Think H4 Size: Hummer to go smaller and greener in the future

Posted: Jun 04, 2009
 Email 3 Comments

So now that HUMMER is going to be owned by a Chinese company, Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co., what type of vehicles are we going to see in the future? The folks over at The Detroit Bureau recently sat down with Hummer’s boss Jim Taylor to discuss just that and much more.

According to Taylor, Hummer is going to head towards CAFE compliance, meaning you’re going to see smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles from the gas-guzzling brand.

“Think of the smaller H4 we were showing at the auto show and it could safely conjectured we would enter into that space,” Taylor said.

When asked about Hummer’s hybrid future and the recent 100 mpg Hummer plug-on prototype built by a supplier, Taylor said: “It’s a big number to take on, a ground-up hybrid or electric vehicle, but it’d make a lot of sense for the Hummer brand.”

Given about 5 years, Hummer plans on incorporating various forms of alternative propulsion including diesels, hybrids and plug-in hybrids.

“It’s a little-known fact we’re just launching a diesel in the H3 in South Africa,” said Taylor. “When we bring it back to Shreveport, our intent is to make a version for the U.S., but right now, it’s not (emission law) compliant and we have to decide whether to invest the money.”

As for the H2, Taylor said that the model will live one since it sets a strong brand image in Russia and China.

He said that Tengzhong’s control over where Hummer will be very hands-off. Hummer is expected to continue its ties with GM and will continue to contract manufacturing and other services from GM until a scheduled time period.

“They aren”t in the car business, so they won”t come and pretend they”re smarter than us, which is the risk when you”re acquired by another car company.”

You can read more if Taylor’s interview over at The Detroit Bureau.

- By: Kap Shah

Source: The Detroit Bureau


Share |  Email  Print |




Subscribe & Connect

Connect with us on any of our social profiles below.

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

  • saddayinamerica

    too much like a jeep rescue concept.

  • Dennis

    Here are the facts on Raser's so called “100 MPG” Hummer.

    How do these guys at Raser come up with their 100 MPG? Simple, they claim that if you drive 60 miles per day that the first 40 is powered by electricity and the next 20 is provided by their 33 MPG onboard engine. Therefore, only 1/3 of the distance traveled was provided by gas at 33 MPG, so it's as though you got the equivalent of 3 times 33 MPG, which equals 100 MPG.

    Now let's see what Raser isn't telling you. First, their 200KW electric motor costs MONEY to operate! How much, you ask? Easy. If you drive 40 miles on electric power — half in the city and half on the freeway — you will spend about 1 hour driving (20 miles @ 30 MPH = 40 minutes, plus 20 miles @ 60 MPH = 20 minutes). Raser's 200KW motor is rated at 100KW continuous, so 1 hour of driving will likely consume roughly 100KWH worth of electricity (100KW times 1 hour). The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is 11.5 cents/KWH; therefore 100KWH costs you $11.50, got it? That's eleven dollars and fifty cents to go forty miles!!! Luckily, you get to go the next 20 miles on good old gasoline @ roughly 33 MPG, which would consume 6/10ths of a gallon of gas if the gas engine powered the vehicle directly. Unfortunately, it first has to power a generator, which then charges batteries, which then powers the electric motor. Still, lets be generous and assume that this gas engine takes you 20 miles on 2/3 of a gallon of gas, which costs $1.67 (2/3 times $2.50).

    So the grand total to travel 60 miles in Raser's shiny EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle) only cost you $13.17!!! Isn't that great? Of course, you would've only spent $5.00 if you could've driven all of that distance powered by their good gas-mileage IC engine. Or you could've paid $7.50 in any vehicle that averaged 20 MPG. However, where's the fun in that? Look, you're driving a high tech “EREV”… ooooh! One that cost you an extra $25K, and that added an extra 1,000 pounds of weight to the vehicle. Nice extras, huh?? BTW, did I forget to mention that their 200KW motor only provides 134HP in continuous mode? But wait you say, it gives 268HP at peak operation. Yes, that's about what the new Ford Taurus provides (except for the Ford Taurus SHO, which gives 350HP). So you'll be riding around in your new EREV Hummer in a reduced 134-268HP powertrain… can you say “put, put, put”?

    Does anyone see anything wrong with this?? Now do you see why Raser omitted mentioning the cost of electricity and only focused on their fuzzy-math MPG gas equivalent calculation? In reality, at today's prices, their Hummer only got the equivalent of 11.4 MPG ($13.17 divided by $2.5/gallon = 5.27 gallons, and 60 miles/5.27 gallons = 11.4 MPG)!!!!!!!!

    The fact is that electric vehicles have NOTHING to offer in solving America's transportation needs. They are not cost-efficient nor are they technologically superior. The demand for electricity in the U.S. is expected to grow by a taxing 25% over the next decade. Raser's Hummer draws 100KWH of electricity in order to travel it's first 40 miles, which is well over 3 times the power that your house draws in a complete day! Talk about an instant energy crisis! It's a good thing that battery technology is still limited and that they added an IC engine to extend the range, otherwise their Hummer would've used 150KWH of electricity, or more than 5 times the daily draw of an average home!!

    This conveniently omitted information might explain why Raser has also entered the geothermal power market… they realize that switching to EV's would require well over a 300% + increase to America's annual electric power consumption.

    My question is this, why couldn't Raser be upfront and honest with us about the true costs of Electric Vehicles? Afterall, consumers have shown that they are willing to pay more for efficient green power.

    Could their hesitancy in telling us the whole story be due to the fact that EV's are neither cost-efficient nor green compared to standard IC engine technology?

  • Dennis

    Here are the facts on Raser's so called “100 MPG” Hummer.

    How do these guys at Raser come up with their 100 MPG? Simple, they claim that if you drive 60 miles per day that the first 40 is powered by electricity and the next 20 is provided by their 33 MPG onboard engine. Therefore, only 1/3 of the distance traveled was provided by gas at 33 MPG, so it's as though you got the equivalent of 3 times 33 MPG, which equals 100 MPG.

    Now let's see what Raser isn't telling you. First, their 200KW electric motor costs MONEY to operate! How much, you ask? Easy. If you drive 40 miles on electric power — half in the city and half on the freeway — you will spend about 1 hour driving (20 miles @ 30 MPH = 40 minutes, plus 20 miles @ 60 MPH = 20 minutes). Raser's 200KW motor is rated at 100KW continuous, so 1 hour of driving will likely consume roughly 100KWH worth of electricity (100KW times 1 hour). The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is 11.5 cents/KWH; therefore 100KWH costs you $11.50, got it? That's eleven dollars and fifty cents to go forty miles!!! Luckily, you get to go the next 20 miles on good old gasoline @ roughly 33 MPG, which would consume 6/10ths of a gallon of gas if the gas engine powered the vehicle directly. Unfortunately, it first has to power a generator, which then charges batteries, which then powers the electric motor. Still, lets be generous and assume that this gas engine takes you 20 miles on 2/3 of a gallon of gas, which costs $1.67 (2/3 times $2.50).

    So the grand total to travel 60 miles in Raser's shiny EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle) only cost you $13.17!!! Isn't that great? Of course, you would've only spent $5.00 if you could've driven all of that distance powered by their good gas-mileage IC engine. Or you could've paid $7.50 in any vehicle that averaged 20 MPG. However, where's the fun in that? Look, you're driving a high tech “EREV”… ooooh! One that cost you an extra $25K, and that added an extra 1,000 pounds of weight to the vehicle. Nice extras, huh?? BTW, did I forget to mention that their 200KW motor only provides 134HP in continuous mode? But wait you say, it gives 268HP at peak operation. Yes, that's about what the new Ford Taurus provides (except for the Ford Taurus SHO, which gives 350HP). So you'll be riding around in your new EREV Hummer in a reduced 134-268HP powertrain… can you say “put, put, put”?

    Does anyone see anything wrong with this?? Now do you see why Raser omitted mentioning the cost of electricity and only focused on their fuzzy-math MPG gas equivalent calculation? In reality, at today's prices, their Hummer only got the equivalent of 11.4 MPG ($13.17 divided by $2.5/gallon = 5.27 gallons, and 60 miles/5.27 gallons = 11.4 MPG)!!!!!!!!

    The fact is that electric vehicles have NOTHING to offer in solving America's transportation needs. They are not cost-efficient nor are they technologically superior. The demand for electricity in the U.S. is expected to grow by a taxing 25% over the next decade. Raser's Hummer draws 100KWH of electricity in order to travel it's first 40 miles, which is well over 3 times the power that your house draws in a complete day! Talk about an instant energy crisis! It's a good thing that battery technology is still limited and that they added an IC engine to extend the range, otherwise their Hummer would've used 150KWH of electricity, or more than 5 times the daily draw of an average home!!

    This conveniently omitted information might explain why Raser has also entered the geothermal power market… they realize that switching to EV's would require well over a 300% + increase to America's annual electric power consumption.

    My question is this, why couldn't Raser be upfront and honest with us about the true costs of Electric Vehicles? Afterall, consumers have shown that they are willing to pay more for efficient green power.

    Could their hesitancy in telling us the whole story be due to the fact that EV's are neither cost-efficient nor green compared to standard IC engine technology?