- 6,066
- 4,417
- 113
The M998s, yes. How about M1123 and other heavier rated ones?
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
On road Hmmwv regulation
- Thread starter Army doc
- Start date
- 756
- 4
- 18
- Location
- C.G. JMTC MICHIGAN
Have any more info on this topic
aleigh
Well-known member
- 1,040
- 52
- 48
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ & Seattle, WA
If you are non commercial, your vehicle has a valid on-road registration in its home state, and your carry insurance that meets the minimums of the state you are IN at the time, you are legal in all 50 states. Likewise, your drivers license confers you whatever privileges from your home state in all 50 states. So if you live in a state without air-brake endorsements but drive into a state that has them, you are still legal.
The insurance thing trips people up sometimes - for example, in WA you don't have to have insurance at all on a motorcycle, but the moment you ride into Oregon you're cooked. For most vehicle policies if you read the binder of fine print it says that if you have the minimum coverage and that coverage is legal in your state, and you travel out of state, they will "raise" your coverage to meet the out of state minimums. In other words, your policy adjusts itself so you are at least minimum-bar legal in all 50 states.
kcpstudio
Member
- 43
- 5
- 8
- Location
- Fleetwood, PA
Don’t worry. I already ran this by numerous SOS and law enforcement. If the truck has a valid plate/registration, insurance, and valid inspection, Michigan will not pull you over. We visit my fiancée parents every year and we drive the HMMWV up there. Never have a problem. That should give you peace of mind.
The HMMWV was originally tested to all applicable MIL-STD-1180/FMVSS (for the weight of thevehicle) requirements per the government specifications. All testing passed and had Goverment TACOM Quality Representatives present during testing. The statement that was made about the steering column not being colapsable are in error as there is a nylon sleeve connecting the lower steering shaft from the upper shaft that allows it to collapse. The original HMMWV does meet EPA requirements. There is a catalytic converter, engine was tested and passed many times. Only later in production of the HMMWV (I believe it was either during the A2 or ECV models) when EPA standards were made stricter was an exemption given. The only hardware that I know of that needs to be added are backup lights and a light over the license plate. ATPD 2099 is the Goverment specification for the HMMWV which mandated meeting the MIL-STD-1180/FMVSS requirements. Unfortunately this specification has been classified secret and is no longer available.
tage
Active member
- 679
- 68
- 28
- Location
- LOS ANGELES / CALIFORNIA
Uh originally installed with 2 point. 3 point was a mwo
Action
Well-known member
- 3,576
- 1,557
- 113
- Location
- East Tennessee
Originals had a catalytic converter? Where is that located?
donkren
Member
- 45
- 4
- 8
- Location
- Springfield, IL
Just for the record, my HMMWV, a 1999 M1097A2 has a catalytic converter and a manufacturer applied sticker on the valve cover certifying EPA compliance.
gem1410
Active member
- 525
- 44
- 28
- Location
- TOMS RIVER NJ 08527
would like to see a picture of that cat--never seen one on a humvee--------
donkren
Member
- 45
- 4
- 8
- Location
- Springfield, IL
Here's a pic from under the truck looking forward. Muffler is upper left, cat is upstream..
gem1410
Active member
- 525
- 44
- 28
- Location
- TOMS RIVER NJ 08527
That is something--wonder if it does anything---thanks for the pic--George
The catylitic converter made the HMMWV meet the EPA requirements before the requirements were made stricter and could not be met. That is when the HMMWV got a waiver (as the military can do). The catylitic converter was still installed after the waiver was given because it did improve the emissions (although not meeting the stricter requirements). I believe the latest HMMWVs do not have a catylitic converter installed as they became unavailable and the Government chose to not have one designed for competitive procurement since the vehicle had already been given a waiver anyway. I have not seen or know of any design changes in the last few years so I do not know if anything has changed about a catylitic converter being added back in or not.
RyanW
New member
- 3
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Baton Rouge, LA
AM General was complicit is trying to defraud the government, as well as try to reclassify their HMMWV to no longer be considered a "motor vehicle" due to them starting to prep to build civilian versions around 1987. They knew that nobody really cared about the froo froo features and just wanted what, at the time, was the baddest truck on the road. They knew surplus sales would destroy their investment, so they started sending out letters. If they could've gotten the "motor vehicle" classification dropped, it also would have prevented them from having to fulfill the support side of their government contract, such as updating new production as standards changed.
The HMMWV should be governed similar to the H1, which is considered a Class 3 truck. Due to this rating, the civilian version was never required to have all of the safety features, such as airbags up through 2007. They also fell under different emissions regulations due to be classed so high, so many components were never upgraded or regulated.
Beyond all of that, AMG has directly contradicted their "attempts" to say that the vehicle is NOT safe. If you look up some court cases involving wrongful death that were blamed on the the inadequate safety characteristics, they have, every single time, testified that their trucks are safe and built to the correct standards. They trucks are only good enough in their mind when they are being sued, and they blame the gov employees for not properly installing windshields, b and c-pillars. They've won every time. When it came time for their bottom line on the retail side to be affected by surplus, they suddenly changed their tune.
http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/96/96SD035P.PDF
Here's your collusion between AMG and the DLA
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914662cadd7b0493429a53e
The HMMWV should be governed similar to the H1, which is considered a Class 3 truck. Due to this rating, the civilian version was never required to have all of the safety features, such as airbags up through 2007. They also fell under different emissions regulations due to be classed so high, so many components were never upgraded or regulated.
Beyond all of that, AMG has directly contradicted their "attempts" to say that the vehicle is NOT safe. If you look up some court cases involving wrongful death that were blamed on the the inadequate safety characteristics, they have, every single time, testified that their trucks are safe and built to the correct standards. They trucks are only good enough in their mind when they are being sued, and they blame the gov employees for not properly installing windshields, b and c-pillars. They've won every time. When it came time for their bottom line on the retail side to be affected by surplus, they suddenly changed their tune.
http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/96/96SD035P.PDF
Here's your collusion between AMG and the DLA
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914662cadd7b0493429a53e
Action
Well-known member
- 3,576
- 1,557
- 113
- Location
- East Tennessee
The original Humvees (1980's) did not have a cat, AFAIK. They came into use later, and are still on the newest Humvees. Here is a pic of an early setup....
I just checked the parts books. The long muffler came on the basic and a1 Humvee. The cat w/ muffler came on the a2 and later variants.
I just checked the parts books. The long muffler came on the basic and a1 Humvee. The cat w/ muffler came on the a2 and later variants.
Last edited:
Correction to spelling error
Your right it has been a long time. The first catalytic converters were added to the design in 1995 and were not on the original HMMWVs as the EPA regulations did not require them until then. I guess I’m getting old. But the latest HMMWVs do not meet EPA standards even with them. But that still supports the fact that the early HMMWVs should be approved for road titles in Michigan. I personally own a 1993 that Michigan is saying I can not get a road title even though they gave me a temporary title with a plate. Now they say it was an error I and I have to go back and apply for an ORV title. I bought this vehicle from North Carolina from a volunteer fire department with an on road title. They told me they got it from the local national guard and was using it for a rescue vehicle.
Your right it has been a long time. The first catalytic converters were added to the design in 1995 and were not on the original HMMWVs as the EPA regulations did not require them until then. I guess I’m getting old. But the latest HMMWVs do not meet EPA standards even with them. But that still supports the fact that the early HMMWVs should be approved for road titles in Michigan. I personally own a 1993 that Michigan is saying I can not get a road title even though they gave me a temporary title with a plate. Now they say it was an error I and I have to go back and apply for an ORV title. I bought this vehicle from North Carolina from a volunteer fire department with an on road title. They told me they got it from the local national guard and was using it for a rescue vehicle.
Last edited:
- 9,604
- 1,491
- 113
- Location
- mid- michigan
Well you should have researched it before spending your money , they changed policy here in michigan 2 years ago . Just because another state will title register them doesn't mean it is good in all other states. The list of states recalling or refusing to title register for the road is growing.
Michigan Title Issue
Last edited:
- 317
- 140
- 43
- Location
- Rutherfordton, NC
Hmmwv's are as safe as many vehicles produced during most of the production run. Mine is an 87. I would put it up against any 87 wrangler, or my 94 wrangler for that matter. How about a Sunbeam or a Yugo. The big deal is AMG not wanting to worry about someone filing suit on them for structural issues. Much like Ford, Chevy, Honda etc, are liable for defects in vehicles(recalls), AMG does not want that liability, so the states would have to cover it. They actually met all fvmss except for the seat belts initially, which were updated later. The states, not knowing how to properly write laws to push the liability to the purchaser, instead just cut out registering them. That then leaves the insurance companies liable to cover your driving of a vehicle that AMG says is not safe. We know how that will go. With so many of these trucks to be sold, I see the push being put back on AMG. If people stop buying them, the auction companies will get fed up with it and start pushing back.
- 9,604
- 1,491
- 113
- Location
- mid- michigan
Or they could just start chopping them up again and go back to selling them for scrap. The government pretty much does what it wants , which is usually want ever is easiest for them.
tage
Active member
- 679
- 68
- 28
- Location
- LOS ANGELES / CALIFORNIA
Thanks for your opinion
