Short answer. Yes, that is what replevin is for. Under Rule 60, Section 1, a party suing to recover possession of personal property may apply for an order for its delivery to him at the commencement of the action or at any time before the defendant answers — you do not wait for judgment.
What the law says
A party praying for the recovery of possession of personal property may, at the commencement of the action or at any time before answer, apply for an order for the delivery of such property to him, in the manner hereinafter provided.
Rule 60, Section 1 — Application. Read the full provision →
A provisional remedy, not a separate case
Rule 60, Section 1 reads: A party praying for the recovery of possession of personal property may, at the commencement of the action or at any time before answer, apply for an order for the delivery of such property to him, in the manner hereinafter provided. Notice the structure. Replevin rides on a main action — a suit praying for recovery of possession of the personal property — and the delivery order is provisional relief inside that suit. You are not asking the court to decide ownership early; you are asking it to place the thing in your hands while the case over it proceeds.
The window is early and it closes
The timing words carry real weight: the application may be made at the commencement of the action or at any time before answer. In practice this means the delivery order is sought together with the complaint or very shortly after, because once the adverse party answers, this particular remedy is no longer available and the property stays where it is until the case is decided. If your vehicle is with someone who refuses to release it, delay narrows your options — the decision to sue and the decision to seek delivery are effectively made together.
Personal property only
The remedy is confined to personal property — vehicles, equipment, appliances, animals, documents, goods. Land and buildings are outside it entirely; possession of real property is fought through different actions with their own rules. It also matters that the rule speaks of recovering possession: the applicant's claim is that he is entitled to hold the thing now, whether as owner or otherwise. If your real complaint is about money owed rather than a specific identifiable thing being withheld, replevin is the wrong instrument, and a lawyer will steer you to the collection remedies instead.
What follows the application
Section 1 is deliberately a gateway — delivery happens in the manner hereinafter provided, meaning the rest of Rule 60. The sections that follow require, among other things, an affidavit showing the applicant's entitlement and the property's value, and a bond, before the court orders the sheriff to take the property; the adverse party has his own mechanisms in response. So come prepared to prove, in concrete documentary terms, that you are entitled to possession of that specific thing and what it is worth. Those two facts drive everything in a replevin application.