Talk:Hummer H2

Wow, NPOV
How much more NPOV can this article get?--68.81.105.166 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So NPOV, I am not sure were to start on this one.--Numerousfalx 02:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at this article myself. I think you guys mean "POV" ;-). As much as I agree with some of what has been said, this article screams point of view. I will ask for it to be reviewed.

The vehicle itself screams "POV"! Note that article does not state that this monstrosity is a fuel sucking, road wreaking, small car crushing pile of wretched excess - it only states rather mildly that some aspects of this vehicle are thought by some groups and persons to be not quite socially acceptable as a means of personal transportation, with appropriate documentation as to the reasons and the basic exploitation of the manufacture of tax loopholes and personal fears. Leonard G. 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a ranting booth. As much as I agree that the H2 is by far the most wasteful piece of personal machinery to hit the road, the article isn't supposed to reflect a point of view. 68.226.82.122 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * When a large number of people have an intense opinion for or against some object, policy, political party, position, law, etc., and some of these are so outraged as to take direct action against the proponents/opponents, (in this case dealers and manufactures), than a statement of the positions for or against (whatever topic/object/etc.) is worthy of inclusion in the article. Leonard G. 16:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree that there is substantial opposition to the H2, it is completely inappropriate to have an encyclopedia article that has an "attitude". Before my edit, the article was extremely one-sided. I reviewed the entire article, and found that it seemed particularly negative towards the owners of the H2. Examples:


 * 1) "This [pipe step rail], of course, reduces its ground clearance and, consequently, its wall and rock climbing capabilities; which, in any case, appear to be of little actual interest to most purchasers."
 * 2) "Critics point out that the success of this vehicle is largely due to U.S. tax policies for the self-employed (e.g., most dentists, lawyers, and many doctors), which offer incredible tax write-offs (essentially subsidies for the prosperous)..."
 * 3) "A prosperous and qualifying purchaser of this vehicle may receive subsidies of between USD $30,000 to $40,000 (paid for by other taxpayers, including those of modest income)..."
 * 4) "Ordinary taxpayers receive only a $2000 tax deduction for the Prius..."
 * 5) "While some might point to the recent increase in fuel prices as the reason for the demand reduction, this seems unlikely given the economics of the vehicle and the type of buyer likely to purchase it (prosperous and definitely not of a "green" inclination)."
 * 6) "Many casual observers note that these vehicles tend to be driven aggressively in urban environments; most likely due to the characteristics of the buyer rather than the vehicle."

I cite these examples as pure anger against the buyers of the vehicle. The above are extremely biased and seem to harbor not set-in-stone facts but resentment towards anyone who drives an H2. The author of these supposed facts provided no research citations and made it clear that s/he believes that most, if not all, H2 drivers are rich, aggressive, uncaring and suburban dwellers.

I also request that anyone who wishes to participate or continue participating in this discussion read What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", especially the section concerning Advocacy of any type. We are not here to make political statements; we are here to provide facts. Linuxbeak 19:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still getting the feeling that there are editors that are harboring negative feelings towards not only H2 owners but those of higher incomes. Even if this is false, I am asking that everyone please be careful of opinions and wording. Even if you make an edit that is technically completely true, try to remain as far away from either side of the political spectrum as possible. Linuxbeak 18:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could describe (or just edit) the parts you are referring to rather than accuse the rest of Wikipedia? Your prior edits gutted the article, better or worse.  --SFoskett 20:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

How can one be a "critic" of a car!? Maybe of the person driving it. But the car? Tfine80 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's possible. I drove a car for years that I could give a long and unflattering critique of.  Ralph Nader, I believe, was a critic of the Corvair.  A lot of 70's American cars are refered to as boats, which is a criticism on their appearance and handling.  Many people criticize the Pinto, and more recently, some Crown Victorias for safety issues connected with their fuel tanks, and GM (I think that it was GM) made a pick-up truck that received similar criticism for issues having to do with its side-mounted fuel tanks.  The Explorer and Firestone tires shared a lot of criticism not many years back for left-rear tire blowouts.  Jaguars and Harley Davidsons receive criticism for poor reliability.  But these criticisms all center on physical/design flaws (real or imagined I won't say) in these vehicles, though, not the ethic or lack thereof that a vehicle may perceived as representing or advocating. --Badger151 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-Road
Why is this vehicle described as having "tremendous off-road ability"? That is simply not true; it's a Chevy Tahoe underneath and is barely competent anywhere but paved streets and highways.


 * I'm not a fan of giant SUVs - I drive a Miata! But I must disagree.  The H2 is extremely competent off road - much more than the Tahoe (or Suburban) it is based on.  In fact, Car and Driver found that the H2 was as competent as the H1 offroad!  It is not just a Tahoe.  --SFoskett 00:52, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Point taken; I did some checking of my own and it appears that the H2 is fairly good off road. The fact that virtually no one uses it that way is another matter; this can be said about the vast majority of SUV-type vehicles.
 * Note my snide remark at the end of Hummer H2 -- Leonard G.
 * Normally I would edit this for POV, but I think it might be a fact in this case... --SFoskett 13:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Fact: Debunking the Tahoe Frame Myth: The final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections. The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame. The mid-section is all new and is completely boxed. The rear section uses a modifed GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for 8000 pound gross vehicle weight. Hart1

I ended up cleaning up the frame bit a bit to provide more clarity. --Beastmaster 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beastmaster!-HArt1

clarification sought

 * ''With recent (2004) increases in gasoline prices (inconsequential to most purchasers), General Motors has had to introduce financial incentives on this vehicle.

Inconsequential to H2 purchasers, or to purchasers of other vehicles? I think a wording tweak is needed here, but I'm coming up against a wall. –Hajor 22:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - I agree that the last part of the sentance does not follow the first.

Inconsequential to most purchasers of this kind of vehicle - even though highly subsidized by the tax write-offs, it takes a lot of wealth to be in a position to take that advantage - people with wealth who purchase this kind of vehicle could hardly care about the ecological consequences and if they are buying a 14mg (12)vehicle they probably don't care about gasoline prices either.

Perhaps more to the point is that the really "green" and (very) patient people are waiting for Prius's, while the safety concious are turning back to robust sedans, and the SUV types are becoming more practical as far as econonomy of operation and practicallity of parking is concerned. These could be some of the reasons for the fall-off in demand, plus the fact that for (almost) any vechicle there will be some market - perhaps that market for the H2 is simply satiated.

BTW, where are the fans to fill out the "Fans" section? At least the "Critics" section has not yet induced an edit war.

Leonard G. 03:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we have a reference in the tax subsidies section? I know about the heavy vehicle exemption, but $30k-$40k is a lot of dough. Where does THAT kind of cash come in?--SFoskett 20:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found it: http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/take_action/articles.cfm?ID=10707 Yow! --SFoskett 23:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the link reference - the dollar amount does seem unbelievable, doesn't it? I moved this to a new external links section, as that is appropriate - only rarely, if ever, should external links be embedded in the text. This seems to be in general the way it is done at WP. Besides, that is just red meat for some anti-POV editor to trash the whole section and start an edit war. -- Leonard G. 04:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way - Google.com and www.alltheweb.com - search without quotes "hummer 2 fan site" - kind of like the famous "French military victories" search. Leonard G. 04:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Manufacturing location
Needs a fact check, since an anon editor changed location and in a second edit change the manufacturer (apparent confusion between H1 by AG and H2 by GM) Leonard G. 03:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked up on it. The H2 is built under contract by AM General, not by General Motors.  It has a special factory in Mishawaka, but that plant is owned and operated by AM General.  See this link.  --SFoskett 13:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Moved POV discussion from article
User:Linuxbeak - Please take all discussions HERE rather than inside the article. That's not the Wikipedia way. --SFoskett 18:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * As requested, here is a summary of Linuxbeak's POV contentions:


 * I have attempted to deal with all of these criticisms in a fair manner. Please comment below if you disagree with my changes.  --SFoskett 21:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, since no one has seen fit to respond to any of the work I did in researching these concerns and rewording the article in two days, does that mean everyone is satisfied that it is NPOV? I'd like to take that blot off the top.  --SFoskett 18:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems OK by me. --Andy M. 21:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I read the article and discussion, and I'm happy with it. I think one could still infer a point of view from certain facts presented ("less than 5% use it offroad"), but these generally seem to be presented in a way that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. The bulk of what seems to be contentious is under the heading "Criticism", which should clue the reader to be reading it critically, anyway. I say go for it! HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  22:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Linuxbeak responded positively on my talk page so I will remove the NPOV tag. --SFoskett 20:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel economy
What units are presented here ? US or Imperia ? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon Kupsztal (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Linuxbeak: If you're going to include "worst case", you need to also include "best case"


 * I believe that the 14 to 17 mpg number is intended to be the "best case" and the 8 to 11 is intended to be the "worst case". It would be impractical to list the absolute best and worst case mileage - I bet I could make an H2 get 30mpg or 1mpg depending on driving style.  These numbers are hard to come by since the manufacturer does not list official numbers.  In most automobile articles, we would list the official mpg ratings, and would occasionally list notable or superlative numbers as well.  --SFoskett 19:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Some sources for the Hummer H2's fuel economy: Motor Trend, About.Com (uses official ratings), Car and Driver.  --SFoskett 20:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The fuel economy article (right now) would be best displayed in a chart form, because the paragraph that it is presently is confusing to look at. If the test company could be shown across from their results, it would be much easier for someone to find information from this site. Thunder215 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tax benefits
Linuxbeak: This is about the vehicle, not about the people buying the vehicle or the tax bracket that they belong to. Get off the soapbox, please! This is quite blatantly ranting about the system of government and taxation. Stick to the article, and once again get off the soapbox. Cite sources. Suggests that this content comes from Greenpeace or PETA.
 * I am not suggesting that this content came from either of those; what I said was "Again, cite your sources. If PETA or Greenpeace says this, then it's obviously coming from a POV source." Although you might read it as that, what I'm really doing is giving an example. If that information had in fact came from PETA or Greanpeace, then you wouldn't be able to make a non-POV statement out of it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood, but fail to see the point in even bringing up those two organizations if it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The wording of the article is poor, so I hope that we can improve it now.


 * The alleged tax loophole, and George Bush's support for it, is discussed by the Detroit News here. It was actually expanded to $100,000 shortly afterwards under the 2003 Tax Act.  Specifically, it is called a "Section 179 depreciation deduction" and allows the purchase price of a 6,000lb+ vehicle (up to $100,000) to be deducted from taxable income.  The result varies based on tax brackets, since it is a deduction, not an exemption.  And it does not make a vehicle "free".  SelfEmployedWeb has an article on exploiting it as well.  Now how to rephrase this?  --SFoskett 20:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Resource use
Linuxbeak: Asks for sources on "aerodynamics of a brick". Requests sources for coefficient of drag figures.


 * "a bricklike drag coefficient of 0.57" - source: Automobile Magazine, July 2002,  Other Cd figures are widely available with a simple Google search and are listed at drag coefficient.
 * Cite them, then. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what do you mean? I added this article to "References" since it's a good overall review of the vehicle.  Is this sufficient?  --SFoskett 19:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you wanted a source on the Durango. Here's DaimlerChrysler's spec sheet.  --SFoskett 20:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak: Commentary on "its poor fuel efficiency and consequent contributions to global warming and U.S. petroleum problems cause the vehicle to be detested by environmentalists" - "This statement is inherently flawed. It's not like this particular vehicle alone contributes majorly to global warming. Compare the amount of H2s in existance to the amount of cattle that release methane, and I think the cows are going to come out on top. Cite your sources on this one." Once again, an example. I'm asking that you put this into perspective. The H2 alone isn't going to destroy the world.

[edit] Wow, NPOV How much more NPOV can this article get?--68.81.105.166 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So NPOV, I am not sure were to start on this one.--Numerousfalx 02:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at this article myself. I think you guys mean "POV" ;-). As much as I agree with some of what has been said, this article screams point of view. I will ask for it to be reviewed.

The vehicle itself screams "POV"! Note that article does not state that this monstrosity is a fuel sucking, road wreaking, small car crushing pile of wretched excess - it only states rather mildly that some aspects of this vehicle are thought by some groups and persons to be not quite socially acceptable as a means of personal transportation, with appropriate documentation as to the reasons and the basic exploitation of the manufacture of tax loopholes and personal fears. Leonard G. 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a ranting booth. As much as I agree that the H2 is by far the most wasteful piece of personal machinery to hit the road, the article isn't supposed to reflect a point of view. 68.226.82.122 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) When a large number of people have an intense opinion for or against some object, policy, political party, position, law, etc., and some of these are so outraged as to take direct action against the proponents/opponents, (in this case dealers and manufactures), than a statement of the positions for or against (whatever topic/object/etc.) is worthy of inclusion in the article. Leonard G. 16:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) While I agree that there is substantial opposition to the H2, it is completely inappropriate to have an encyclopedia article that has an "attitude". Before my edit, the article was extremely one-sided. I reviewed the entire article, and found that it seemed particularly negative towards the owners of the H2. Examples: "This [pipe step rail], of course, reduces its ground clearance and, consequently, its wall and rock climbing capabilities; which, in any case, appear to be of little actual interest to most purchasers." "Critics point out that the success of this vehicle is largely due to U.S. tax policies for the self-employed (e.g., most dentists, lawyers, and many doctors), which offer incredible tax write-offs (essentially subsidies for the prosperous)..." "A prosperous and qualifying purchaser of this vehicle may receive subsidies of between USD $30,000 to $40,000 (paid for by other taxpayers, including those of modest income)..." "Ordinary taxpayers receive only a $2000 tax deduction for the Prius..." "While some might point to the recent increase in fuel prices as the reason for the demand reduction, this seems unlikely given the economics of the vehicle and the type of buyer likely to purchase it (prosperous and definitely not of a "green" inclination)." "Many casual observers note that these vehicles tend to be driven aggressively in urban environments; most likely due to the characteristics of the buyer rather than the vehicle." I cite these examples as pure anger against the buyers of the vehicle. The above are extremely biased and seem to harbor not set-in-stone facts but resentment towards anyone who drives an H2. The author of these supposed facts provided no research citations and made it clear that s/he believes that most, if not all, H2 drivers are rich, aggressive, uncaring and suburban dwellers.

I also request that anyone who wishes to participate or continue participating in this discussion read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", especially the section concerning Advocacy of any type. We are not here to make political statements; we are here to provide facts. Linuxbeak 19:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still getting the feeling that there are editors that are harboring negative feelings towards not only H2 owners but those of higher incomes. Even if this is false, I am asking that everyone please be careful of opinions and wording. Even if you make an edit that is technically completely true, try to remain as far away from either side of the political spectrum as possible. Linuxbeak 18:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could describe (or just edit) the parts you are referring to rather than accuse the rest of Wikipedia? Your prior edits gutted the article, better or worse. --SFoskett 20:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) How can one be a "critic" of a car!? Maybe of the person driving it. But the car? Tfine80 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's possible. I drove a car for years that I could give a long and unflattering critique of. Ralph Nader, I believe, was a critic of the Corvair. A lot of 70's American cars are refered to as boats, which is a criticism on their appearance and handling. Many people criticize the Pinto, and more recently, some Crown Victorias for safety issues connected with their fuel tanks, and GM (I think that it was GM) made a pick-up truck that received similar criticism for issues having to do with its side-mounted fuel tanks. The Explorer and Firestone tires shared a lot of criticism not many years back for left-rear tire blowouts. Jaguars and Harley Davidsons receive criticism for poor reliability. But these criticisms all center on physical/design flaws (real or imagined I won't say) in these vehicles, though, not the ethic or lack thereof that a vehicle may perceived as representing or advocating. --Badger151 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) [edit] Off-Road Why is this vehicle described as having "tremendous off-road ability"? That is simply not true; it's a Chevy Tahoe underneath and is barely competent anywhere but paved streets and highways.

I'm not a fan of giant SUVs - I drive a Miata! But I must disagree. The H2 is extremely competent off road - much more than the Tahoe (or Suburban) it is based on. In fact, Car and Driver found that the H2 was as competent as the H1 offroad! It is not just a Tahoe. --SFoskett 00:52, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) Point taken; I did some checking of my own and it appears that the H2 is fairly good off road. The fact that virtually no one uses it that way is another matter; this can be said about the vast majority of SUV-type vehicles. Note my snide remark at the end of Hummer H2#Accessories -- Leonard G. Normally I would edit this for POV, but I think it might be a fact in this case... --SFoskett 13:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) Fact: Debunking the Tahoe Frame Myth: The final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections. The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame. The mid-section is all new and is completely boxed. The rear section uses a modifed GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for 8000 pound gross vehicle weight. Hart1

I ended up cleaning up the frame bit a bit to provide more clarity. --Beastmaster 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beastmaster!-HArt1

[edit] clarification sought With recent (2004) increases in gasoline prices (inconsequential to most purchasers), General Motors has had to introduce financial incentives on this vehicle. Inconsequential to H2 purchasers, or to purchasers of other vehicles? I think a wording tweak is needed here, but I'm coming up against a wall. –Hajor 22:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - I agree that the last part of the sentance does not follow the first.

Inconsequential to most purchasers of this kind of vehicle - even though highly subsidized by the tax write-offs, it takes a lot of wealth to be in a position to take that advantage - people with wealth who purchase this kind of vehicle could hardly care about the ecological consequences and if they are buying a 14mg (12)vehicle they probably don't care about gasoline prices either.

Perhaps more to the point is that the really "green" and (very) patient people are waiting for Prius's, while the safety concious are turning back to robust sedans, and the SUV types are becoming more practical as far as econonomy of operation and practicallity of parking is concerned. These could be some of the reasons for the fall-off in demand, plus the fact that for (almost) any vechicle there will be some market - perhaps that market for the H2 is simply satiated.

BTW, where are the fans to fill out the "Fans" section? At least the "Critics" section has not yet induced an edit war.

Leonard G. 03:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we have a reference in the tax subsidies section? I know about the heavy vehicle exemption, but $30k-$40k is a lot of dough. Where does THAT kind of cash come in?--SFoskett 20:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it: http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/take_action/articles.cfm?ID=10707 Yow! --SFoskett 23:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) Thanks for finding the link reference - the dollar amount does seem unbelievable, doesn't it? I moved this to a new external links section, as that is appropriate - only rarely, if ever, should external links be embedded in the text. This seems to be in general the way it is done at WP. Besides, that is just red meat for some anti-POV editor to trash the whole section and start an edit war. -- Leonard G. 04:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) By the way - Google.com and www.alltheweb.com - search without quotes "hummer 2 fan site" - kind of like the famous "French military victories" search. Leonard G. 04:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturing location Needs a fact check, since an anon editor changed location and in a second edit change the manufacturer (apparent confusion between H1 by AG and H2 by GM) Leonard G. 03:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked up on it. The H2 is built under contract by AM General, not by General Motors. It has a special factory in Mishawaka, but that plant is owned and operated by AM General. See this link. --SFoskett 13:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Moved POV discussion from article User:Linuxbeak - Please take all discussions HERE rather than inside the article. That's not the Wikipedia way. --SFoskett 18:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

As requested, here is a summary of Linuxbeak's POV contentions: I have attempted to deal with all of these criticisms in a fair manner. Please comment below if you disagree with my changes. --SFoskett 21:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) OK, since no one has seen fit to respond to any of the work I did in researching these concerns and rewording the article in two days, does that mean everyone is satisfied that it is NPOV? I'd like to take that blot off the top. --SFoskett 18:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) Seems OK by me. --Andy M. 21:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) I read the article and discussion, and I'm happy with it. I think one could still infer a point of view from certain facts presented ("less than 5% use it offroad"), but these generally seem to be presented in a way that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. The bulk of what seems to be contentious is under the heading "Criticism", which should clue the reader to be reading it critically, anyway. I say go for it! HorsePunchKid→龜 22:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC) Linuxbeak responded positively on my talk page so I will remove the NPOV tag. --SFoskett 20:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel economy Linuxbeak: If you're going to include "worst case", you need to also include "best case"

I believe that the 14 to 17 mpg number is intended to be the "best case" and the 8 to 11 is intended to be the "worst case". It would be impractical to list the absolute best and worst case mileage - I bet I could make an H2 get 30mpg or 1mpg depending on driving style. These numbers are hard to come by since the manufacturer does not list official numbers. In most automobile articles, we would list the official mpg ratings, and would occasionally list notable or superlative numbers as well. --SFoskett 19:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Some sources for the Hummer H2's fuel economy: Motor Trend, About.Com (uses official ratings), Car and Driver. --SFoskett 20:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Tax benefits Linuxbeak: This is about the vehicle, not about the people buying the vehicle or the tax bracket that they belong to. Get off the soapbox, please! This is quite blatantly ranting about the system of government and taxation. Stick to the article, and once again get off the soapbox. Cite sources. Suggests that this content comes from Greenpeace or PETA.

I am not suggesting that this content came from either of those; what I said was "Again, cite your sources. If PETA or Greenpeace says this, then it's obviously coming from a POV source." Although you might read it as that, what I'm really doing is giving an example. If that information had in fact came from PETA or Greanpeace, then you wouldn't be able to make a non-POV statement out of it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) I misunderstood, but fail to see the point in even bringing up those two organizations if it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The wording of the article is poor, so I hope that we can improve it now. The alleged tax loophole, and George Bush's support for it, is discussed by the Detroit News here. It was actually expanded to $100,000 shortly afterwards under the 2003 Tax Act. Specifically, it is called a "Section 179 depreciation deduction" and allows the purchase price of a 6,000lb+ vehicle (up to $100,000) to be deducted from taxable income. The result varies based on tax brackets, since it is a deduction, not an exemption. And it does not make a vehicle "free". SelfEmployedWeb has an article on exploiting it as well. Now how to rephrase this? --SFoskett 20:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Resource use Linuxbeak: Asks for sources on "aerodynamics of a brick". Requests sources for coefficient of drag figures.

"a bricklike drag coefficient of 0.57" - source: Automobile Magazine, July 2002, [1] Other Cd figures are widely available with a simple Google search and are listed at drag coefficient. Cite them, then. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:24, Jun 8, 2005

Tax benefits 2
Linuxbeak: Asks for sources on "tax write off encourages the purchase".


 * This seems linked to the above discussion of tax benefits. Let's not duplicate here.  --SFoskett 19:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Backlash
Linuxbeak: Claims "seen by many as an epitome" is POV. Requests sources on eco-terrorism.


 * Alright, tell you what. Look here for exactly what I said. That way, you can bash me on what I myself said, not interpretted as. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to bash anyone. I was attempting to summarize your comments.  If you disagree, please feel free to edit all "Linuxbeak:" lines since this was an attempt to include your own words.  --SFoskett 19:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Source for "eco-terrorism" - CBS News, September 19, 2003 --SFoskett 19:30, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Only 5% use the vehicle off-road
If off-roading is what hummers are designed for, why would the vast majority of H2 users stay on the road if they are wasting so much fuel?

Because they're moronic, and need to compensate. Shadic 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a huge slap in the face. Do you have a grudge against people owning large SUV's or what? If people want a Hummer then they should be aware of the fuel bill, too. And if they don't take it off road, that's their own problem. It's not like their mpg rate is going to get better by going off-road. Thunder215 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Weight
Is it relevant to discuss how it weighs over the weight limit allowed for most residential streets? gren 1 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

H2's offroad capabilities
I have removed the paragraph that User:Karrmann added regarding the H2's offroad capabilities. Here it is in its original form:


 * Many people claim that the Hummer H2 is practically useless off road, with videos proving it. (there is a video going around the web with a H2 snapping it's rear axle in half when driving no not very treacherous terrain). Also, it is based on the Chevrolet Tahoe which is more based on comfortible crusing than rugged off road capability. There is also the fact that the H2 has it's rear axle very low to the ground, which would make it not very capabile on terrain that buyers would expect this vehicle to conquor, which sometimes makes them believe that this vehicle doesn't live up to the reputation of the Hummer name, which was created by the H1.

As is, this paragraph is far too biased, misleading, and unreferenced to be kept in the article. However, there is obviously a fair amount of debate about the H2's suitability for offroading, and it may be worth addressing in the article. In general, the wording needs to be tightened up. There are too many "some people believe"s in there and not enough facts or references, without which, it is basically FUD and not encyclopedic. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-22 02:19:04Z
 * 1) Many people claim &mdash; Weasel wording; if there are many people claiming it, find a credible source and link to it.
 * 2) video going around the web &mdash; I have seen the video. The driver, incompetent at best, drops the entire front suspension onto a rock. Not the wheel/tire, mind you; the suspension itself. Naturally, the control arm popped off. Maybe we're talking about different videos here, but this is "the one that went around", as far as I'm aware.
 * 3) based on the Chevrolet Tahoe &mdash; Yes, but to what extent? Has the Tahoe been shown to be a poor offroader? I'm not all that knowledgeable about this topic, but last I heard (can't source, unfortunately), the major similarity was the frame, and even there, it is significantly strengthened compared to the Tahoe. I would really be interested in a more detailed comparison, if possible; I can't find one at the moment.

If the H2 was any good, the military would be choosing it over the HMMWV. Clearly, the H1 is (mostly) "the real thing" and the H2 is a fashion statement involving conspicuous consumption. Not that the H1 is great for normal city driving, but it is at least a respectable and useful vehicle. The H2 is some sort of bad parody dreamed up by marketing. 24.110.60.225 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed an extreme other way POV. Please keep things as accurate and as middle of the road as possible. --Beastmaster 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as a clarification - any video links showing pros or cons of the H2's capabilities really doesn't help the neutrality of the article. Both prior video links (one of the tie rod, the other of extreme offroading of H2's) needs to stay off, or at best, should be added as a link and not as part of the main article. --Beastmaster 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say that "Combined with a bountiful aftermarket accessory market, the H2 in its stock form and its modified form equal some of the best off road vehicles out in the market today" is an extremely PRO-H2 statement to be NPOV, especially given there is no direct source for this statement. If a leading independant off-road organisation reviews the H2 and makes such a claim then that is great, please source such a claim and provide a reference. But as it stands it is a very strong recommendation for this vehicle based on off-road performance: "the h2 in its stock form.... equal some of the best off road vehicles out in the market today". That is either opinion, or an assessment based on criteria which the reader does not have access to so it should be toned down. Garrie 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fender wells Warner
I have problems on gravel roads, the rocks fly up and literally eat the protective piece of plastic up. Has anyone found a good looking idea to get rid of this problem. I am tired of replacing the inserts Warner Feb 13/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.25.224.140 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Is H2 a luxury vehicle?
The Luxury SUV page mentions H2 but the H2 page doesn't. I'm confused. --Mato Rei 07:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No car with live-rear axle can be luxury. It's a pimp show-off. A Range Rover is better. This article should include information about it's prehistoric suspension with comparison to the great H1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a luxury vehicle, because you have to live in luxury to own it. (bad joke)

I have seen somewhere before (not on wikipedia, I think it was Edmunds) where the Hummer is listed as a luxury vehicle. Besides, it comes standard with leather seats (along with other options) that are also standard on other luxury SUV's like the Escalade, Navigator, QX56, and LX.Thunder215 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Retail price of the vehicle
What is the price of this car? The article mention how demand has affected the price, but not the retail value

External link
Some IP continues to add an external link to a review of the H2, saying it was the "Worst vehicle ever tested". Could someone please watch for this, since the link violates WP:EL?Hondasaregood 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2008 version
There should be some info about the newer 2008 version. After all, the Hummer H3 article does for its own newer Alpha version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.31.77 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

y en castellano??? cuando en castellano? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.226.170.41 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Event as Past tense
The beginning of the article states:


 * "The H2's final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections: The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series (or did until November 8, 2009) utility frame, the mid-section is all new and is completely boxed, and the rear section uses a modified GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for the 8,600 pound (3629 kg) gross vehicle weight. The 2008 Hummer H2 does 0-60 in 8.2 seconds."

I've since removed the "(or did until November 8, 2009)" part of this sentence. Considering it's November 3, 2008, it's referring to a future event in the past tense, which is clearly incorrect. If it meant that it will be different on November 8, 2009, it should be noted in a future tense. If the date is wrong, someone should change it 2009 to the correct date.Kakomu (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Consumer Reports
What happened to that section that said the H2 was the worst rated SUV in its class by consumer reports? That was very well cited. I accuse GM of meddling, and would like it restored, and I'm sure the author would as well.174.3.107.124 (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

HUMMER H2 SUT
HUMMER H2 SUT Performance & Efficiency Standard Features HUMMER H2 SUT Handling, Ride & Braking Standard Features HUMMER H2 SUT Exterior & Aerodynamics Standard Features
 * Engine: 6162 cc V8 overhead valve with VVT ( 10.5 :1 compression ratio ; two valves per cylinder)
 * Fuel: E85 and/or premium unleaded 87
 * Multi-point injection fuel system
 * 32.0 gallon fuel tank
 * Power: 393 HP ( 293 kW) @ 5,700 rpm; 415 ft lb of torque ( 563 Nm) @ 4,300 rpm
 * ABS
 * 3.730:1 axle ratio
 * Brake assist system
 * Rear differential lock
 * Four disc brakes including four ventilated discs
 * Electronic brake distribution
 * Electronic traction control via ABS & engine management
 * Immobilizer
 * Rear limited slip differential
 * Fullsize alloy rim spare wheel
 * Stability control
 * Torsion beam front suspension independent with stabilizer bar and coil springs, trailing arm rear suspension rigid with stabilizer bar and coil springs
 * Argent front and rear bumpers
 * Day time running lights
 * Driver power heated black door mirrors with automatic and automatic operation, passenger power heated black door mirrors with automatic
 * External dimensions: overall length (inches): 203.6, overall width (inches): 81.2, overall height (inches): 79.2, ground clearance (inches): 9.7, wheelbase (inches): 122.7, front track (inches): 69.4, rear track (inches): 69.4 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 43.5
 * Electric foldable mirrors
 * Front fog lights
 * Complex surface lens halogen bulb headlights
 * Luxury trim alloy & leather on gearknob and alloy look on dashboard
 * Metallic paint
 * Straight side pickup bed
 * Driver side and passenger side rear side windows
 * Electric rear window with defogger
 * Glass electric front sunroof
 * Tinted glass on cabin
 * Underbody protection for fuel tank, for transfer case and for engine
 * Weights: gross vehicle weight rating (lbs) 8,600, curb weight (lbs) 6,614, gross trailer weight braked (lbs) 6,700 and max payload (lbs) 1,986
 * Windshield wipers with variable intermittent wipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.253.172.117 (talk • contribs)

Crashworthiness
Or lack thereof? I remember reading somewhere that the H2 had abysmal results in crash tests, but I do not remember where. Hellbus (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hummer H2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070501062438/http://www.gmbuypower.com:80/pages/shopBy/HUMMER_byBodyStyle.jsp to http://www.gmbuypower.com/pages/shopBy/HUMMER_byBodyStyle.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090831002223/http://media.gm.com:80/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=51161 to http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=51161

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hummer H2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423151018/http://media.gm.com:80/news/sales/030103_decsales.html to http://media.gm.com/news/sales/030103_decsales.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hummer H2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120328114640/http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100417/News01/4170301/-1/ to http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100417/News01/4170301/-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hummer H2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204213847/http://www.edmunds.com:80/hummer/h2/2007/review.html to http://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h2/2007/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hummer H2 correct length?
According to the Infobox, the length of a Hummer H2 is 203.5" (3119 mm). This figure sounds about right, and I've never questioned it's accuracy until recently, where I saw some sources stating that the length of a Hummer H2 is around 189".

For example, https://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h2/2006/features-specs/ states that the length is 189.2" (click the 'See all features & specs' button).

https://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=12494 says that the length is 4820 mm, which converts to 189.76".

https://www.research.com/reports/free-reviews-complaints-report/exterior-dimensions.php?make=hummer&model=h2&year=2007 stating the length is 189.8".

/autos.maxabout.com/cars/hummer/h2 says the length is 4821 mm, or 189.8".

These sources all corroborate that a H2's length is around 189.8 inches. This is a big difference from the 203.5 inches stated in the info box.

That being said, I have found other sources that states the H2's length is 203.5" : http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2008-hummer-h2-short-take-road-test-specs-page-3 http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche5876-hummer-h2-6-2-auto.htm

Multiple credible sources are support the fact that the length of a H2 is either 189.8" or 203.5". From how it looks, the 203.5" statistic is including the spare tire on the rear, but I can't confirm this. On the Hummer H3 page, the InfoBox shows a length of 188.1", but explicitly states "with rear tire carrier".

Would anyone have comment on what length value should be shown? My personal preference is that both values, both with and without spare tire, be in the InfoBox, and it would seem more appropriate that way. If there is no objections, I will change it soon.

AlmostBanned (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)