Sick of the H2 bashing!

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

The Ford GT took less.

I guess that makes the H2 effort seem even worse!

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I guess that makes the H2 effort seem even worse!

Now I just feel bad for the Hummer......ok, bad feeling gone .

[Ground Rat]

Originally Posted by Elk

If you want to rag on people who buy H2s and never take them off-road go for it, but I'm sick of people saying H2s can't handle off-roading and that they are just Tahoes with a different body and big tires.

It's true H2s aren't anything special off-road, why argue it?

[Elk]

Originally Posted by Andydg

Here's one that got stuck in a parking lot.

Breakover angle H2:25.8 Grand Cherokee:20.6 Liberty:21.8 Wrangler Rubicon:25.4 As you can see, if he was driving a Jeep he would have gotten stuck in the same place, but no one would have made a web site dedicated to it.

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

looks so cheap and plasticy inside, as well as having poor fit and finish

Looks are subjective. Plastic is light, doesn't rust, dent, absorb water and it's easy to clean. What would have been a better material to use? Give me an example of what's wrong with the fit and finish.

poor visibilty

The visibilty could be better.

poor handling and manueverablity, poor gas mileage

Let me guess, compared to a Toyota Corolla on pavement.

Perhaps if the H2 weren't such a bad vehicle,

The H2 is not a bad vehicle. Like I said at the beginning, the H2 is designed to be used off-road. If someone buys an H2 expecting car-like handling and fuel economy, that means the person who bought it is stupid, not that the H2 is a bad vehicle.

Originally Posted by Jimster

I hate H2's.

Well I'm sure this will be a intelligent and fact based post.
[quote]I think they're a worthless gimmick that don't hold their own off road[/qupte]
Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

with bumpers that over-ride most other cars crumple zones

The H2s high bumpers are one of the reasons it's the second best GM SUV you can buy for off-roading. You see, the higher the bumpers and the closer they are to the wheels the better the approach and departure angles.

Ground Rat
Name sume SUVs full size that are better then the H2 and don't say the H1 because it costs twice as much of course it's better.

[Ground Rat]

Originally Posted by Elk

Ground Rat
Name sume SUVs full size that are better then the H2 and don't say the H1 because it costs twice as much of course it's better.

How well any other SUV performs has nothing to do with how well the H2 performs. The H2 was marketed as a great 4x4 and was riding on the H1's reputation. Why do you care what other people think of the H2 anyway? Do you own one?

[curtis73]

The following is just counterpoint. No flames intended... just my little opinion.

I don't think that the H2 is a "bad" vehicle. I think it maximizes your cash spent for a minimum of "vehicle". It excells at nothing. It is nothing more off road than its weakest point, which makes it no better than a K1500. Its no better at accleration than the Corrolla (which someone else pointed out) and its no better at cornering than any other SUV. Combine that with GMs legendary (and I don't mean that in a good way) assembly quality and materials that come from the lowest possible bidder, and you have a $50,000 investment in the worst possible place I can think of. I'd rather pay $50,000 for corvette. At least it excels at one thing; going fast.

I can understand liking the new H2 if that's your flavor. Some people love bucket T's. I love my 73 Impala Station wagon, but I realize its shortcomings. I don't defend it as being great at getting me laid, or the best at getting good mileage. I bought it because it was a low-mileage classic that evoked an emotion in me. And yes, I paid too much for it, too, but I don't inflate its abilities. It carries all of my contracting tools in style, and gets thumbs up on the highway.

Someone else said it very well; legitimate shortcomings. Every car has them. Embrace them. Love them. Celebrate them.

Name sume SUVs full size that are better then the H2 and don't say the H1 because it costs twice as much of course it's better

Better how? Better reliability; any of the Japanese or BMW SUVs, or (gulp) the Fords have much better reliability than the GM right now. Better accleration; darn near any of them. Better resale; Rover, Toyota, BMW. Better assembly; pick one. Better turning radius; all of the above. Better interior noise; BMW, lexus/toyota, Rover, Porsche, Touareg, Jeep. Better off-road crawling; Toyota, Rover, Jeep. Its so much more than power and approach angles off road. Its gearing, tires, torque bias, wheelbase, strength of parts, center of gravity; all of which are way over-shadowed by the other SUVs when compared to the H2. The only real exception there is the 9.5" ring gear in the H2 which is a touch stronger handling torque than the others. Any off-road driver will tell you that driving will conquer more obstacles than one more degree of approach angle. And (as that earlier video showed) who cares how much log you can clear if the axle snaps in half while your crossing it.

I don't wish to offend anyone who has an H2, but the fact is that internally at Chevy, they wanted to make an accessible Hummer that bridged the gap between high-end SUVs and the H1. What they got was the ability to charge very high retail prices for a Suburban with a hummer looking box on top. If you really look at the guts, its nothing special. Certainly nothing that warrants a base price of almost $53,000.

For $53,000 I could have two jeeps, each one more capable of off-roading than one H2.

The H2s high bumpers are one of the reasons it's the second best GM SUV you can buy for off-roading.

First of all, this is like saying, "The spitfire is the second most reliable roadster Triumph ever produced." There were only three to start with, and they all sucked. And when you compare the off road ability of the H2 with things like the TrailBlazer and Tracker as your basis, of course it sounds good. When you compare it with the myriad of trail-worthy SUVs on the market, I would place the H2 well below the jeep, rover, and toyota. Let's face it, if it were designed as an off roader, it wouldn't have a 4L65E tranny with a plain old GM electronic transfer case and a pansy low-bias limited slip diff. It would have a proper final drive ratio and the chassis to handle it. It also comes with non-floatation 315/70-17 metric rubber which is bling, not capability.

Before we go any further with this, let's really dig into what it takes to be good off road. Let's take a look at suspension parts and the things that really matter with off road capability instead of listening to GM's marketing telling us what is off road. Heck, GM could market it as a Rubicon-ready vehicle and the general public would believe it because no one will ever take it off road to prove it.

Its all marketing, and if you believe that the H2 is a genuine off-roader, then you've listened to GM's marketing, not formulated your own opinion. Its a $53,000 half-ton suburban. Period.

[CamaroSSBoy346]

you know why people by H2's.... *cough compensation cough*

yeah..

My guess would be that it has open diff to get stuck on something that small? If it did, why would an Open diff be on this thing anyways?!

[2strokebloke]

You see, the higher the bumpers and the closer they are to the wheels the better the approach and departure angles.

Too bad the long wheelbase of the H2 gives it a poor breakover angle, making the approach and departure angles worthless. Too bad the H2 is not used off road by hardly anybody who buys them, and too bad it is being marketed to women for use on roads, not off road.
The H2 is just a gimmick to cash in on the gullibilty of the American car buying public.

Plastic is light, doesn't rust, dent, absorb water and it's easy to clean. What would have been a better material to use? Give me an example of what's wrong with the fit and finish.

Example?, have you seen any H2s? My 1978 Le Car used better materials! (not to mention was more comfortable - though it did lack AC, but it rode better, and was certainly more stylish than the H2 - as well as more original)

[Jimster]

[quote=Elk]Breakover angle H2:25.8 Grand Cherokee:20.6 Liberty:21.8 Wrangler Rubicon:25.4 As you can see, if he was driving a Jeep he would have gotten stuck in the same place, but no one would have made a web site dedicated to it.


Looks are subjective. Plastic is light, doesn't rust, dent, absorb water and it's easy to clean. What would have been a better material to use? Give me an example of what's wrong with the fit and finish.

The visibilty could be better.

Let me guess, compared to a Toyota Corolla on pavement.

The H2 is not a bad vehicle. Like I said at the beginning, the H2 is designed to be used off-road. If someone buys an H2 expecting car-like handling and fuel economy, that means the person who bought it is stupid, not that the H2 is a bad vehicle.


Well I'm sure this will be a intelligent and fact based post.

I think they're a worthless gimmick that don't hold their own off road[/qupte]
Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

The H2s high bumpers are one of the reasons it's the second best GM SUV you can buy for off-roading. You see, the higher the bumpers and the closer they are to the wheels the better the approach and departure angles.

Ground Rat
Name sume SUVs full size that are better then the H2 and don't say the H1 because it costs twice as much of course it's better.

There are plenty of fullsize SUV's better than the H2.


A Grand Cherokee is a better offroader, as is a Range Rover, a Lexus GX430, much like a Nissan Patrol, so is a Toyota Landcruiser and a Porsche Cayenne/Volkswagen Touareg.

If you want a useless offroad Gimmic SUV like the H2, then there are still better SUV's, like the BMW X5, Ford Expodition/Lincoln Navigator or a Lexus RX330.





Perhaps if the H2 was competent offroad and people took it there, then the bumpers'd be worth a shit, they're not, instead they're just pointless and dangerous.

[Ground Rat]

Originally Posted by curtis73

I'd rather pay $50,000 for corvette.

You can buy two C5s for 50k.

[ls1mazda93rx7]

i'd rather have a humvee, there evreywhere at my job. they maybe slower than hell but at least you can rockclimb better than the H2. but a military issued new humvee cost around 120k with out the armor we put on them. and that weighs them down even more!. but in my opinion the h2 is worthless.

[ls1mazda93rx7]

and AMG makes the humvee's

[Ground Rat]

Originally Posted by ls1mazda93rx7

and AMG makes the humvee's

They aren't as great as people think they are either. They are too wide and their center of gravity is too low.

[finally_retired]

The H2 is the opitomy of kitch. Leopard print seats and gold plated switchgear would look discustingly at home in a H2.

Now the Range Rover... That is the definition of decorum, class and sophistication. It will also leave a H2 feeling like an invalid when it comes to off road ability.

I'm sure that there are some particulaly brash, outgoing, attention seekers who appreciate the "bling" factor of the H2, but IMO, I think that Bling speaks for it's self...

[RickwithaTbird]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

and too bad it is being marketed to women for use on roads, not off road.
The H2 is just a gimmick to cash in on the gullibilty of the American car buying public.

Okay, so what you are saying is that GM is cashing in on the gullable American public by telling them they are great off road vehicles, but yet, even worse, they arent even orienting sales to off roaders, but to housemoms instead, who wont even be taking it off road. Yea, sure, sounds like youve got a friend at GM... sike. Those are totally conflicting statements. You're just making stuff up.