New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SUV's Hummer H2vsJeep

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Do all of you remember that last talk we had about SUV's? Well a serious threat happening to jobs in my area. Has anyone heard about the injunction that Jeep has tried to place on Hummer?

I guess Jeep is trying to say that the hummer h2 is using its grill design and wants them to use another one. If I remember correctly hummer has always used the 7slot type and jeep is only trying to stop them from giving them competition.

At one time Jeep and Hummer was owned by the same company.

500 people's jobs is at stake.

post #2 of 26
Well I guess Jeep could argue some sort of Trademark infrigment for the grill design? A slight design change and any problems with Jeep are gone. Hummer won't go out of Bussiness becuse of Grill.Lets face it Hummer's main sales are to the military around the World.Civilian sales are a small persentage of thier sales.Now if Peace were to brake out then Hummer might have a real problem.
post #3 of 26
Actually, it was Hummer that recently tried to trademark the seven-slot design, then prevent Jeep from using it anymore (even though the Hummer was based on the Jeep design). Shouldn't we just say that the seven slots belong to everyone since the Jeep is based on a US Army vehicle from WWII?

Viva Jeep [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #4 of 26
I heard a judge sided with GM so Hummer can keep its grill. I think a bigger problem may be that Hummer is producing a truck based truck when the market seems to be for car-based trucks. It's butt ugly too IMO
post #5 of 26
i'm not sure how anybody could call the hummer anything other than beautiful.... i would agree that the h2 isn't half as cool as the real deal. the jeep is based on a wwII vehicle? jeep built the wwII vehicle. and the hummer is built by am general, not gm.

i never properly understood how the grill was really an issue, if jeep's bitchin just do something else w/ the grill. regardless, this is an issue that i read about many months ago, i didn't realize it was still around.

the fact that the hummer is a truck based truck is a huge part of its appeal... its civilian thrust is towards a niche market, not mainstream. i knew somebody who had a two-door pickup truck version of a hummer....i drooled all over it. THAT'S a frickin truck, my friends.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ March 02, 2002 07:29 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Auxcrinier ]</font>
post #6 of 26
Couple of years back, GM bought Hummer from AM General.

Don't know if they checked with Ahnuld first.
post #7 of 26
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MarkXS:
Couple of years back, GM bought Hummer from AM General.

Don't know if they checked with Ahnuld first.

AM General did own the Hummer before and the hummer was based on the Jeep design. AM General had given GM the ok to use the same design because it was a Army only vehicle at that time.

HI Utha49,
Hummer isn't saying they will go out of business.. but 500 workers will lose there Jobs.

So far, GM hummer has won in the injuction and is now producing the New H2 hummer now.
AM is still trying to set up a court date and we are all waiting to here whats next on the news.

But the real point is.. WOULD you BUY a h2hummer or a Jeep wagon type?(if they was the same pricing?)
post #8 of 26
I'd buy a Hummer over a Chrysler product any day. I've had too many prople that I know, have major problems with Chrysler products. Hummers (what little I actually know about them) are reported to be very reliable. Plus.... it's a HUMMER!
post #9 of 26
They seem kind of pricey for just a ummm, hummer!

(Sorry, I guess I need to get out and ski more!)
post #10 of 26
Stupid Usless Vehicle
post #11 of 26
"Stupid Useless vehicle"

I'm no fan of SUV's especially the crude truck utes but they cerainly have their place for towing etc. Currently they r more of a fashion thing (there's a saying in CO: the bigger the truck, the smaller the cowboy LOL) for people who IMHO would be better served by a minivan. Unfortunantly they've also become the latest target for the PC police.

Both groups will be happy to learn that they are evolving into a useful combo of van utility and SUV image and driving position. The nu SAV's from Volvo, toyota, pontiac, honda show the future direction of the car; even the nu accord will be along these lines i think.

This is where Hummer is missing the boat IMHO. The nu H2 is nothing but a rebodied Suburban, a crude combo of 1950's mechanics and modern electronics. Even Jeep is ditching some of their off-road ability for better mix of useful on-road performance, practicality etc. Hummer risks going down the same short, unsuccessful road pioneered by the slow selling Excursion.
post #12 of 26
I'd have to argue in favor of SUV's depending on your needs. We could never get to the Vermont house on those rural roads without 4 wheel drive and high ground clearance. When the snow is deep you need to be able to get through without getting wedged.
post #13 of 26
The thing that I don't get about the Hummer is that it seens totally impractical for mountain travel.

Before his death, my father in law and I spent lots of time getting to his "secret" bass and trout ponds throughout New Hampshire. His vehicle of choice was an old SWB Toyota. The SOP for these trips was a couple of chain saws to clear windfalls and chock and bridge over rocks. The "roads" were very narrow and the new Hummer would never stand a chance.

It seems that the vehicle design concept was to fight war on the plains of the eastern block countries and in the middle east.

Looks like just the ticket to ruin a crop of corn or soybeans ....... but for getting through the eastern woods???? :
post #14 of 26
you need that wide platform to mount a gatling on... [img]smile.gif[/img] great for deer hunting.
post #15 of 26
Reminds me about the son of a deposed South American government official that attended my high school. He talked of hunting antalope on the Pampas with Tommy guns. Claimed he literally cut one in two. :
post #16 of 26
i can understand and tolerate hunting for food and sport. but ripping one in two? it seems that would fill more of a need for carnage than the thrill of the hunt.
post #17 of 26
Aux, Slatz,
Please don't get me started on guns!

But the original topic was about job losses, and I'd like to add to it.
I was reading recently about attempts to have free trade agreements globally. A comment was made about one particular country that refuses to allow free trade, and as such means around 18,000 jobs could be at stake.
Why are some countries so closed to free trade?

post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 
Fox <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why are some countries so closed to free trade? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever hear about the US's chapter 11, and how it aplies to Trade with the US?. Its messed up.
post #19 of 26
No, sorry, don't know of chapter 11, could you please explain for us Euro bears?


post #20 of 26
Aux: Circling the whole herd in a Jolly Green .... sounds too easy and not very sporting ..... try it with a 20 knot crosswind! :
post #21 of 26
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The problem of too much free trade is from having people in other, less affluent countries, make products for the U.S. market, and pay their people $.25/hr (K2, Nike, etc), while people in the U.S. lose their jobs because they won't (can't!) make a living on $.25/hr. The U.S. imposes these limits on trade to keep greedy corporate execs from destroying the U.S. economy by laying off tens of thousands of Americans so that the execs can make more profit.

People complain about the disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S., but it gets worse and worse the more this type of action takes place.

Maybe it would change if the people in China, Mexico, etc., would stand up and demand pay equal to what Americans make. But then, if they did that, then K2 and Nike wouldn't be employing tens of thousands of Chineese, would they?
post #22 of 26
Thanks JohnH,
I understand a bit better now, so there are demands for free trade when selling to other countries, but not for buying from them?

The example I was giving above about the 18,000 potential redundancies was in Europe. I believe around 5,000 of them are in the UK. Not exactly what I'd call third world, less affluent, or slave labour!

But let's not go down this route, it will turn into a flame war!

post #23 of 26
no flames. I wasn't aware of any trade restrictions with friendly Euro countries. There must be some alterior motive for restrictions like that. If it's in the high-tech area, then the U.S. tends to be very protective of intellectual property. Otherwise, I'd be stumped. But I'm far (very) from an expert in foreign trade and global politics.
post #24 of 26
It's a 30% import tax on some European manufactured goods & raw materials!

post #25 of 26
I'm way out of my league here. Does some of that have to do with that "banana war" thing that Clinton started? I've heard those tariffs hurt a lot of small businesses in the US who sell products with Euro parts. Batteries was one.
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
There is a problem with chapter 11 that most people don't know about because big corps keep it out of the public eye.

Corporations are abusing this to make a profit.

An Canadian company makes a additive in gasoline that many stations used in CA. Later on it was proven that the additive was polluting the entire City and CA banned this additive.
The Canadian company Sued the United States behind CLOSED doors, using chapter 11 claiming of lost revenue. This Additive was even banned in Canada. The Company won and the money came out of the tax payers wallets.

US corp. comp. are just as bad at abusing this, sueing other countries for protecting the environment.(not enough time to cover all basis on this one)

Look at Enrone, greed is everywhere.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion