[Milsurplus] OT: "Surplus Stupidity" Is Alive and Well.

[Dennis Kidder]

Gary,

You are absolutely correct on the M-151 -- they had a serious rollover 
problem more than likely caused by their rear suspension. They used 
swing axles with nothing to constrain the axle during a hard turn.  The 
axle would roll under the body and the vehicle would flip.  Sorta 
reminds me of the early years of another American icon ... the 1960 
Chevy Corvair.  Same problem.  Chevy solved that problem by hanging a 
strap under the axle to limit the downward travel of the axle.  Too 
little too late, though.

However, I think you have generalized the term "Hummer" in your 
comment.  The original vehicle that was branded "Hummer" was in fact 
based on the HMMMV, used a majority of chassis, power train and body 
components from the HMMMV and early production was assembled on the same 
AM General line.  I'm not sure where they were assembled after General 
Motors bought the civilian line.

The civilian "Hummer" H1 was given some "creature comforts" like air 
conditioning, audio system, sound proofing, etc.  It had lots of ground 
clearance just as the HMMMV with 4-wheel independent suspension with 
outboard portal gearing along with inboard brakes. They could also be 
optioned with the CTIS tire inflation system.

It was available with at least two factory powerplants ... one being a 
350 CID gasoline engine that got particularly bad gas mileage (and 
little power/torque) and the other being a turbo diesel.  I seem to 
recall when driving the gas version that as soon as you filled up at the 
pump, you'd start looking for the next gas station.  The other thing I 
remember about the H1 was that being a big boy at six foot four,  I was 
very cramped in either of the driver's or passenger's seats.  Ironic for 
such a huge vehicle.

The "Hummer" to which you are referring is the H2 and it did have a 
really oddball frame ... the front half used GM 3/4 T frame components 
while the rear half used the 1/2 T components and was about 8" shorter 
as you indicated.  I never cared for the H2 when they were introduced -- 
the visibility was just as bad as the H1 and for as large a vehicle as 
it was, there was surprisingly little interior space.  I ended up 
purchasing a 3/4 T Yukon XL 4x4 and was very happy (still am as it is 
still my daily driver).  And it has LOTS of room for carrying stuff like 
big radios!  And inspite of its size, a whole heck of a lot easier to 
park than an H1.

Hummer had a third line with the H3.  Don't know too much about that one 
except is was downsized a bit.  All three lines were available with 
several body styles as well (SUV and SUT).

GM pulled the plug on production in 2008 on the entire line.  I suspect 
you might find one NOS at a dealer, but there are plenty of them on the 
used market.  There was some awesome aftermarket gear available for the 
H1 with suspension upgrades and larger powerplants.  I knew one fellow 
that opted for a 540 CID 600 HP gas engine.  That thing was a beast!  
One last thing about the H1 ... back around 2003 (don't recall all the 
details) someone took a stock H1 to the Baja 1000, ran in the stock 
class and won.  Probably one of the few vehicles capable of that feat.

That's things as I recollect them -- there's probably more to the story 
but it's late, I'm tired.  Not all Hummers are created equal ....

73,

-dennis W6DQ
Fullerton CA

On 3/20/2014 9:36 PM, Gary Pewitt wrote:
> It was the M-151 that had the roll over problem not the M38 Jeeps. 
> That damn 151 gearbox made so much noise it would drive you nuts on a 
> long convoy unless you wore ear plugs.  The HMVEE
> has no relation at all to the "Hummers".  The Hummers are built on a 
> shortened Suburban frame and have little ground clearance, a solid 
> rear axle, no run inflatable tires, no 4 wheel independent suspension, 
> and on and on.  HMVEE= great vehicle.  Hummer-=piece of crap.
>
>
> On 3/20/2014 11:16 PM, Glenn Little wrote:
>> You seem to have it backwards.
>> It was the ww2 Willis jeeps and the jeeps that USPS bought that had 
>> the roll over problem due to their narrow wheel base.
>> The narrow wheel base allowed to jeeps to drive off road, between trees.
>> This prompted laws that required DRMO to cut all jeep frames in half 
>> to keep them off of the road.
>> A rewelded frame cannot legally be titled.
>> You can buy a hummer from your local dealer today.
>>
>> 73
>> Glenn
>> WB4UIV
>>
>> The wider wheel base hummer does not roll over as easily as you 
>> family car does.
>>
>>
>> At 10:19 PM 3/20/2014, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>>> Those military hummers have another issue in that they're prone to 
>>> rollovers on the highway.  I heard the high accident rate is what 
>>> prompted them to cease sales of surplus ones in the USA.  Maybe they 
>>> should have just gone back to Jeeps.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/20/2014 4:09 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The other reported issue from those who *did* take one or more of 
>>>> them - pretty much beat to death. They spent a lot of time being 
>>>> driven over very rough terrain by people who were more concerned 
>>>> with staying alive than preserving the shock absorbers.
>>>>
>>>> They are no different than the car in your garage. Buy it as a 
>>>> bundle of parts and they cost a *lot* more than a brand new one 
>>>> right off the lot. Once enough stuff needs replacing, they don't 
>>>> have much value to somebody who indents to use them for their 
>>>> designed purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 9:04 AM, don davis <dxguy at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2 mpg and very expensive to maintain, and different from their 
>>>>> normal equip?
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>>>>> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of
>>>>> mstangelo at comcast.net
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 5:51 AM
>>>>> To: David Stinson
>>>>> Cc: mrca at mailman.qth.net; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] OT: "Surplus Stupidity" Is Alive and Well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US tried to see them to friendly country but there were few 
>>>>> takers. Does
>>>>> anyone know the rationale why the countires didn't want them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike N2MS
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Milsurplus mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Milsurplus mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Milsurplus mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Milsurplus mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>