convince most of us.
Posted by: Harvey D. | May 14, 2006 8:19:32 AM
Chingy:
Energy(petro~$50-80)=$$$=geopolitics
The H-1 (and all things that use energy from fossil sources) fits right in.
Posted by: allen zheng | May 14, 2006 10:07:09 AM
Cervus writes:
Conservation alone will not do it. Any such efforts must be met coming the other way with increases in domestic supplies.Those supplies don't have to be petroleum.
Eventually you'll hit a bottom in conservation anyway, and demand will start going back up again.The CalCar achieves its ~80% cut in fuel consumption by reducing total energy requirements by about 40%, and then substituting electricity for another 40%. As long as the fraction of electricity keeps rising, the demand does not need to be satisfied by petroleum.
If US gasoline demand was cut 80%, we'd be down to around 30 billion gallons per year; if we substituted ethanol, maybe 50 billion gallons. If we take Iogen's figure of 87 gallons/ton yield from cellulosic stuff, we could make that with a bit over half a billion tons a year of biomass. That achieves 100% substitution of gasoline and cuts oil imports roughly in half.
You also can't replace every vehicle on the road with a "CalCar". What if I need a truck for my small business? What if I have a large family?You'll either buy something with a large battery for its large bulk, or you'll pay a heck of a lot for liquid fuel to move it.
I'd like to point out that Wal-Mart's efforts are being done by a private companyAnd have come along much later and willl penetrate slower as a consequence. This delay is not in the national interest.
People are buying more fuel efficient vehicles without mandates. Current prices alone are enough.No, they aren't enough; I still see morons in SUV's gunning their vehicles up to the stopped traffic at red lights. I'm with T. Boone Pickens: we need to be charging $5/gallon for gasoline as a minimum.
SUVs sold well in the 90s because that's what people wanted to buy. The auto companies didn't force them on us. They responded to consumer demand...... which was in turn driven by a government policy of cheap fuel, subsidized with huge defense and other expenditures, and paid for with income taxes and debt.
IMHO, this was a crime because all the people who didn't want SUV's had to pay the bill to keep them going regardless; because of the debt financing, people not even born will be paying! Had those SUV owners been paying the full freight at the pump, their fuel would have gone for $5 to $10 per gallon and that gross misallocation of resources would never have happened.
FWIW, I have fired a gun. I even own some. I've never fired one in anger, and my preferred weapon against the Islamists isn't bullets or explosives but engineering and economics.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 14, 2006 11:31:37 AM
I give up. You lot have run amok and have no clue how ridiculous and misplaced most of your posts are. I agree with many of them, BTW, but they don't belong here. Have at it, you must not have much else to do.
Posted by: Chingy | May 14, 2006 12:20:12 PM
The reason this [H1] thread is getting a lot of people's blood boiling is because vehicles like this one and all SUVs for tha matter, do not belong on our streets, period!
Roush makes a very likable pick-up truck [not a SUV]that runs entirely on batteries [EV] and can transport some serious loads. The drawback is the top speed of 25mph, but then again, unless you are a moron that watches Nascar and the truck version of it, why is a pu-truck needed to go fster? And yet, it may be possible to make it go faster by adjusting the technology.
Stupid Useless Vehicles, Pretty Unecessary Trucks [those heavy duty] must go and quickly. The difference is that some PU-Ts are actually truly needed by real working people, [and yet they should all be running ob ethanol, or bio-diesel], while those SUVs are totally out of context in an urban society. When I was a teenager, the father of a firend of mine had a Toyota Land Cruiser and to me that thing was pretty much usable only off road. Since the 90', Ford and all those other [small penis] executives in Detroit have decided that SUVs were the way to go, [please see current scary GM financial situation thanks to that], and inundated our streets with useless scrap metal. Have you forgotten the roll-over [Ford] scandal as well?
If any of you have ever watched the movie "Gattaca" will understand and appreciate the fact that simple eco-friendly aerodynamic vehicles is all we need in this world. Even the US Army is experimenting with EV & HEV combat vehicles to lessen the pressure on oil and for example to be less easy to [ICE nosie] spotted during combat ops. Go to: http://www.uqm.com and watch the Video of Spinner UGCV
Oh...whatever, I am firmly convinced that by starting now with a strong introduction of pure EVs into the world market, in a few years, [decade or so] we could all be smiling at the Saudis [and the likes] and give them the perennial index finger!!!
FS, Ph.D.
EV Visionary
PS: BTW, Engineer Poet is 100% right!!!
Posted by: Fred | May 14, 2006 3:02:41 PM
2nd PS: Pardon all my typos... way to much coffee...
Posted by: Fred | May 14, 2006 3:06:45 PM
Nothing new realy this hapened before with vans stationwagons and other such doodads.
The baby boomrers fueled the fire of this fad and as they age into decrepitude that fire has burned out as expected.
The suv will go back to its corprat roots as they still need such things and some other thing will catch peoples attension and rise to replace it as fad of the decade.
I have been through the tail end of the station wagon era with behemoth boombers rumbling around. I have been through the van era with insane vansseemingly taking oveer the world... and im now watching the end of the suv era.
There are still station wagons and vans and there will be suvs.. Just the fad mob will go elsewhere thats all.
The only question is where?
Posted by: wintermane | May 14, 2006 3:31:55 PM
Hybrids have become the new status symbol.
They cost more than a non-hybrid, have a clean image and give people a license to say "I am better than you".
Everyone is responsible for some polution yet everyone blames everyone else.
Posted by: rj | May 14, 2006 5:29:30 PM
give people a license to say "I am better than you".
You could say that about all kinds of vehicles.
Everyone is responsible for some polution yet everyone blames everyone else.
And some people are more responsible for pollution than some others.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 14, 2006 7:19:42 PM
No the new thing isnt out yet and prolly wont be for a few more years. And no whatever it is wont make sense.
Posted by: wintermane | May 14, 2006 9:43:48 PM
Let's hope this announcement by GM will prove to be a milestone in the development of the still infantile homo-sapien species. The ultimate icon of excess from the premium nation of excess (some might say success) has come and gone.
The sheer number of posts here, no matter what their content, suggests a very significant event.
A good thing for our little blue planet and all its inhabitants.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | May 15, 2006 12:48:08 AM
Re; Klingon empire comment.
The truth is they continue to produce the H-1 but have included a cloaking device.They are still out there you just cant see them.
Its true I heard it from someone who heard it from someone who knows someone who is related to someone who talked to someone who worked at GM black ops area 501.
Commander Worf was trapped here in a time warp experiment.They tortured him with Barney videos until he gave up the cloak technology.
Gotta go, my dog just told me my neighbors are plotting against me.
Live long and prosper
Posted by: gerald earl | May 15, 2006 5:36:23 AM
Only with a licensing fee to the Romulans, as they are still the patent holders.
Posted by: Chingy | May 15, 2006 5:48:35 AM
Next cool things:
Human feet
Bicycles
Scooters
Mopeds
Buses
PRVs
Trains
Subways
Trollies
Telecommuting
Home Delivery
Time travel
Posted by: t | May 15, 2006 6:27:17 AM
Information on hybrids and military vehicles.
Don't read it you might learn something or be exposed to an opinion that does not agree with your own.
"The consumer market for hybrid passenger cars has been driven by individual choice, often based on perceived environmental benefits rather than hard economics."
Posted by: rj | May 15, 2006 6:52:37 AM
"The consumer market for hybrid passenger cars has been driven by individual choice, often based on perceived environmental benefits rather than hard economics."
Please tell us how often a vehicle purchase, or esepcially an option selection, is driven by "hard economics", and when a vehicle purchase is not an "individual choice".
And even if the decision isn't driven by "hard economics" (whatever that means), it doesn't mean that hynrids don't have economic benefits.
And why did you put that sentence in quotes? Who are you quoting?
you might learn something or be exposed to an opinion that does not agree with your own.
People are exposed to differing opinions all the time. Doesn't mean they have to accept them as true, though. So what "differing opinion" are you offering? So far I've seen you claim that hybrids are "status symbols" which "give people a license to say 'I am better than you'" and that purchases of them are driven by "individual choice". You've also let us know that you believe we all pollute to some extent or another and that some people turn to hybrids because of their environmental benefits vis-a-vis conventional vehicles.
Nothing really shocking or less than obvious there, nor do I find a difference of opinion with.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 15, 2006 8:50:37 AM
Oops - forgot to close a tag.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 15, 2006 8:51:40 AM
Oops, sorry
The link got lost or forgotten.
http://www.sae.org/ohmag/features/eblast/04-2006/11-14-2-19.pdf
The quote was from the above.
Posted by: rj | May 15, 2006 9:08:24 AM
I just hope that folks at GM and all the other SUVs marketers, read this post.
Hybrid is not the answer either, but at least it should help reducing a tiny-bit of pollution... only if more people buy HEV that is.
The real solution is EV or HEEV, no FC since we need lots of E in order to get H... Now, solar would be the real answer but that one is at least 50 years away.
Or is it?
FS, Ph.D.
PS: Be aware of the Borgs... [Ala, Detroit destructive assimilation of everyhting in their path.]
Posted by: Fred | May 15, 2006 9:58:52 AM
Oops, sorry
The link got lost or forgotten.
http://www.sae.org/ohmag/features/eblast/04-2006/11-14-2-19.pdf
The quote was from the above.
OK. So some guy named David Alexander stated his opinion in some article somewhere. Please explain the relevance of this.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | May 15, 2006 10:35:35 AM
Instead of continuing to squander their resources on the H2 and H3, I wish the folks at GM would hire some engineers from Honda, Subaru, or VW and produce something truly revolutionary, like an all-wheel drive hybrid electric-turbodiesel midsize SUV. Something with the acceleration, handling, and fuel-efficiency we've come to expect from modern cars, and not so insanely massive, flashy, and useless as a full-size SUV. Much as I'd love SUVs to disappear, I know that [most] Americans are flashy, self-important people who need overpowered engines so they can (feel invincible?) (instill fear?) and tailgate stacked five-SUVs deep in the left lane going 85 mph. Oh wait, I forgot, people need them to transport their kids and their two bags of groceries. Just like I need a periscope to see over them when they're meandering between lanes, dawdling along with the cell phone.
Posted by: Bjar | May 15, 2006 2:01:43 PM
"Re; Klingon empire comments"
Nice one "gerald", got me there. Teach me to use flowery langauge. Still reckon this one's a significant event though. Time will tell...
Posted by: Shaun Williams | May 15, 2006 7:33:03 PM
Hummer-H1 is going away, H2 is not far away
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
2006-YTD sales are down to 4,473 compared with 5,552 in 2005-YTD despite being sold in 2 versions - SUV & SUT.
Thats 20 % down. However H3 is doing well and H4 is supposed to come. I guess it will have car chassis and a V4 engine. So H3 & H4 will keep the nameplate alive.
Posted by: Max Reid | May 18, 2006 8:17:56 PM
Just in case you think this is just a "let's kick the Yanks" issue. Here in Australia I cannot buy a small, efficient, low pollution car (the Toyota Prius is a joke, do you want to drive one into the Outback?). But these monsters have been available.
What sort of world do we live in? What balance is that? Who has been determining this balance and the value system behind it?
Yes what we purchasers buy drives a lot of these things, but what pushes our buttons? It gets complicated, and there have been a lot of people with vested interests pulling strings for years to get us into the mess we are in now.
Lots of luck to all of us in getting us out of it before the oil runs out. The elimination of one monster SUV helps, but not much.
John.
Posted by: John Paterson | Aug 26, 2006 12:07:07 AM
