From: Horrocks, Aaron (ACHb@pge.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 10:40:51 PDT
What if civilian car makers made the same contracts with consumers?
"You can only buy this car if you agree to have it destroyed after you're done with it, after all, we don't want all those used cars out their hurting our profits on sales"
Think of all the muscle cars - The few that didn't crash, would have all been crushed!
When HMMWVs are phased out by a newer product, there won't be many around and will unfortunately fade from existence, perhaps faster than many WWII vehicles.
Mandatory MV Content:
I want to get my springs re-arched so that my jeep sits right. (M38A1) What measurements do I need to know, or to tell the spring shop? Like original eye-to-eye length? What's it supposed to be anyhow? I guess the springs' eye to eye should be slightly less than the frames, right? Currently the driver's side sags down too far, and I think the jeep sits to low overall.
Aaron Horrocks
1952 M38A1
On a positive note, I found a used engine in great condition out of a '53! That's one more giant step to getting this bucket of bolts road trip worthy!
-----Original Message-----
From: Employee@MilVeh.com [mailto:milveh@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 10:21 AM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] HMMWV v. idiots in government
--- Steve Grammont <islander@midmaine.com> wrote:
> You are missing the point of the deal made between
> AM General and the US Gov't. It isn't about public
safety, but rather a means of protecting the economic
viability of the contractor (AM General) by ensuring
that...
Then I think the point is wrong!
The right point is, if a civilian contractor wants to
do business with the government, then they don't
engage in "protectionist practices" at the cost of
squandering taxpayer money. They play it straight or
take a hike.
Where would AM general be without the military?
You want to talk economic viability, they would be
broke without government contracts. Better to settle
for a fair share of profit than rape the taxpayers by
forcing gov. to crush such surplus, like HMMWVs.
I believe the gov. totally holds the cards on this
one. They didn't have to agree to that stupid
stipulation, but because its our money and not theirs,
they had not problem playing ball with the corporation
and letting us get screwed once again.
Bottom line: If the military wants to sell whatever
surplus vehicles they have, it's not the g-damn
business of the manufacturer to dictate government
pollcy.... this ought to be up to the people who pay
for it.
Corp. greed is no substitution for what is best for
the country. Selling surplus makes sense. Besides, I
seriously doubt the corp. concerns were realistic. I
don't believe a surplused HMMWV would affect the sales
of the DUMMER, this is like mixing apples with
oranges, two different markets entirely!
But then this is all just my opinion, what do I know?
Jack
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:37 PDT