AZ will not title HMMWVs as of today

[73m819]

Do not know about the 1980 151 stuff, but we had them in 1966 and not to many problems, if you try hard enough or be stupid you can turn anything over, even a dozer on flat ground if you work at it. as far as shock and vibration issues with the kidneys and back, take a ten hour drive in a deuce. Ralph nader killed the corvair because of a few stupid people just like thay did with the 151

with the above said, thought this thread was about AZ will not title HMMWVs as of today, nothing to do with 151s,(does not seem to be a title problem here) or anything else

 

[Tanner]

Ralph nader killed the corvair because of a few stupid people just like thay did in the 151

And... misinformation continues being spread.

Nader DIDN'T get the Corvair killed; never did, never could. GM had already decided in 1966 to start winding down the Corvair, due to the rise in popularity of the Ford Mustang & the impending arrival in 1967 of Chevrolet's own Camaro.

Nader did raise the issue of the Corvair's handling in abrupt lane-change or turning maneuvers, but Chevrolet & the Corvair were later vindicated when NHTSA testing proved that the Corvair's handling was no worse than that of other cars of the same period.

Later insurance studies showed that few Corvairs ever rolled over in crashes...

In regards to the M151, they did have a higher incidence of turning over in the field - and I know that most any vehicle can overturn - given the right circumstances. But the 151 suffered from a short wheelbase, having a narrow track, and having a higher CG point; all of which contributed to it being easier in some respects to turning over.

And you are correct: this thread is about issues in titling a HMMWV - I didn't take this down the path of M151 MUTT's/ F-150's/Broncos/etc...

'Tanner'

 

[Heath_h49008]

Tanner, do you remember why convertibles were all but gone for a decade? Nader and the moronic goon squad instilled the fear of god into Detroit that they didn't offer protection in roll-overs. Wow... a car with no roof isn't great in a rollover. There wasn't a **** thing wrong with the Corvair that wasn't wrong with the VW or the Porche... but GM was a better target for publicity. They ended the "corvair" as a concept with threats of liability and bad press. Despite it's success, the overall pattern was never tried again in the US. (until the Delorian and the Fiero anyway)

Was that a valid concern for the AM General Corp in the 1970's? Perhaps... but it was also very good for the other manufacturers. Given the opportunity, automakers would demand every car and truck be destroyed as soon as it was out of warranty.

The M998 is no different. They want them gone for the reasons of liability and competition. The liability is the lesser risk as the .gov middle man insulates them.

The TPS sensors and active suspensions are another moronic naked emperor born from the Explorer rollovers. The tires weren't defective, the drivers were. When you run a truck at 10psi because you don't check the pressure, the cap comes off the tire... they weren't blowing out... the stupid soccer-mom behind the wheel decides to turn sharp and slam on the brakes at 70mph, the truck is going over. Firestone fell on their sword to make it go away.

How does this relate to M998 registrations? Simple. Don't let a moron tell you what you can and cannot own. There are ways around it, and if you look, you'll probably find the restrictions that are for "your own good" only do "good" for someone else's agenda. Fight the bastards.

 

[porkysplace]

Can we get this thread back to titling problems in arizona ? If you want to talk about ralph nader and corvairs start your own thread instead of hi-jaking this one.

 

[SETOYOTA]

that is true as long as it's a military vehicle. once it becomes a POV it's a whole new ball game.

There is also currently no law revoking the exemption of US military vehicles from NHSTA rules on the books when sold to civilian operators.

 

[jwaller]

There is also currently no law revoking the exemption of US military vehicles from NHSTA rules on the books when sold to civilian operators.

this is true but there are some legit reasons why a hmmwv shouldn't be legal for road use. The military gets away with it but we as civilians can't. Thats what I was trying to point out.

 

[SETOYOTA]

The point is when the DMV is questioned they have no legal bases to not title a hmmwv. There is no statute on any books anywhere to prevent it. People have had the same arguments with the M35a3s recently. These too were registered after pointing out there is no reason to not register them.

 

[islandguydon]

Funny, isn't it? If the law/rule/regulation/etc., states 'don't register an HMMWV', then what is so hard to understand?

'Tanner'

That letter is only a letter of recommendation, There is no law. The DMV has legal rules and guidelines. Just because a letter of recommendation is sent in does not necessarily change any rules or laws. There is a process to go through first to get it written in, the people have to vote and the Governor has to sign/endorse in writing the new change/rule/law.

 

[hummer4x4guy]

What about the H1? Why is that safe for on road use?

Padded dash, 3 point belts, steel reinforced doors for side impacts, plus more easily spotted in bright yellow vs camo.

 

[EODTECH90]

I don't give a rats... About what a engineer says is safe it's my vehicle my life and my right to use it lol

 

[Tanner]

That letter is only a letter of recommendation, There is no law. The DMV has legal rules and guidelines. Just because a letter of recommendation is sent in does not necessarily change any rules or laws. There is a process to go through first to get it written in, the people have to vote and the Governor has to sign/endorse in writing the new change/rule/law.

I raised a rhetorical question - never said that this was a law.

'T'

 

[Tanner]

Tanner, do you remember why convertibles were all but gone for a decade? Nader and the moronic goon squad instilled the fear of god into Detroit that they didn't offer protection in roll-overs. Wow... a car with no roof isn't great in a rollover. There wasn't a **** thing wrong with the Corvair that wasn't wrong with the VW or the Porche... but GM was a better target for publicity. They ended the "corvair" as a concept with threats of liability and bad press. Despite it's success, the overall pattern was never tried again in the US. (until the Delorian and the Fiero anyway)

Was that a valid concern for the AM General Corp in the 1970's? Perhaps... but it was also very good for the other manufacturers. Given the opportunity, automakers would demand every car and truck be destroyed as soon as it was out of warranty.

The M998 is no different. They want them gone for the reasons of liability and competition. The liability is the lesser risk as the .gov middle man insulates them.

The TPS sensors and active suspensions are another moronic naked emperor born from the Explorer rollovers. The tires weren't defective, the drivers were. When you run a truck at 10psi because you don't check the pressure, the cap comes off the tire... they weren't blowing out... the stupid soccer-mom behind the wheel decides to turn sharp and slam on the brakes at 70mph, the truck is going over. Firestone fell on their sword to make it go away.

How does this relate to M998 registrations? Simple. Don't let a moron tell you what you can and cannot own. There are ways around it, and if you look, you'll probably find the restrictions that are for "your own good" only do "good" for someone else's agenda. Fight the bastards.

Firstly, I don't call anyone a moron - these people do as they are instructed. And many rules/laws are written because - well, facve it - people are pretty effin' stupid animals.... witness the reason that Preparation H has a note on back stating: 'This product is not to be taken orally'. Simple. Some human used the product by mouth and found no relief. This is - unfortunately - why rules are made to prevent the stupid from injuring/maiming/killing themselves in some assinine way. I'd like to see all safety featues removed from all vehicles, along with all rights to sue.

Yes - I do recall the convertible issue of the mid-late Seventies , and the lack of US-made convertibles. Interesting that VW convertibles were available up to '79, Porsche had the Targa 911's, Fiat/Alfa had convertibles available, Mercedes had the SL's - but no domestics.

Not feelin' the discussion here, gents. Using the argument that 'the military uses them on the road' won't cut it. This discussion isn't about me - I don't want or need a HMMWV. Good luck to the OP on his quest.

But register it in a legal fashion of some sort, instead of sneaking it through some questionable title service or other sly method, so that future MV owners don't get screwed trying to register legit MV's down the road. You've possibly already read about how the Wisconsin folks got d*cked on daily-use MV's by the cave-in 'parade crowd'?

Later dudes... more important issues in life than select MV ownership.

'Tanner'

 

[booger]

" Firstly, I don't call anyone a moron"
Secondly " people are pretty effin' stupid animals"

that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification

 

[Tanner]

" Firstly, I don't call anyone a moron"
Secondly " people are pretty effin' stupid animals"

that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification

You're more than welcome, Booger.

'Tanner'

 

[saddamsnightmare]

December 7th, 2011.

I may be too late and with too little, but David Doyle a while back had a letter on here which stated from the Attorney General (US) to a company in Virginia that the only regulations any military vehicle had to meet was the original U.S. Government contract purchase specifications, and no other safety, emissions or other regulations not stated in the oirginal contract would apply to those vehicles. Further, the letter stated that the U.S.Government's exemptions would apply to any purchaser who bought the vehicle later, either from the government or subsequent owners. This should apply to any military vehicle legitimately sold out of U.S.Government service.
So what if the vehicle doesn't have an NHTSA sticker, my Unimog was built in Europe in 1963, and beyond headlights, taillights and safety glass windshields, nothing on the truck meets NHTSA guidesliines, nor should it, as any vehicle extent before those guidelines were created would be so exempt, andd any built to government contracts would also be exempt. The M35A2 until 1985 was merely an extension of the original 1948 contract specifications.... Just my worth, but any good lawyer should be able to make them back down... The MVPA, all they preserve is WWII and Korean Vehicles, they don't care much for modern or larger MV's.... Witness their roll over and lay down act in Wisconsin....

 

[Haasino]

Anyone still have a copy of that letter they could scan and upload? Would be nice to have that floating around here instead of that useless AM General letter.

 

[SETOYOTA]

Here you go

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA) , FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

 

[SETOYOTA]

The real important part:


By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

 

[jpinst]

I'm sure they would tiled a home built dune buggy though......go figure

 

[Tanner]

The real important part:
Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

...but nothing here states that any state's DMV/BMV is REQUIRED to allow you to license/register said ex-MV. The common perception that I interpret from all this is a belief that just because the Government or some entity can SELL you an ex-MV, that the government - whether local or Federal - must allow you to register it as well. Golden Rule applies: he who has the gold makes the rule.

THIS is why the government types - i.e., Lawyers - write these rules/regulations/interpretations as they do. They leave it wide-open to interpretation, often using it against you... Now, I'm not saying that this is right, but the states obviously have the right to rule on their interpretation as they see fit, leaving the new -ex-MV owner to fight the redtape.

'T'