2009 Hummer H3 Alpha 4wd**large Sunroof**camera**chrome Pack**dvd**1 Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This modified Hummer hybrid will go to the South Pole on biofuel

One modified Hummer H1, traveling with another vehicle that looks like a modified Hummer H1, will spend six to 10 days driving to the South Pole, two days camping at the Pole, and take another six to 10 days driving back to the coast of Antarctica. Assuming all goes well. That's not guaranteed, since this blue beast really is - fundamentally, at least - a Hummer H1, not just Hummer-like bodywork over non-Hummer internals like you'd find on, say, the Dakar-winning "Mini." The Zero South team has been working on this vehicle for seven years (we checked it out at SEMA in 2008 and in 2010). The frame, suspension, axles, hubs, differentials, and the body are pure 1998 Hummer, the funky bodywork being from an insulated H1 ambulance, the uprated driveline from an armored H1. The original H1 used a 6.5-liter V8, but here that ICE engine has been swapped for a 3.2-liter turbodiesel V6 straight-six that will run on aviation-grade biofuel pulled from two 30-gallon tanks. Called the Hybrid Polar Traverse Vehicles, the serial hybrids use that engine to power a 216-horsepower electric motor that juices up a 24-kWr battery stored in an insulated, five-foot-long battery box between the frame rails. That battery powers two 200-hp electric motors, one at each axle, that will keep the tracks going through the Antarctic December half-light. We aren't sure what the second vehicle is based on, but its internals mirror the Hummer's, it has the exact same specs, and it looks almost the same except it's painted orange. They will pull a modified Airstream trailer called the "Snowstream," and are planning and eight-episode TV series as well as a feature film to document the expedition.

Why didn't GM recall fire-prone Hummers earlier?

As early as 2009, motorists reported fires in the Hummer H3. In a complaint filed that March with the regulatory agency in charge of vehicle safety, one motorist said they leaped into a smoldering vehicle and drove it away from gas pumps moments before it was engulfed in flames. Three months later, another motorist described how a fire spread from behind the glove box and consumed their H3. Dozens of car owners filed similar complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the six years that followed, detailing car fires of varying severity that originated in the HVAC systems of their Hummer H3s. But General Motors didn't issue a recall for any of the affected cars until last week, prompting fresh questions about how the company treats safety concerns in the wake of an ignition-switch flaw that went unaddressed for years and, at latest count, is responsible for killing at least 124 motorists. In recall documents filed with NHTSA last week, GM initially said it knew of three fires associated with the defect. Within hours, the company said it knew of 42 fires associated with the problem and three injuries sustained by vehicle occupants. A company spokesperson attributed the inconsistency to a "misstated" number in the original documents and that the higher number comes from NHTSA complaints, reports to GM and TREAD data. Beyond that discrepancy, the documents show General Motors, which has touted a revitalized attitude toward safety concerns since the ignition-switch recalls, did nothing upon determining there was a problem with the H3s. Prompted by two complaints the company received in September 2014, General Motors says it launched an internal investigation related to melting blowers in the HVAC system on December 8, 2014. In that investigation, the company says it confirmed a problem existed, finding that "mismatched electrical conductivity could result in overheating and melting of the blower motor connector module." But even with that conclusion, the company opted to close its internal investigation on April 29, 2015, without taking any action. It wasn't until NHTSA officials met with GM representatives in a meeting on June 18, 2015, that General Motors was prompted to reconsider.

IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving

WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.