M1152A1 Performance

Just finished up a mission with the National Guard. I had to go 190 miles one way to pick up an M1102 Trailer from Ft. Stewart and got to break in a new HMMWV along the way. The 1152's have an 80 MPH. Speedo in them and they can do every bit of that and more. My truck was a maintenance variant with a mobile toolbox on the back with roll up doors. It is a two door truck with the box in the bed piled with tools. It handled all corners just like the civilian cars on the road and on the straights, it can pass most anything in it's path. At stoplights, it'll pull away from the crowd until it engages 2nd. Then it sorta hangs in place until 3rd when the other cars pull away as the truck whines it's turbo song. It catches back up eventually. The only gripe is that when running a constant 75 MPH, the fan kicks in about every 2 minutes. In 60 degree Fahrenheit weather. Other than that, it's a very nice truck that now has only 1731 miles on it after the 390 I put on it. If the DOT will ever quit getting owned by lobbyists, maybe we can get some of these surplus in 10 years. NOT STREET LEGAL MY TAIL. IF YOU CAN DRIVE THIS MANY MILES AND DO 80 MPH PULLING A TRAILER, THAT'S A PRETTY STABLE TRUCK IN MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 They are not M151 Jeeps!!!!

You just teased alot of guys who would love to own one! Thanks for the update! I love to hear about current equipment.

With regard to your comments on the M151s, the problem with the M151 was not their propensity to roll over on certain turns. The problem was that someone sued the govt. and that ended things. Once the first idiot does something crazy in his deuce and sues the govt., they will stop selling them, too. The govt. is not trying to make a few dollars on each deuce just to be sued for half a mil because some dude drove out of a yard with a truck he barely looked over and killed a family of four driving a minivan. If you think I'm paranoid, just think about it for a bit.

This is a 6.5 turbo with 4L80E transmission and the usual axle ratios, correct? Thanks for posting this info, very informative.

BKubu said:

With regard to your comments on the M151s, the problem with the M151 was not their propensity to roll over on certain turns. The problem was that someone sued the govt. and that ended things. Once the first idiot does something crazy in his deuce and sues the govt., they will stop selling them, too. The govt. is not trying to make a few dollars on each deuce just to be sued for half a mil because some dude drove out of a yard with a truck he barely looked over and killed a family of four driving a minivan. If you think I'm paranoid, just think about it for a bit.

Click to expand...

I have heard this tale repeated so many times that for years, I repeated it almost ver batim to others in the hobby. One of those things where you've heard it sooo many times you just assume it's true.

Well, there was another thread in the last year or so and I was bored and decided to find the actual lawsuit info. I figured such a frivolous lawsuit would be all over tort reform websites.

I haven't been able to find a definitive "smoking gun" that's 100% trustworthy, but I believe the "M151 lawsuit" is an urban legend. I believe it probably started as a result of several Jeep CK lawsuits in the 1970's.

What appears to have actually happened was much more interesting. The Army wanted to surplus several thousand M151's and asked the NHTSA for approval. The NHTSA, looking at the Army's statistics of rollovers and driver deaths and the Army's policy of specialized training for M151 drivers, decided they couldn't sign off on surplussing the 151's.

Now, you gotta' take the following links with a grain of salt, as they come from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. They are a nifty little organization that represents the Insurance Industry. Their primary goal is to reduce their risk (without a corresponding reduction in premiums). If they had their way, we'd all have a 2 mph speed limit.

Let's start with this excerpt from SUV Rollover News -SUV Rollover,Rating,Rates,accident,lawyer,attorney!

"NHTSA, by continuing to issue warnings is pursuing a path that it previously dismissed in the 1970s as ineffective. In 1971 the Department of the Army requested comments and recommendations from the U.S. DOT about its plans to sell Jeep M151's (the precursors to the Jeep CJs) to the public. The Army hoped to dispose of 73,000 vehicles in sales to the public over a six to ten year period which represented approximately $54 million in returns to the Army if the vehicles were sold. The M151 was well known for its high rollover propensity. On average about 30 percent of all accidents involving the M151 were rollovers. The Army proposed selling the vehicles with a warning label that read as follows:


CAUTION
This vehicle is designed primarily for operation over rough terrain. The design features, short wheel base and high center of gravity, establishes limitations in handling characteristics of the vehicles. Drivers are cautioned that there is little warning by body tilt or feel when turning corners too sharp for the speed of the vehicle. This could contribute to vehicle rollover.



NHTSA responded to the Army's request in a September 21, 1971 letter stating:


We do not believe that the handling problem, a propensity to roll over without warning to the user that rollover may be imminent can be adequately guarded against through the use of warnings . . . [a] training program for the public is impracticable. Even if a warning on a decal or in a certificate could suffice, such a decal could be removed or destroyed, and the certificate lost, and the purchaser or subsequent purchasers would not receive notice of the potential hazard."


So I kept looking and finally got to the IIHS reports.


Let's start their stuff here:


[FONT=&quot]http://www.iihs.org/research/paper_pdfs/test_19870306.pdf[/FONT]


"NHTSA has known about this problem since at least 1971 when its administrator refused, because of stability problems, to let the army sell surplus M-151 vehicles to the public. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a very well-known report in 1980 about the stability problems of Jeep CJ-5s. Filmed test results showing the propensity of these vehicles to roll over were publicized throughout the country. More recently, a study by A.B. Kelley and Leon Robertson underscores the need for NHTSA to take action to prevent rollovers. Representative Timothy Wirth has petitioned the agency to "immediately open proceedings to ensure
the safety of the thousands of Americans who own Jeep-type vehicles which are unusually prone to roll over." So the evidence is clear [FONT=&quot]-- [/FONT]the death rate because of rollover is very high in many small utility vehicles and light trucks. Although the Jeep CJ-5 isn't on the market anymore, several vehicles with high centers of gravity and narrow track
widths are still being sold, new models are being introduced, and NHTSA should immediately begin rulemaking in this area."


Now, the paragraph you just read is from the point of view of the IIHS-their position is that the NHTSA should basically outlaw vehicles like this (jeeps of all types-not just CJ's or M151's) because of the risk.
Now, here is the well known 1980 report mentioned in the paragraph above:
[FONT=&quot]http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr1519.pdf[/FONT]


Contained within the 1980 report is the following passage:


[FONT=&quot]1971 - [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Then-NHTSA administrator Douglas Toms notified the Army that the safety agency would not sanction the sale of surplus military jeeps to the public because of the vehicles' handling and stability problems. At that time, M-151 quarter-ton utility vehicles Ueep-type vehicles) were built by Ford under specifications set by the military. Toms noted that Army records indicated that rollover crashes accounted for 30 percent of all the vehicles' crash involvement. (See Status Vol. 7, No. 10, May 1972.) Subsequent studies raised the rollover rate to 66 percent. (See Status Vol. 15, 7, May 1). Some of today's utility vehicles evolved from the World War II jeep.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
And here is a page showing evidence of a rollover test performed in 1973 by Ford.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/research/NCAC Library Literature Listing.pdf[/FONT]






Now, the last time I looked all this up, I found some awesome archival data concerning the Nixon Administration DOT and their involvement with the banning of surplus M151's and I'll be darned if I can find it now. I am going to keep looking tomorrow because it had the most information and was the most detailed.


But from the looks of all this, I think before anyone ever sued the govt., the edict came down about not surplussing 151's. I think the litany of Jeep CJ lawsuits have somehow been confused with the 151. I searched everywhere and can not find anything concrete about an M151 lawsuit.

CLINTO, you could be right. I heard it from multiple people who probably all heard the same tale!

Clinto,
Thanks for the research on this. I would expect that the issue we will face with any of the new vehicles is that they do not meet the Safety standards at the time of manufacture. Since none of them have the airbags and other things that the civilian market must have it is a reason that they can not sell the new equipment. Just my

I would love to see more HMMWVs on the road. An what he said about the IIHS and NHTSA is about right. AEV is importing the mil spec J8 for us market. As statied on web site they are for Off Road use only. They greased someones palms and are able to get kit car titles for them. The reason that was given for them not to come with a clear title in US is, they do not meet USDM safty specs. Every one of them has the wireing for airbags and most have airbags. They are also left hand drive no problem there. There next little Gov spout is the 2.8 l desi engine. It wont meet Fed emissionss. Funny thing is they have 3 opt for motor here in USband 2 are current egines here. Sorry a lil off topic but it might help understand why they dont get out. A few make the laws for the many no matter if you like it or not. I always love my Jeeps, no matter the roll over risk or not. .

NDT,
To answer you're question, it was a stock truck. I don't know all the specs but it was a 2007 model 1152A1 with soft top, doors, up armored skid plates underneath the the mentioned maint. box on the back full of tools. I'm not sure about the weight but you could definitely feel the box on the back the entire trip.

All Others,
It's a real shame on the IIHS, DOT, and NHTSA for depriving our group from these vehicles when they reach the end of their "service life". What I find odd is they are fine with an M35A2, which is 13,000 pounds with 50's era single circuit (on most) brake technology, but they will not allow more modern and more engineered (read safer) vehicles on the street. I have a feeling the HMMWV was killed when the Marine Corps released some during the 90's through DRMO. AM General was selling their CIVY H1 for around 100K and DRMO was selling them for pennies on the dollar at that price. AM General lobbied the politicians and HMMWV's were deemed to be not street legal. At the Marine Base, we just sold alot of good running HMMWV's for pennies on the dollar. And we were at the mercy of the Lebanese government to install new hoses, belts, repaint to a standard, etc. Makes you mad just thinking about it.

Here is some more. This is from a 1972 IIHS Status Report, which appears to be some kind of newsletter which covers industry interests.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr0710.pdf

NHTSA Finds Army Jeep Too Hazardous For Public

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has refused to sanction a Department of the Army plan to sell surplus jeeps to the general public. The jeeps were the subject of considerable controversy in the late 1960's because of problems with handling and stability that make the vehicle susceptible to
rollover.

The Army had planned to sell approximately 17,000 jeeps to the general public as surplus over the next two years. It has a current inventory of about 80,000 of the vehicles. Army officials had suggested that warning decals describIng handling limitations could be placed on each vehicle at the time of sale.

However, the safety administration said that the vehicles should not be sold to the public except in "a manner that prevents subsequent reassembly of the vehicle." In a letter to the Army safety administrator Douglas Toms said, "We do not believe that the handling problem ... can be adequately guarded against through the use of warnings." Earlier, a safety administration lawyer advised that if the agency determined the vehicles would "be at all dangerous in the hands of the general public, we should put whatever pressure available on the Army and possibly Ford (which manufactured many of the vehicles) in order to prevent the sale of the vehicles as surplus."

A safety administration "position paper" noted that "Army records indicate that the M151 (jeep) was involved in 7,460 accidents world-wide in the years FY 1967 through FY 1970, involving 138 fatalities; 2201, or roughly 30 per cent, were rollover accidents."

The paper added, "For these vehicles to be operated safely on the public highway, a public user should have a level of special training equivalent to that given a military driver. Such a course of action would be impractical to achieve and enforce, considering the different licensing and registration practices in
the various states."

One safety administration official said that Army officials handling the matter were "pretty upset" over the recommendation. The agency estimates that sale of the surplus vehicles would bring approximately
$55 million.

Although the Army has not officially responded to NHTSA's recommendation and is not legally bound by it, an official in the Army's Property Disposal Office in Washington told Status Report that the vehicles "will be sold as salvage" after frames and suspensions have been cut-as NHTSA recommended.

The government's justification for banning the Jeep and later the HMMWV for civilian use is supposedly the higher chance of rollover than passenger cars. But, that doesn't make sense and it won't be the first time.

If rollover is the main concern, then how is it that the Hummer H1 is deemed street worthy? What about the Wrangler and other SUVs?

aximony said:

The government's justification for banning the Jeep and later the HMMWV for civilian use is supposedly the higher chance of rollover than passenger cars. But, that doesn't make sense and it won't be the first time.

If rollover is the main concern, then how is it that the Hummer H1 is deemed street worthy? What about the Wrangler and other SUVs?

Click to expand...

The HMMWV is not looked at for roll over. Its looked at because of these things.

Seat Belt dont make the grade. A1s hold you in so after your dead.
Frame is said to be stiffer. An not give in wreck.
Body also Stiffer then H1
The steering wheel does not give way in a wreck. Chest injury, head injury.
Metal Dash, not plastic that will give. Head, arms, hands.
Seats are not how normal seats are, im not sure this one
No HMMWV have beem crash tested
They are missing side impact beams. Wranglers still dont have them.

The list goes on and on. If you can fix it they will say something else is wrong. I dont like it any better then you.

If they ever thought about letting them go on the road . The would want to crash test each variant. From 998 to up armour.

Not to but the gov and am general have the rights too it. If they want they can get it to the civis. But they dont and are not going to fight the IIHS and NHTSA. So Hope one day they will so these heros can have a fitting end in a carring house hold and not in a scrap heap forgot about.

January 28th, 2010.

So what's the problem here, boys? Uncle won't sell you an HMMWV? Given the inefficient design of the machine itself, as it was spec'd to military design standards, most civillians in their right minds would not want one. So Uncle sells them back to whoever owns AM General now so they could rebuild them to civillian specs and make a profit twice (once to Uncle, and once to the rich boys who can afford them), what's not to like? Otherwise, we can send them overseas and let those governments go broke buying parts from us, unless, of course the Chinese come up with something cheaper.
Most civillian H-1's I have seen are awkward in the cab layout, overly large for what they can haul (most here are the four person PU's), and, given the stance, they probably roll over about as often as most SUV's.... If you want one, buy either an ex USMC or a Chinese copy, they're all good (right!). Plus they use fuel at about the same rate as an M35A2.
I would point out just about any Unimog, and particularly the U1300L's will outperform an HMMWV or H-1 in every category except speed. I have seen the Unimog's go where the HMMWV's won't even think about it. And a used U1300L is no more then an equivalent HMMWV in price. Plus the Unimog is a much safer vehicle in terms of frame strength, stance, stability and weight carrying capacity, and sitting up like it does, I doubt if it needs side collision beams as few things can get up that high....

Just my .02 worth, now let the firestorm begin.

Cheers,

Kyle F. McGrogan