GP Hmmwv's sold with On Road Titles.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chief_919

Well-known member
2,081
94
48
Location
Western NC
Look guys, GP sells trucks from the DLA contract and issues off road SF-97's because the CONTRACT requires it.

They are also now selling some from a DIFFERENT contract and this contract does not require the SF-97 be branded for off road use. Different contract, different rules.

This is simply how the contracts are worded and them following the contract.

If you get an on-road title or registration in your state all depends on your state and their rules- some states are giving good titles and registrations with the off-road SF-97's, and some states won't give you a good on road registration for any HMMWV's regardless of what the SF-97 says.

FWIW most all the EPA and DOT regulations and others exempt military vehicles and its been established previously that those exemptions follow the vehicle for life even after its sold by the government, so the real issues are not those but how the sales contracts are worded and how your individual states interpret the law and set their own laws.

If you bought a truck under the DLA contact, you get the SF-97 that contract calls for. If you buy under this USMC contract, you get the paperwork it allows for. Either way, you are getting what you paid for under the terms of the contract you agreed to when you bid- don't go acting like a giant crybaby trying to demad rules be changed for you now. You want a truck with the USMC contract paperwork? Buy it.
 

marchplumber

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
3,140
426
83
Location
Peoria, Illinois
Sometimes its just best not to poke the bear.

Bears have claws and teeth. They will use them without thought or remorse. I have never heard ANYONE profes life and all actions within it is "fair". Profit is what drives business. If a company can find a way to increase profits and keep sales high, it's called a success. There are rules and regulations governing business. Businesses use contracts to stipulate exactly what is or isn't going to happen. I understand the frustration and anger. It won't make things "better" or life fair. I'd love to have a a street titled hummer. Probably won't happen. Ain't got the extra jack for the purchase. Bummer. Life goes on. THINK of the REAL priorities!!!!! people!!!! Are ya breathing? Can you walk and move?? Have all your appendages?? Ya got food to eat?? Have shelter?? Got employment?? Have access to health care?? Is having a "road titled" hummer THAT friggin important?? If so, I'm sorry.

Rant OVER!
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
13,852
1,268
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
Also to add to the EPA mention. You do realize that we squeeked by a few years ago by the skin of our teeth even getting that exeption to be carried on to ALL our stuff right? That little bit could change in a instant with an overzealous politician to "make change".
 

Chief_919

Well-known member
2,081
94
48
Location
Western NC
Also to add to the EPA mention. You do realize that we squeeked by a few years ago by the skin of our teeth even getting that exeption to be carried on to ALL our stuff right? That little bit could change in a instant with an overzealous politician to "make change".
Lately I have been getting more and more worried about how many new people the HMMWV sales are bringing into our hobby that have no clue how things work, and with the entitlement mentality I have seen some displaying it may be a matter of time before they got pushing people at DMV's and elsewhere in government and screw all of us because they cause more problems demanding things they can't get.
 

patracy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
13,852
1,268
113
Location
Buchanan, GA
Lately I have been getting more and more worried about how many new people the HMMWV sales are bringing into our hobby that have no clue how things work, and with the entitlement mentality I have seen some displaying it may be a matter of time before they got pushing people at DMV's and elsewhere in government and screw all of us because they cause more problems demanding things they can't get.
Sadly, I feel it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
 

86m1028

Active member
1,691
10
38
Location
Murphy TEXAS
EVERYTHING should come with a title !!!!

Title = proof of ownership !!!

Registration is a whole other matter !

Go buy a backhoe & whine that you can't get plates for it.

Its buyers responsiblity to know what you can & can not register, PERIOD !!!
 
Last edited:

doghead

4 Star General /Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
26,240
942
113
Location
NY
I have a title for my backhoe and it can be registered!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rhurey

Member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
737
10
18
Location
Bothell, WA
Just look what one clueless wonder did for the hobby in Tampa, and that was only one person.
Got Florida to follow it's laws? Can't have it both ways...

Similar laws in WA are the reason I don't own one. Can't register it for off-road use. Too large according to the current definitions.
 

Bikers33

New member
129
0
0
Location
British Columbia
Bears have claws and teeth. They will use them without thought or remorse. I have never heard ANYONE profes life and all actions within it is "fair". Profit is what drives business. If a company can find a way to increase profits and keep sales high, it's called a success. There are rules and regulations governing business. Businesses use contracts to stipulate exactly what is or isn't going to happen. I understand the frustration and anger. It won't make things "better" or life fair. I'd love to have a a street titled hummer. Probably won't happen. Ain't got the extra jack for the purchase. Bummer. Life goes on. THINK of the REAL priorities!!!!! people!!!! Are ya breathing? Can you walk and move?? Have all your appendages?? Ya got food to eat?? Have shelter?? Got employment?? Have access to health care?? Is having a "road titled" hummer THAT friggin important?? If so, I'm sorry.

Rant OVER!
:ditto:
 

Chief_919

Well-known member
2,081
94
48
Location
Western NC
Yes, you are correct, they are sold outside the DLA process but that does not give the right for only these to be sold with clear street titles and all others having off road use titles.
Yes actually that does give them the right, because the DLA contract stated that the SF-97 be branded Off Road use only, while the USMC contract stated that they would come with a "clear" SF-97, means exactly that is how they can be sold. The contracts with the government are exactly what allow them to sell trucks under each set of circumstances.

But just because they give one set of paperwork vs another doesn't mean that your individual state will give you a license and registration for on-road use. Some states are giving that with the off-road branded SF-97, while other states are not allowing surplus HMMWV's to be used on-road at all no matter what paperwork you have thanks to AM General sending letters to every state around 2000 telling them not to allow surplus HMMWV's on the roads, and some are allowing them if they are upgraded to whatever specs the state says they must meet. Every state is different, and discussion of what each state allows and how to get them legal in each state is beyond what this site allows. Lets just say that the paperwork you get from GP is in no way the final word on if your state will or will not allow use.

Smart people have figured it out for most states. Just don't ask how here.

A clean title doesn't mean your state will allow it on the road- I brought a Jeep in from out of state and NC requires a VIN inspection on every older vehicle from out of state. It was a barn find and the inspector verified the VIN but issued a title that didn't allow on-road use until it was brought up to inspection standards, despite it having a clear VA title for on-road use. The off-road branding of the title is a whole separate issue from if it meets state or federal standards and is only there because DLA required it as part of the auction sale terms.
 

Sandman02ds

New member
19
1
3
Location
St. Augustine, FL
Here are some of facts that everyone should know regarding the M998...especially regarding the questions of how "they" (whomever they may be) can get away with selling/titling/whatever-Federal/local-law-you-might-think-is-being-broken, and a few other important things to remember. Oh, and I apologize ahead of time because this is going to be lengthy...and I apologize to those who think you're going to get help to title your rig...sorry but we can't discuss that here!

To start with, in 1966, the federal government enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and in doing so, added section 49 CFR 571.7(c) to the Act, which states, “vehicles produced to military specifications are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards”. The reasoning, per the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is this:

“Although Congress expressed no intent that military vehicles be excluded from the coverage of the Act, the agency determined for reasons of policy that vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications should be exempted from conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Act. Comments received at the end of 1966 in response to the proposals for the initial standards raised the possibility that compliance in some instances could affect the capability of equipment to fulfill its military mission, and therefore when the standards were adopted, military vehicles were exempted under 49 CFR 571.7(c), but the agency relinquished no other jurisdiction over them.”

So what exactly does this mean?

In simplest terms, it means that Humvees do not have to comply to the federal safety standards, since they were given exclusion from them, and although the Humvee is exempt from the safety standards, the NHTSA makes it clear that Humvees are still governed by all other aspects of the Act, especially the notification and remedy provisions of the Act. For example, under this provision, “...the manufacturer itself [in this case, AM General] has a good faith obligation imposed by the Act to determine the existence of a safety related defect when the facts so indicate, and to effectuate notification and remedy…”

More importantly still, despite the exemption from the FMVSS, and the general misconception, the Humvee does still comply to the federal safety standards, the NHTSA further states:

“…the Department of Defense in apparent recognition that its vehicles are "motor vehicles" has attempted to ensure that they conform with the Federal safety standards to the extent practicable, as evidenced by MIL-STD-1180B…”

To prove as such, the forward to MIL-STD-1180B reads as follows:

"Although vehicles and equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), it is the established policy of the Army to comply with the intent of those standards as long as compliance does not degrade essential military characteristics. With the same limitation, compliance with applicable provisions of (Federal) Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (MCSR) is an Army requirement.

This military standard provides guidance to assure proper safety characteristics associated with FMVSS are designed into military vehicles in a consistent manner."

The NHTSA has also stated the following specifically including the M998: "Because AM General had stated that the vehicles in question are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary roads, our letter concluded that tactical military vehicles such as the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series, and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series trucks are "motor vehicles." This is important because the NHTSA explains elsewhere that, "…If we [The NHTSA] conclude that a vehicle is manufactured 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.”

(Make your own conclusions here.)

Next, "..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 military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS." Essentially this answers the "why" as in "why the DLA sells the as off-road only".

Since the military is not required to bring the vehicles into "conformity", the DLA and/or GovPlanet are not obligated to thoroughly inspect each vehicle and bring them back to par. The "off road only" label applied is merely a 'CYA' for them as some Humvees sold are missing seat belts, brake lights, headlights, turn signals, windshields, have bad tires, etc.

Reasonably speaking, the DLA and/or GovPlanet would need to spend millions of dollars on time, labor, and parts to ensure that each Humvee (or any surplus military vehicle for that matter) was brought back up to par and could safely be driven off the auction lot (although some GovPlamet auction locations do allow this to happen). Even more so, to go through the process of assigning a 17-digit VIN to each vehicle, would be an expensive and time consuming chore. This type of spending though, from a business perspective, would defeat the intent to make money on the sale of surplus military vehicles. In other words, "let the consumer deal with the expense of getting the vehicle back to par”, which would not be any different than that of purchasing a used vehicle (especially from a private sale or auction) in that it is always the buyer’s sole responsibility to ensure that the used vehicle can safely be driven on the road.

The last thing I want to do now is mention AM General's infamous letter (that someone mention) that gets brought up all the d@## time and it annoys me to no end and gven some of the above information from the NHTSA, we have a fact induced rebuttal to AM General's flawed "end-all" letter disproving AM General's specific intention of the letter.

First, AM General contradicts itself in stating that the Humvee was not intended for "use on public roads or highways", as they originally stated otherwise to the NHTSA, the NHTSA reaffirmed AM General's statement, and the NHTSA stated that these were in fact defined as "motor vehicles" based on AM General’s own submitted information. Generally speaking, vehicles spend far less time, off of the public roads either in private parking lots or in driveways. In contrast to the stated use of the Humvee (60% of the time on primary and secondary roads) my Jeep Wrangler, during the course of a normal work week, is actually on a public highway or road at the very most two total hours a day (less than 10% on the road). In order to even be close to spending 60% of the time on public roads or highways, I would need to spend 14.4 hours a day driving on the road. Even considering that AM General meant over the life of the vehicle, the case would not be any different.

Next, the letter states that "AM General further opposes any use of these military vehicles by individuals or entities outside of the military context for which the vehicles were designed."

Since it has been established that the Humvee was designed for on- and off-road use for the military, what exactly do they mean by "outside the context for which it was designed"? As most enthusiasts know, but very few others do, the M998 Humvee was not intended for direct combat use, but rather designed primarily for personnel and light cargo transport. By this intention, I see no major difference between how the the military used the M998, and how I use my mine (or how others will use theirs) - other than I take much better care of mine.

Another important point to make regarding AM General's letter, is that at the time this letter was written, the civilian version of the Humvee, the Hummer (later branded as the "H1") was being produced. The allowance of the Humvee to be titled and registered at that time would have put AM General in competition with themselves and would have taken away sales from the more expensive civilian Hummer by introducing the same, less expensive alternative ($100k+ vs. $40k) into the market. AM General, of course, does not mention this in their letter.

Lastly, AM General states that “This vehicle does not comply with all FMVSS requirements for commercial automobiles...was not intended for commercial use on public roads or highways…” As already found, the Humvee does conform to nearly all FMVSS requirements, and further still, (and I believe I shouldn’t have to state this) but most owners are not attempting to use their Humvee as a commercial vehicle, but rather for private use. Per the definition, a commercial vehicle is any type of motor vehicle used for transporting goods or paid passengers..*sigh. end rant*

Lastly, to give the best reason possible for so much discrepency in titling despite how they are sold by GovPlanet, it is because it is ultimately up to each individual state how and why they will/ will not title these. Plain and simple. No other reason.
 

porkysplace

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
9,191
365
83
Location
mid- michigan
Sandman02ds
The thing you are over looking in your write-up is when buying a HMMWV with a "Hold Harmless Agreement" , you enter into a contract with the government agreeing never to drive it on a public road.
 

doghead

4 Star General /Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
26,240
942
113
Location
NY
Your first sentence says here are some facts, I read a lot of opinion and your interpretations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Recovry4x4

LLM/Member 785
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
33,958
1,138
113
Location
GA Mountains
You have the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness. No where does is say fair business practice or road titled HMMWVs.
 

porkysplace

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
9,191
365
83
Location
mid- michigan
You have the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness. No where does is say fair business practice or road titled HMMWVs.
But your right to free speech can be limited on a privately owned internet site , by the site owner and admin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks