nf6x
Feral Engineer
- 1,630
- 50
- 48
- Location
- Riverside, CA, USA
Yeah, and I tell the girls that I got this here scar back in 'Nam.
Never mind that I was born in '68.
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
GL & HUMMVe
- Thread starter Ma Duce
- Start date
Yeah, and I tell the girls that I got this here scar back in 'Nam.
Never mind that I was born in '68.
- 7,584
- 363
- 83
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
And I've seen many sailors when asked by kids at airshows if they are pilots answer: Yes I fly NC-8's. Gullible...
clinto
Moderator, wonderful human being & practicing Deuc
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
Supporting Vendor
- 12,596
- 1,132
- 113
- Location
- Athens, Ga.
This is the most hilarious thing I have ever read about MV's. I think this is better than the guy who was positive we had taken Jeep's to the moon.
papabear
GA Mafia Imperial 1SG
- 13,520
- 2,464
- 113
- Location
- Columbus, Georgia
So THAT'S where all those $50.00 "WWII Jeeps in a crate" went!!!
- 7,584
- 363
- 83
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
Transportation costs back woulk be terrible though.So THAT'S where all those $50.00 "WWII Jeeps in a crate" went!!!
This has to be the dumbest statement I have ever heard. There is nothing on the hmmwv that is not commonly available in the commercial market esp on the early production trucks. I love mine.
nf6x
Feral Engineer
- 1,630
- 50
- 48
- Location
- Riverside, CA, USA
Well, there is that odd-ball fuel filter element that seems to be unique to the military HMMWV…
- 9,580
- 218
- 63
- Location
- Dickson,TN
Rumor has it that there are old barns on the moon full of said jeeps. I've also heard that they dumped a bunch into the Sea of Tranquility when they left.So THAT'S where all those $50.00 "WWII Jeeps in a crate" went!!!
Back to the topic at hand, that GL employee is a idiot. There are many valid theories as to why HMMWVs aren't released whole ( I have mine but I think it's been pretty well covered), I don't think some top secret conspiracy is one of them though.
- 2,731
- 856
- 113
- Location
- Oakwood, Ga
Here is what we have been able to determine with our research on some other issues.
The Defense Department did want to sell these to the public to generate money. It seems a battle was fought between 1992-1994 between the Department of Defense and potentially one or more enemies. I say one or more because in our research, the only enemy that was identified is the National National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The battle was very heated and got to the level of Senator Sam Nunn who at the time was the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and strongly in support of these being sold to generate money.
On record is Sam Nunn asking the NHTSA why they made a recommendation that the HMMVE was not safe. The response from Chief Consul Wommack at the time said that while the NHTSA makes recommendations when asked by the DOD, it is only a recommendation and the DOD was not obliged to follow the ruling. So this is why things are fuzzy on who the real enemy was.
Bottom Line, you had the DOD wanting to sell these, to the point of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee writing numerous memos and letters to get an answer as to why they were not being made available to sell. On the flip side you have the only group that the finger is being pointed at, NHTSA saying, "yes we said they were not safe but, you dont have to listen to us it is only a recommendation" and the trail goes cold or behind closed doors.
I am sure more digging would present more facts but for the purposes of what we are doing in Georgia we got the information we needed.
The Defense Department did want to sell these to the public to generate money. It seems a battle was fought between 1992-1994 between the Department of Defense and potentially one or more enemies. I say one or more because in our research, the only enemy that was identified is the National National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The battle was very heated and got to the level of Senator Sam Nunn who at the time was the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and strongly in support of these being sold to generate money.
On record is Sam Nunn asking the NHTSA why they made a recommendation that the HMMVE was not safe. The response from Chief Consul Wommack at the time said that while the NHTSA makes recommendations when asked by the DOD, it is only a recommendation and the DOD was not obliged to follow the ruling. So this is why things are fuzzy on who the real enemy was.
Bottom Line, you had the DOD wanting to sell these, to the point of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee writing numerous memos and letters to get an answer as to why they were not being made available to sell. On the flip side you have the only group that the finger is being pointed at, NHTSA saying, "yes we said they were not safe but, you dont have to listen to us it is only a recommendation" and the trail goes cold or behind closed doors.
I am sure more digging would present more facts but for the purposes of what we are doing in Georgia we got the information we needed.
Flyingvan911
Well-known member
- 4,709
- 158
- 63
- Location
- Kansas City, MO
Do you need a deep water kit to drive through the Sea of Tranquility? AM General didn't want surplus HMMWV's competing with the expensive civi H1's and I've heard AMG was worried about liability. I think DOD should have told AMG where to stick it. AMG wants to sell to the military and the military wants to recover some cash on the other side. Everybody wins
- 6,861
- 696
- 113
- Location
- Stratford/Connecticut
It would have killed the civilian hummer market. They would have sold off so many they would be everywhere and dirt cheap. Unlike 5tons and deuces, a humvee can in theory be a daily driver.
- 2,731
- 856
- 113
- Location
- Oakwood, Ga
Flyingvan, that is a hypothesis and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee would not be fighting to sell these if he did not have the support from the DOD. The only way that AM General would have been able to pull this off would be to threaten the DOD by pulling out of the contract. I don't believe that Senator Nunn would have gone against the wishes of the DOD if that was true. The last statement here is my opinion.
Last edited:
- 6,861
- 696
- 113
- Location
- Stratford/Connecticut
I think the government would minimize hassle and maximize profit by selling off all vehicles for scrap metal. If you look on an sf97 it lists the price that GL paid the government for the truck. It not very much. Just the cost of managing all the stuff from the government end till it gets transferred to GL have to exceed what GL pays for the items.
- 2,731
- 856
- 113
- Location
- Oakwood, Ga
If you dig deeper you will find the whole concept of the Government selling vehicles to private individuals very complicated.
1.) The first issue that comes up is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, from which Military Vehicles are exempt. That is clearly stated in the Federal Code of Regulations and supported by numerous rulings and interpretations. In fact any vehicle older than 25 years from today is exempt but many states do not get this ruling right when they write the state laws which should be in line with Federal laws.
2.) GL can only issue an SF97 on those vehicles that are determined to meet Federal regulations. But the SF97 is not recognized in some states as a valid title for certain military vehicles. Georgia is an example
3.) The Federal Government provides to the states the VIN software data which is what many states use to determine valid VIN codes. The states also use this to determine what vehicles meet FMVSS. The states do not know what vehicles meet the FMVSS. This is a catch 22 particularly when applied against item number 1 above in which military vehicles are exempt.
4.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in charge of the FMVSS and has ruled that military vehicles are exempt. This is not reflected in many of the state codes.
This is what we are working on changing in the State of Georgia.
1.) The first issue that comes up is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, from which Military Vehicles are exempt. That is clearly stated in the Federal Code of Regulations and supported by numerous rulings and interpretations. In fact any vehicle older than 25 years from today is exempt but many states do not get this ruling right when they write the state laws which should be in line with Federal laws.
2.) GL can only issue an SF97 on those vehicles that are determined to meet Federal regulations. But the SF97 is not recognized in some states as a valid title for certain military vehicles. Georgia is an example
3.) The Federal Government provides to the states the VIN software data which is what many states use to determine valid VIN codes. The states also use this to determine what vehicles meet FMVSS. The states do not know what vehicles meet the FMVSS. This is a catch 22 particularly when applied against item number 1 above in which military vehicles are exempt.
4.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in charge of the FMVSS and has ruled that military vehicles are exempt. This is not reflected in many of the state codes.
This is what we are working on changing in the State of Georgia.
- 9,580
- 218
- 63
- Location
- Dickson,TN
You may be right but I kind of doubt it would hurt much. Most of the "wealthier" folks you see buying Hummers wouldn't be caught dead in a HMMWV. While the H1 and the HMMWV were basically the same body and running gear, the creature comforts are worlds apart. I'd also say most of the folks that would buy a surplus HMMWV don't own Hummers now or could justify the expense of buying one even if they wanted one. The Hummer and the HMMWV just seem like they are in a way different market to me. Also, they aren't making the H1 anymore so the HMMWV wouldn't have any competition anyway in today's time.
I'd be willing to bet that if they were surplusing out HMMWVs whole you could probably pick up a runner from GL for less than $10K (maybe even a lot less going by recent trends of lots of a particular vehicle on the auction block at one time).
I'm not a big fan of the HMMWV anyway but just think it's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars to sell decent vehicles for scrap. I wish we could get it changed but I just don't see it happening.
Triple C
New member
- 546
- 3
- 0
- Location
- NAPOLEON MO
"I'm not a big fan of the HMMWV anyway but just think it's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars to sell decent vehicles for scrap. I wish we could get it changed but I just don't see it happening."
I wasn't a fan either, until I went to Riley to pick up my 925. There I saw several that had a different body configuration than I had previously seen. They were open in back sort of like a pickup. Way cool and useful for me that way. I would love to have one of those but I agree with you m16ty I just don't see it happening either. The fact that we have 12 pages of discussion does indicate something about how we all feel about it though.
I wasn't a fan either, until I went to Riley to pick up my 925. There I saw several that had a different body configuration than I had previously seen. They were open in back sort of like a pickup. Way cool and useful for me that way. I would love to have one of those but I agree with you m16ty I just don't see it happening either. The fact that we have 12 pages of discussion does indicate something about how we all feel about it though.
saddamsnightmare
Well-known member
- 3,618
- 80
- 48
- Location
- Abilene, Texas
March 8th, 2014.
Most surplused rubber tired military vehicles are exempted from the FHAMVSS due to their being built specifically for government contract, and that exemption was passed on to later buyers. However, one needs only remember the M151 Ford FWD of the 1960's to remember they flipped like pancakes.
So when the M151's replacement came on line, in the form of the HMMWV, with the exception of the few the Marines traded to a contractor in swap for rebuilt helos..... There is little to no chance of any more escaping. The case can be made that the military version did not meet FHMVSS in terms of rollover and padding protection, so that pretty much finishes them off for resale. The government will not accept the liability issues on selling them, and it doesn't pay them to upgrade them before sale.
If you want a better truck, buy a Unimog, they eat HMMWV's for lunch in everything but speed, and they generally haul more and go places a HMMWV can only dream about (IMHOP). Have a good day, but the selling of these vehicles to the public is a subject very much like
.
Most surplused rubber tired military vehicles are exempted from the FHAMVSS due to their being built specifically for government contract, and that exemption was passed on to later buyers. However, one needs only remember the M151 Ford FWD of the 1960's to remember they flipped like pancakes.
So when the M151's replacement came on line, in the form of the HMMWV, with the exception of the few the Marines traded to a contractor in swap for rebuilt helos..... There is little to no chance of any more escaping. The case can be made that the military version did not meet FHMVSS in terms of rollover and padding protection, so that pretty much finishes them off for resale. The government will not accept the liability issues on selling them, and it doesn't pay them to upgrade them before sale.
If you want a better truck, buy a Unimog, they eat HMMWV's for lunch in everything but speed, and they generally haul more and go places a HMMWV can only dream about (IMHOP). Have a good day, but the selling of these vehicles to the public is a subject very much like
.