> HipHopJun said on
12-15-2009 at
22:43:
GET TO THE HUMMA!
> Dorothyinstead said on
12-15-2009 at
07:20:
We all want to do our bit to save the planet. We all want to help the starving people of the world.We all want to do the right thing by our fellow man.Human beings want to be altruistic.How much are we willing to sacrifice now, for our future generations. To what extent are any one of us, willing to give up what we have now, to benefit others yet unseen.Most of us are not that altruistic, yet.
> Dorothyinstead said on
12-15-2009 at
07:09:
I see your point and understand what you are saying. But being morally conscientious about buying an electric hummer (as opposed to a normal Hummer) does not detract from the fact that they use up so much of thye earths resources. Your opinion helps those people buying such a machine, feel better about themselves for purchasing it. They know a smaller car is more enviromentally friendly but hey, its electric so I am doing my bit for the earth.Our collective thinking needs to change.
> 41point2 said on
12-15-2009 at
00:37:
I had to figure out how I judge someone else s choices. Bottom line is we ALL take from the planet. As good as I maybe to reduce my carbon FP, someone else is doing better. Unless you're Amish, you can do better. So that being said, if someone wants a Hummer and gets the electric ones, then they are making the effort to help and Are morally conscientious about what they do.I would even consider one of these vehicles for the Haul capacity and safety of my family.
> Dorothyinstead said on
11-19-2009 at
22:49:
Plain physics!! The less weight one needs to move the less energy required!To become more green we need to use less energy. Plain and simple.Yes Hummers are a nice car, yes they are safe, and yes you are entitled to have one if you so wish BUT Hummers are such a waste of the earths resources.
> electrician725 said on
11-13-2009 at
00:20:
@xplicitvio "Enjoy your cars with "balls" while u can."This is the only part of your statement that looks odd, Electric motors have MAX TORQUE @ Zero RPM! Plenty of balls here, and the onboard gas engine will be right around 150+ HP to turn that 100 KW generator (= 133 HP) but no direct connection to the wheels... I will be a first level hotrodder of this technology, I already have most of the training :) Future's so bright I gotta wear shades!
> electrician725 said on
11-13-2009 at
00:13:
@FullFrontalCrudity: Cool name, BTW!You make excellent points, but the "average driver" behind the wheel will be somewhat buffered, the gas engine is only running at max efficiency (no throttle input from driver) so maybe it would be a bit better than you think, no way to tell until these are on the road and abused like our other vehicles :D If it has regenerative braking (and it must with that city rating) it is possible to really stretch out that charge even on highway drives. Pulse/Glide...
> Jupiterironman said on
10-07-2009 at
00:26:
What is the liter per minute consumption rate of hydrogen of these cars???How much liters per minute of hydrogen do these cars use in normal driving???The device on my motorcycle produces over 40 liters per minute of hydrogen from water.The device on my motorcycle also produces over 60 liters per minute of HHO gas. Is this enough hydrogen to run these cars??? Signed Norman Williams XMARINE. No joke!!!
> joaquinveyron said on
08-26-2009 at
10:28:
"... and the gasoline engine only kicks in when the battery is down. After that the engine charges the battery ..." You cannot say more stupid things, can you??? And where do you think the energy comes from the battery is charged with??? Does anybody know how much energy you lose in between???Please, Arnie, it is so great to see u in ur movie where u pull one's head off, while shooting down a helicopter with the other hand, but it hurts listening to u trying to say sth. intelligent!
> joaquinveyron said on
08-26-2009 at
10:21:
"California is such an important state. We could inspire other states and countries to do exactly the same thing" ... Please not, Arnie, we want good cars and also fuel-efficient cars that pollute the environment less.
> joaquinveyron said on
08-26-2009 at
09:51:
Omg, u wonder why the US car industry is down? Arnie and u don't have a bit of an idea about technology. This shitty H3 certainly aint do 100 MPG. If the battery is charged by the engine, then the energy finally comes from the gas (and you need more energy, since you lose half of it until it arrives the electric motor). If it is charged by the grid, then the energy comes from the power plants. So more pollution + CO2, above all cause you have 2 propulsion systems on board that add to the weight.
> joaquinveyron said on
08-26-2009 at
00:22:
this fuck is not greener than the conventional hummer that comsumer as much gas as iraq produces in a week. there is no "clean" energy I see in this car. Arnold, arnold, please pull other people's head off as u did in ur movies, but don't talk so much rubbish!
> Jebu911 said on
08-11-2009 at
23:23:
well as arnold says maybe with technology of 2020 maybe it would be easy to make cars that are good for earhs conditition
> FullFrontalCrudity said on
07-29-2009 at
10:29:
vehicle size actually is a problem, because I highly doubt you could get an electric vehicle to do the workload of a big rig hauling a 40 ft trailer fully loaded over the Rockies. so i think gas engines will be used in industry for a long time to come.this hummer doesn't get 100mpg, like the title says, and it won't get 80mpg like Arnold states in the video. that's a huge overshoot number. it would get closer to 60-70mpg with a daily driver behind the wheel.
> SirPlankton said on
06-28-2009 at
15:50:
he is soo right, large vehicles arent the problem, its whats under the hood that has to change
> inventorisac said on
06-28-2009 at
14:43:
MIRE
> Jumalten001 said on
06-26-2009 at
03:24:
first off, i dont care what your rank or status is in the army, dont try to throw it out there like im supposed to be impressed. And when did i say i was a liberal? please show me otherwise keep your view and thoughts to yourself. lastly this is the internet not grade school, capitalizing isnt required and the only time its brought up is when some asshat like yourself trys to show he is better then someone.
> hrwulf said on
06-26-2009 at
01:56:
Actually you are wrong. As an NCO in the Army it is proper protocol by the UCMJ to refer to the person whom you are speaking as either their title(IE) Dr. President, Governor, etc., or Sir, Mister, Misses, Miss or Ma'am. Same goes for civilians. Bet you thought it was ok for the Main Stream Media to refer to Pres. Bush as Mr. Bush for the last 8 yrs? Apparently liberals have a double standard when it comes to rendering respect. Might want to learn to capitialize while you're at it too.
> V3xify said on
06-24-2009 at
23:05:
Arnold is so badass
> stephensamperi said on
06-24-2009 at
18:14:
so it has a gas generator that powers the battery?thats the most efficient way to make a car that doesnt have to "charge up".