Any info on states issuing titles for hmmwvs?

The current standards for an assembled vehicle are reasonable or there would be none that are road-able, DOT wise. I'd like to get more details.

tobyS said:

The current standards for an assembled vehicle are reasonable or there would be none that are road-able, DOT wise. I'd like to get more details.

Click to expand...

Case in point Air Bags, EPA and emission certification, technically if a vehicle is rebuilt in 2010, it must meet requirements for that year. That is why 5t or M998 that goes throw the reset programs are still listed for year built, not year reset was performed.

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk

tobyS said:

I remember when that was a taboo issue. I advocated for peeps here at SS to take a proactive approach but was informed the owners didn't want to because it brings up the issue, is omission lying? or fraud.

Well maybe there was open discussion in some states faced with legislation they were unprepared for and people had hard feelings and were banned because of that issue titling them.

There may be a place with a more united front on a national scale, but I don't know of one.

The designation of "off road only" is simply untrue. I went through the plant while they were building them and these are every bit a multi purpose vehicle that is expected to do equally well on-road as it does off road. NONE of the military specifications that this vehicle was built to designated it as "Off-Road-Only"....it was and is a "Multi-Purpose Vehicle" that performs on road and off, well.

NOw lets go for the issue that the governments are really only selling PARTS of vehicles. 90% clearly are not safe or road worthy as sold. At a minimum, the owner or a qualified person should certify the vehicle has been made to meet current highway standards as an assembled vehicle and in some states inspected..."CUCV ASSEMBLED" status title of MV. Just sayin...

Click to expand...

You are just sayin how to get around the law. These GP are NOT "assembled" vehicles. Putting a headlight in and doors on it is NOT assemling one...

How many of the CUCV can be considered fully safe and operable condition with a headlight and doors only....very few. Yes...that can be said about all MV, but the rest didn't get off road only on their titles.

This came up for Washington....has a place that says "air bags" as a requirement but also says; "If originally installed in your car, airbags must be included and must be in working order." We're air bags ever in them?


http://smhttp.72879.nexcesscdn.net/...17/11/assembled_vehicle_-inspection_guide.pdf


No, I'm not recommending for anybody "to get around the law"....I simply said I think that some similar requirement should be the law.

2wheels70 said:

It certainly does appear that many states aren't pleased with military vehicles on the highway

Click to expand...

And it certainly does appear that many states became displeased recently, almost simultaneously. There have been a couple of references in SS threads to a national organization giving the state DMVs information adverse to registering MVs. One agency that could plausibly do this is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AAMVA. I looked all through their website and did not find a "position paper" or any "best practice" policy guidance for MVs that looks like it may have been transmitted to state DMVs. But there is a working group that is studying the issue of "Unconventional Vehicles". In the meeting minutes from past conferences there are some presentations on the topic. The tone of the presentations is not so much hostile as it is perplexed and maybe a little exasperated. There are examples of various homebuilt vehicles, obvious rolling wrecks, motorcycles made out of whisky barrels, wiener-mobiles, etc. For whatever reason, MVs are in this "unconventional" category in the mind of at least some Motor Vehicle Administrators.

It may be that the AAMVA already has or may soon issue policy recommendations to the states that are adverse to MV registration. It is notable that at their meeting in Denver in March, there was a "brainstorming session" to "plan next steps" for unconventional vehicles, including former military vehicles. Does anyone have any information about what the AAMVA has already done or is planning? I don't see anything on the website that suggests they are hostile or working from false assumptions, but we certainly do not want a position paper with recommendations coming out to all of the states based on incorrect information...

View attachment 2018 Workshop-at-a-Glance.pdf

KS is a No now I think

11C 31A said:

I couldn't my M998 done in KS.

Click to expand...

I just got rejected here in Shawnee county (Topeka) and I have a on road title coming from New Mexico.

I just got turned away here in Topeka. I have an on road NM title where I lived when I bought my truck. I was told at vin Inspection the vehicle could only get a off road title. I have yet to try another inspection station but would love to know if you can recommend one?