Why did GM not make H2 and H3 that have 4-independent-suspensions???

[davidh3]

I love H2 and H3. but don't you guys think that it's better to have rear independent suspensions just like H1 does?

Why GM put regular rear axle on H2 and H3. In the past years a brand new base H2 was more than $50,000. For that price why a HUMMER can't have 4 independent suspensions?

Something wrong with the rear independent suspensions on road or freeway?

Since I got stuck on the sandy hill, I realized that the regular rear axle can be a barrier to off road performance-----H3 couldn't move back because the whole rear axle was submerged and dragged by the sand.

What do you guys think about it (having rear independent suspensions)? I'm positive.

 

[LagunaH1]

My guess would be that using a live rear axle was seen as a means to help keep design complexity and costs down. -Probably not a matter of the cost to manufacture and sell the vehicle itself.

 

[HUMMER INVESTMENTS]

Why did not make them full straights then?

 

[LagunaH1]

Ask GM

 

[davidh3]

:emb:

 

[HUMMER INVESTMENTS]

:huh:

 

[f5moab]

Costs is one factor. People keep asking why this and that is not on a H3 or H2, but adding more expensive features would have driven the vehicle up in price, than they will bitch about the price. (Nothing in life is free.)

However a IRS suspension could get stuck in the sand too, if not the diff, how about the lower control arms.

There is a lot more different between the H1 and the H2/H3 than just the IRS.

 

[alrock]

Full straights = less comfort and performance on the road. Notice that very few cars, and less and less trucks, have solid axles now. The Mustang is an odd throwback for having a solid rear axle and suffers a lot of grief for it. The H2 and H3 were successful in their sales for excellent on-road manners while being very capable off road. For crawling over rocks, etc. a solid axle will often get you the best chance at keeping tires on the ground through greater articulation than can be achieved with an independent suspension. You won't see an independent suspension flex like this:

H1s can make up for the lack of articulation in part due to the geared hubs, raised diffs and many other features that they have. But those are not cheap or easily packaged features. For example, the ground clearance down the center was achieved by moving the engine up and towards the back, putting the driver and passenger in different zip codes, separated by drivetrain components.

Put it this way: The front drivetrain components and brakes are moved upwards, located where a typical radiator would be. That radiator is located where the front and top of a typical engine would be. The engine is then moved back under through the firewall, creating the need for the doghouse in the passenger compartment for engine access. These design changes cost money, as evidenced by the 2006 H1 Alpha retailing for $150,000 at the time. And I'm not ready for those changes to be in my H3 and put a starting price of something like $70,000 or more. I'll let the Aussies pay those big bucks for their H3s

 

[HUMMER INVESTMENTS]

Full straights = less comfort and performance on the road. Notice that very few cars, and less and less trucks, have solid axles now. The Mustang is an odd throwback for having a solid rear axle and suffers a lot of grief for it. The H2 and H3 were successful in their sales for excellent on-road manners while being very capable off road. For crawling over rocks, etc. a solid axle will often get you the best chance at keeping tires on the ground through greater articulation than can be achieved with an independent suspension. You won't see an independent suspension flex like this:

H1s can make up for the lack of articulation in part due to the geared hubs, raised diffs and many other features that they have. But those are not cheap or easily packaged features. For example, the ground clearance down the center was achieved by moving the engine up and towards the back, putting the driver and passenger in different zip codes, separated by drivetrain components.

Put it this way: The front drivetrain components and brakes are moved upwards, located where a typical radiator would be. That radiator is located where the front and top of a typical engine would be. The engine is then moved back under through the firewall, creating the need for the doghouse in the passenger compartment for engine access. These design changes cost money, as evidenced by the 2006 H1 Alpha retailing for $150,000 at the time. And I'm not ready for those changes to be in my H3 and put a starting price of something like $70,000 or more. I'll let the Aussies pay those big bucks for their H3s

Great explanation alrock!

 

[davidh3]

:wink:nice explanation.

 

[Ron B]

the h2 and h3 are based on existing truck/suv platforms -- as everyone has said to keep costs down they used what they had...right down to the same crappy tierods

 

[Ron B]

You won't see an independent suspension flex like this:

scorpion? I love those things!