Can these HMMVR frame measurements be correct?

Hello,

someone told me these are pretty much the frame measurements of the basic HMMWV:

8"x2.5"x0.24" in the mid-section, completly boxed frame

This seems quite massive for a boxed design that basically only supports a big car, especially since AM Generals REO got 9x3x0.315 for an open-c channel frame, not much more.

Maybe the 0.24" thickness is only correct for certain areas? Or are those the measurements for an upgraded version with the Oshkosg suspnsion?

Greetings

I can't answer the question directly, but I'm sure it also depends on what year/version of the HMMWV that you are talking about. I think the earlier M998 had a lighter frame, but the newest uparmored ones can weigh in at twice what the early ones did, so those dimensions don't surprise me at all. Box tubing tends to be more rigid than C-channel. Shorter vehicle like the HMMWV where it's all a single unit doesn't need to flex as much as something like a 5 ton does, where the cab is separate from the load area.

It might be viewed as just a big car, but it was designed to travel off road over all types of terrain compared to your average 4wd pickup being designed to spend most of it's life on the road with only occasional off road forays. Your average pickup also isn't designed to be lifted by helicopter while fully loaded from the rear bumper/frame, so I imagine that also has something to do with it.

Lay under yours and measure.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

@Coug

Yeah that's what i'm thinking too, maybe at least for the more common M998 in the base model version someone could check? I heard the expanded capacity versions (GVW around 12.000) just got one extra layer in crucial parts, so i guess those do not vary much from the base model.


@Mario

Wanting one, but not owning right now and too rare to get my hands on one.

Maybe there are documents? Its easy for civilian trucks to get pdf for upfitters, but i guess not with such a special vehicle.