• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

 

Thousands of HMMWV may actually be sold to public; not a rumor

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZiggyO

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
608
428
63
Location
Nebraska
Bear in mind that the civilian H1 trucks (about 1997 and prior-- I cannot definitively say about after 1997) were classified as class III trucks and therefore were able to skirt a lot of the requirements-- Any civi H1 of that period did not have airbags, collapsible column, etc. (I own an H1 since 1998 and have been through that thing with a fine tooth comb over the years--safety features? That's a joke). They do have a padded dash but that really would not offer any protection in an accident. They also have DOT approved seatbelts and a park/brake interlock which to my knowledge the HMMWV does not have and would probably be critical to getting one street legal. It would not be unreasonable for an enterprising group to have some padded dash components modeled after those found in the H1 made as well as retrofit the shifter and seatbelts. I think it could be done in a relatively cost effective manner if talking about large quantity procurement of the parts to do so........

As for what standards to meet, the most effective argument could be made for the standards in place at year of manufacture-- If that were the case, anything manufactured 1997 and older (at least compared to the H1) should not have a problem-- there were no changes in safety features or basic design on the civi H1 through 1997 (once again I cannot say about after 1997 when AMG changed the basic vehicle design)..............

I honestly think that AM General will probably strike a deal in which they take them back, perform the retrofits, and then sell them on the civilian market-- after all if they are reducing production and the reset program, they will want to do something to ensure a foothold on the market............

Z
 

marchplumber

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
3,672
2,499
113
Location
Peoria, Illinois
Thanks for the education swiss! I readily admit, I did not know that. Sounds like you are on the right path for this.

God bless,
Tony
 

swiss

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
2,703
749
113
Location
Oakwood, Ga
Bear in mind that the civilian H1 trucks (about 1997 and prior-- I cannot definitively say about after 1997) were classified as class III trucks and therefore were able to skirt a lot of the requirements-- Any civi H1 of that period did not have airbags, collapsible column, etc. (I own an H1 since 1998 and have been through that thing with a fine tooth comb over the years--safety features? That's a joke). They do have a padded dash but that really would not offer any protection in an accident. They also have DOT approved seatbelts and a park/brake interlock which to my knowledge the HMMWV does not have and would probably be critical to getting one street legal. It would not be unreasonable for an enterprising group to have some padded dash components modeled after those found in the H1 made as well as retrofit the shifter and seatbelts. I think it could be done in a relatively cost effective manner if talking about large quantity procurement of the parts to do so........

As for what standards to meet, the most effective argument could be made for the standards in place at year of manufacture-- If that were the case, anything manufactured 1997 and older (at least compared to the H1) should not have a problem-- there were no changes in safety features or basic design on the civi H1 through 1997 (once again I cannot say about after 1997 when AMG changed the basic vehicle design)..............

I honestly think that AM General will probably strike a deal in which they take them back, perform the retrofits, and then sell them on the civilian market-- after all if they are reducing production and the reset program, they will want to do something to ensure a foothold on the market............

Z

Guys stop on all the safety stuff etc. federal code supports that all vehicles 25 years and older are exempt from fmvss.

You have to change your state law to properly reflect this. There is no reason other than a lot of side bar conversation about am general agreements etc that these could not be sold.

Now here is the gotcha, the DOD asked the NHTSA, for a ruling at one point on the hmmwv. They said they would not recommend the sale via DRMO. Guess who has governance over fmvss?

NHTSA

That is what is stopping the sale. This is not insurmountable
 
Last edited:

zout

Well-known member
7,744
154
63
Location
Columbus Georgia
I as well have followed some ignorant posting of any concept of the Federal Code of Regulations - along with any States Code of Regulations of what would and would not be legal. GO ahead and buy one - it may make a very expensive lawn ornament if you could not afford to have brought it up to standards.

There are also units sold that GL will not issue and SF 97 for which would mean no title at the end of the tunnel.

There just have to be more folks getting educated on statues - regulations - titling - etc.

Take a walk through what Wisc went through first then head onto the Ga issue of titling vehicles - seems more are involved about getting MV units not even up for sale than what is happening in the present day and time.
 

Flyingvan911

Well-known member
4,709
158
63
Location
Kansas City, MO
I am skeptical but stranger things have happened. My biggest reservation would be the government/contractor process. Things are bound to get expensive in there somewhere. I have a Deuce and a soon to be Mutt. I don't need a HMMWV.
 

swiss

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
2,703
749
113
Location
Oakwood, Ga
Can anyone validate the original memo? I am thinking of opening the Rolodex again.
 

m16ty

Moderator
Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
9,576
210
63
Location
Dickson,TN
I just wonder what the "certify DOT specs" means?

Seems like whoever buys these and gets them up to DOT specs (whatever they are) is going to be holding the bag for any liability issues with the modifications. Seeing as how the NHTSA has already deemed these vehicles unsafe, it's not going to help when the lawsuits start rolling in.
 

swiss

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
2,703
749
113
Location
Oakwood, Ga
DOT specs are FMVSS!

Federal law states all vehicles 25 years or older are exempt.

The federal code gives rights to the states to govern title 40 of the federal code.

thus the states have governance over motor vehicle registration etc
 
331
1
18
Location
Claymont, DE
I find this rather interesting, in the fact that im not up to date on all the crap between DOT and saftey i have to ask.

Other than the age, why is it that GL can sell us deuces, but not the HMMWV's? Certainly one of them has to be safer in some or many respects than a deuce?

Just wondering if someone can answer what the government, or saftey czar, or whomevers beef is with the HMMWV?

!!!! Disclaimer: I know nothing of the HMMWV, though I have seen a video of one mounting a 90* wall :D !!!!!!!
 

KsM715

Well-known member
5,149
142
63
Location
St George Ks
Swiss, you don't get it do you? HMMWV's are not vehicles, they are just a piece of military surplus equipment. Doesn't matter if it's a 25 year old HMMWV or a 2.5 year old HMMWV. The memo say that they are looking to see if it's a viable option to surplus these pieces of equipment to some one that is contracted to " turn them in to a vehicle" by bringing them up to safety standards, then offer them for sale to the public.

1st, if this happens, I'm not interested, I want one "as is", the same as it was when I drove them when I was in. Otherwise I might as well buy an H1 and paint it with some 383 and have heat and ac and all that crap.

2nd, I'd be Leary of this happening and what it will mean for the rest of the trucks coming out. If it's successful and someone makes money doing it, then soon there will be others lobbying that all vehicles need to be brought up to safety standards before being allowed on the public roadways.
 

Flyingvan911

Well-known member
4,709
158
63
Location
Kansas City, MO
AM General told the gov not to sell HMMWV's to the public because they didn't want them competing with civi H1 sales and they didn't want any possible liability issues with wrecks, injuries, etc. That said, what about the A2 and A3 deuces made by AM General? Did they not expect such large vehicles to be sold to the public? Who knows.
 

Warthog

Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
13,775
227
63
Location
OKC, OK
Locking this thread until we get conformation that this message from DLA is legit.

B3.3T contact me with the info where you found this info
 

Warthog

Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
13,775
227
63
Location
OKC, OK
After further investigation the original memo/email is legit. However the governments stance is that in order for the HMMWVs to be sold they must be brought to current standards. They do not care about the 25 year old rule.

So unless someone comes up with a viable plan to retrofit the trucks, this subject is still dead in the water.
 
Last edited:

emmado22

Moderator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
7,054
138
63
Location
Mid Hudson Valley NY
Sounds like a "well we tried to turn them into decent cash with our plan, but no one wanted to do it" check the block type of deal....
 
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