I said 5-10 years. Which is not long. I will probably see the demise of the ICE in my lifetime.
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
GM resurrecting Hummer as an all-electric ‘super truck’ with 1,000 horsepower
- Thread starter CK5
- Start date
runamok151
1 ton status
Just one major problem. We don't have enough electricity. We're already importing 30% and that deficit is growing rapidly every year. 2 nuc plants are going off line this year and we haven't built a new electric plant in over 40 years. Solar panels could help, but they cost as much energy to make as they make over their life time. Wind turbines work, as long as it's windy or the tree huggers aren't suing them for killing birds.
I agree realistically it shouldn't happen that quickly but states like California are pushing it and they have shown that they don't back down, I have a 2001 freightliner sitting in storage to prove it.
They don't care if it is the right thing to do or what the consequences are.
Neither of these statements are true. I can think of 5 new plants built in the last few years, just in the towns where I've lived and worked. The power company that I used to work for has more baseload gross nameplate capacity now than when I left, even if you don't count solar and wind farms (and they'd strongly like to include those assets in the count). Yes, they've retired several old plants, but they've built more capacity than they've retired.
Have they built enough? Probably not. Certainly not enough to sustain a massive switch to electric vehicles. But the idea that we haven't built any new power plants in 40 years is completely in left field.
Solar panels have become drastically cheaper to build in the last 20 years. Even in my cloudy region, unsubsidized PV panels can pay for themselves in a few years. Long before they exceed their lifespan. The high financial and energy cost is from the battery systems that usually accompany them. And those are getting cheaper, too. This is assuming you're talking about PV panels. Thermal (hot water) panels have always been cheap.
Last edited:
That's a valid point, although I'm more surprised they didn't give us TQ and not HP. I mean HP is only calculated from TQ based on RPM. And the thing with an electric motor is you essentially have all of the TQ available from near zero RPM. So the TQ curve is nearly a straight line through the motor RPM with electric, and the HP could be calculated at any RPM but should be highest at the max RPM of the motor, which is usually dependent on voltage.
beags86
Eastbound and Down
I bet it will have a motor at each wheel and a gear reduction box. 4 motors and 4 boxes. Not one or 2 drive units with a differential like a Tesla.
The tq number is probably based off those gear reduction boxes.
The tq number is probably based off those gear reduction boxes.
Last edited:
If it's going to be available next year then that means they have been working on it for a 3-4 years already most likely.
beags86
Eastbound and Down
I wouldn't be surprised if they have the full electric drivetrain sitting under a 2017-18-19 body running around on the street already.
Moody Bricker
1/2 ton status
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2016
- Posts
- 174
- Reaction score
- 105
All ele-truck,,yea right,what next, meat-less whoppers,shrimp toco, footall without passing and had off running,what is this world comming too,,and where the hell is my jet pack
Moody Bricker
1/2 ton status
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2016
- Posts
- 174
- Reaction score
- 105
I think I might need a snickers,
When Ferdinand Porsche designed the first VW Beetle prototype,he originally wanted it to be electric,with a drive motor for each wheel..
This was back in the late 30's..
So I guess nothing is new under the sun..
He ended up going with a gas engine instead due to battery life being a big problem..now about 80 years later,we still dont have the battery part fully figured out..
The first gas powered Beetle had a radial engine,based on airplane designs..but during testing,they started snapping crankshafts like peanut brittle,so he invented the "flat four" or horizontally opposed engine design,which proved very durable and is still used today in Subaru's..
This was back in the late 30's..
So I guess nothing is new under the sun..
He ended up going with a gas engine instead due to battery life being a big problem..now about 80 years later,we still dont have the battery part fully figured out..
The first gas powered Beetle had a radial engine,based on airplane designs..but during testing,they started snapping crankshafts like peanut brittle,so he invented the "flat four" or horizontally opposed engine design,which proved very durable and is still used today in Subaru's..
Until they come up with cheaper batteries electric vehicles will not be mandated. Someone claims that they have salt water battery that can compete with Li on power density.
beags86
Eastbound and Down
beags86
Eastbound and Down
I don’t have a horse in this race, but wow, let me just vent for a bit and share my opinions.
Don’t even get my started on the name...as I recall, AM General allowed GM to use the Hummer name on the very first civilian interpretation of the military vehicle, aka the H2, because that design retained so many characteristics that made it similar to the HMMWV/H1. I don’t remember how we ended up with the H3, but I know enthusiasts considered it a completely different animal than the H2. For the record, I’ve never known anyone who owned one nor have I sat in one, H2 or H3.
So the Hummer marque fades away as the new trend in the world is latte-sipping effeminate “men” who would rather drive a Prius than pretend to be big tough guys driving the no-frills, utilitarian-but-not-militaristic, civilian take on a tactical vehicle (H2/H3).
Please note that’s not just my view, but I was in the military during the time of the H1 popularity and introduction of the H2. Nobody in any unit I was in or worked with owned an H2 or H3. Rather two people in one unit (an MP company in the MA army national guard circa 1998 for those who may have remembered) bought operable surplus HMMWVs and drove them, and a third bought a fixer-upper for off road use. The H2/H3 crowd always struck me as the wanna-bes who were never in the military and thought that their civilian vehicles with glossy paint and fake plastic accents (false airlift shackles as I recall, and I believe fake push bumpers/brush guards) made them look just as authentic as those who drove HMMWVs or H1s. Trust me, veterans and especially female veterans saw right through the facade— those guys weren’t impressing anyone.
Which brings me to today— what’s the target demographic with the vehicle shown? Is it a pickup? When I think HMMWV, I think of what I saw in most MP units, which is a fullly-enclosed, somewhat trapezoidal shaped, vehicle with a rear opening hatch. That’s all I knew for my first year or two. The rear portion often leaked and would take effort to close after any degree of abuse, but it worked. The open back HMMWV variants seemed to be in infantry and cavalry units, and the medic vans slowly became a common sight as well. Sitting in the air conditioned interior of one of those after a day on the range was heavenly. I don’t know what kind of units had the soft top four door types but I can tell you the heaters in them didn’t do much at idle— we had to rotate helipad watch sitting in one of those during the dead of winter at one location. Drive up in a nice warm truck, get out and freeze for hours in the flimsy soft-sided truck, then thaw out in the warm truck on the way back down the hill. Fun times!
I wander off topic but I assure you I’m sober!
So are we looking at some kind of SUV or a pickup being introduced? Aimed at the commercial customer? The common consumer? The hunting and outdoors crowd or the Tesla-loving aforementioned soy boys?
Don’t even get my started on the name...as I recall, AM General allowed GM to use the Hummer name on the very first civilian interpretation of the military vehicle, aka the H2, because that design retained so many characteristics that made it similar to the HMMWV/H1. I don’t remember how we ended up with the H3, but I know enthusiasts considered it a completely different animal than the H2. For the record, I’ve never known anyone who owned one nor have I sat in one, H2 or H3.
So the Hummer marque fades away as the new trend in the world is latte-sipping effeminate “men” who would rather drive a Prius than pretend to be big tough guys driving the no-frills, utilitarian-but-not-militaristic, civilian take on a tactical vehicle (H2/H3).
Please note that’s not just my view, but I was in the military during the time of the H1 popularity and introduction of the H2. Nobody in any unit I was in or worked with owned an H2 or H3. Rather two people in one unit (an MP company in the MA army national guard circa 1998 for those who may have remembered) bought operable surplus HMMWVs and drove them, and a third bought a fixer-upper for off road use. The H2/H3 crowd always struck me as the wanna-bes who were never in the military and thought that their civilian vehicles with glossy paint and fake plastic accents (false airlift shackles as I recall, and I believe fake push bumpers/brush guards) made them look just as authentic as those who drove HMMWVs or H1s. Trust me, veterans and especially female veterans saw right through the facade— those guys weren’t impressing anyone.
Which brings me to today— what’s the target demographic with the vehicle shown? Is it a pickup? When I think HMMWV, I think of what I saw in most MP units, which is a fullly-enclosed, somewhat trapezoidal shaped, vehicle with a rear opening hatch. That’s all I knew for my first year or two. The rear portion often leaked and would take effort to close after any degree of abuse, but it worked. The open back HMMWV variants seemed to be in infantry and cavalry units, and the medic vans slowly became a common sight as well. Sitting in the air conditioned interior of one of those after a day on the range was heavenly. I don’t know what kind of units had the soft top four door types but I can tell you the heaters in them didn’t do much at idle— we had to rotate helipad watch sitting in one of those during the dead of winter at one location. Drive up in a nice warm truck, get out and freeze for hours in the flimsy soft-sided truck, then thaw out in the warm truck on the way back down the hill. Fun times!
I wander off topic but I assure you I’m sober!
So are we looking at some kind of SUV or a pickup being introduced? Aimed at the commercial customer? The common consumer? The hunting and outdoors crowd or the Tesla-loving aforementioned soy boys?
79rustyk10
3/4 ton status
Aimed at the Tesla-loving aforementioned soy boys.
runamok151
1 ton status
That's GM's problem. I truly believe they've lost touch w/ their market and have no idea who they're building vehicles for, especially in the truck segment. When I was at the stealership a couple months ago buying my Colorado, the salesman had a placard on his desk advertising the new (un) Blazer. The ad line said for the "on road adventurer." I laughed at him when he tried to defend it.
