>Well folks, it's time I got back up on my soapbox again as I see rumors and
>non-truths are circulating again from misinformed people.
And so your uniquely qualified to speak the truth?
> It was the GOVERNMENT who ordered its' destruction.
Yes, and why does the government do things???? Because people lobby them to.
So who would be lobbying to get cheap jeeps (in their eyes) off the road????
> First, what
>did we have? A tactical military vehicle that from the start, was never
>intended to be used as a civvy in the first order.
And the MB for example was?
> It had no DOT lighting
>or seat belts. (seat belts came later from a reengineering standpoint) It
>had no emission controls to fit standards.
What legitimate authority does the DOT have in the first place? Vehicle
safety codes are a state issue. Regardless of your answer, to trash a
vehicle because it does not have bright enough tail lights or seat belts is
silly. These are both items which are easily and cheaply correctable
> All 151 family vehicles had a single acting
>brake system that was obsolete in the mid-sixties and dangerous too if you
>developed a leak in it anywhere.
How many accidents can you site have resulted from single piston master
cylinder brake system failure? And again, this is easily correctable.
> They had no crash protection anywhere.
>You sat ON TOP OF THE FUELTANK!
Again, the MB?? should we retroactively destroy EVERYTHING that does not fit
everyones idea of a "safe vehicle" then?
> Now
>lets talk about the most important thing of a 151-its' ability to rollover
>without any warning of overcoming its' center of gravity.
OK, lets talk about it. What was the official verdict from the accident
investigations that the military did? Driver error as I recall. If they
are so dangerious then why is the actual roll over test data of the MUTT as
well as any number of other popular SUV's secret? I'd like to compare the
MUTT to some of these civy vehicles out there but the DOT refused to give
out any data. What are they hiding? I mean, I'm an engineer and I was
working for a defense contractor at the time, and they talked down to me
like I was a stupid hick servant of thiers. Thier attitude was that they
alone are uniquely qualified to tell me what is safe or not, that is not for
me to analyze. I just wish I had a tape recording of some of those phone calls.
> Why would
>Chrysler/Jeep even care? The answer is, they don't!
Pin head suits do. Every surplussed MV to them is a nice new shiney Jeep
that they COULD have sold.
> If anyone has ever driven a 151, you will know that there is
>difference as night and day between a 151 and a civvy CJ-7.
Agree'd... I prefer the M151.
>Now for AMG's stance on the Humvees getting out: Yes, they have a lot of
>heartburn right now of these going to the public but guess what? There is
>nothing they can do about it! NOTHING!
They can have litigation pending in the courts for years if they choose to.
They may not win but they can mess things up for a long time.
> Seat belts seem to be the biggest concern Just make sure
>they are anchored to a DOT spec.
A rather trivial issue if you ask me. Another of the other "reasons" that
the DOT has cited for recommending that the HMMMV's be destroyed are that
they do not have a place on the rear bumber for the mounting of a license
plate, no come on, lets get real here.
This is all about politics. This situatuation with the Hmmv's has nothing to
do with safety just as with the Mutt's, it's politics. And we're paying for it!
je
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:05 PST