Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

airuniversity.af.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#101

Post by ASalazarMX »

bluGill wrote: post #52
avidiax wrote: post #7

While I don't think it would prevent our troops from having foreign-produced trucks in theater, we can't affordably procure such trucks thanks to the Chicken Tax. I would also guess that giving a DoD contract to Toyota for a truck that may not be registrable in the US would also face institutional resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

The military has an incentive to ensure there are plenty of Americans who know how to design and manufacture things. A truck and a tank have a lot in common - if war breaks out we want the ability to take people of of trucks and get them making things the military needs. This is the same reason the Navy has for building ships in the US even though they can be done other places cheaper.

> This is the same reason the Navy has for building ships in the US even though they can be done other places cheaper.

You'd think the biggest war machine on the planet would benefit from economies of scale by now. If they want to stay sharp they could build commercial ships between the ocassional war ship.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#102

Post by Amezarak »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #83
Amezarak wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you probably know this because you used the US name for the car (internationally known as the Jazz), but for those who don’t, Honda discontinued the Fit in the US market due to poor sales. For every internet comment bemoaning the lack of these vehicles there’s the actual fact of revealed consumer preference in the US market.

Much of consumer preference doesn't originate from the consumers' own minds, though. It's shaped largely by marketing, and in the US car companies have been pushing bigger, boxier, more plush, and more expensive with its ad spend and incentives for decades now. It's way easier to find a dealership offering 0%-2% financing on some aircraft carrier of a vehicle than it is on a small car.

This is a roundabout way of saying Americans are willing to spend more money on bigger car because they like them better.

Aside from urban cores with limited parking and lots of narrow streets, it’s obvious that “bigger” means more utility regardless of marketing. You can fit more people and more stuff more comfortably (apparently people really prefer the spacious people room even above room for stuff). People are not being brainwashed by ads.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#103

Post by wedog6 »

bluGill wrote: post #52
avidiax wrote: post #7

While I don't think it would prevent our troops from having foreign-produced trucks in theater, we can't affordably procure such trucks thanks to the Chicken Tax. I would also guess that giving a DoD contract to Toyota for a truck that may not be registrable in the US would also face institutional resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

The military has an incentive to ensure there are plenty of Americans who know how to design and manufacture things. A truck and a tank have a lot in common - if war breaks out we want the ability to take people of of trucks and get them making things the military needs. This is the same reason the Navy has for building ships in the US even though they can be done other places cheaper.

If you don't believe in the power and corruption of the military procurement industry and the military itself, then your comment is so unrealistic as to be deluded.

If you do believe in it, then it's simply irrelevant. Given the other reasons that the US military is spent with profligacy on US manufactured goods, maintaining 'truck know-how' does not register. If the know how consideration did not exist the money would still be spent in exactly the same way.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#104

Post by duxup »

chongli wrote: post #24
netsharc wrote: post #17

Seems like the question is never answered. There's a lot of how the trucks get there, but not why they're better. (I skimmed it, the writing has too much emotional bait of "Look how evil they are! Don't forget, we're the good guys!"). Maybe it's survivor bias, the ones that are crap have been blown up by a Hellfire shot by a drone..

It’s the same story as the Casio F-91W as well as the AK-47. Terrorists (or just any armed paramilitary group) who live in the back country far from common supply lines have a great need for standardized, rugged, reliable, and repairable technology. By living that life, they’re basically forced to think about these issues as a matter of survival.

Well I think the F-91 is durable, it’s probably not repaired as much as discarded as it is cheap. Disposable is likely the advantage there.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#105

Post by kube-system »

testing22321 wrote: post #99
kube-system wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current Hilux really isn't much different than a Tacoma to call it "amazing" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Upacara_... The old Hilux that was on Top Gear hasn't been made for a quarter century.

It is vastly different. Different engine, gearbox, axles, brakes. They share no parts. Its payload is double, its fuel economy is way better. It’s way, way tougher. I’m an Aussie living in Canada, I’ve driven many models of both extensively, family have them all.

They are both offered in a variety of configurations, and some parts are sometimes shared between the two. e.g. the 2TR-FE engine and AC60 transmission. Parts sharing is routine in the industry. The vast majority of parts on most vehicles are shared with other vehicles.

But yes, the Hilux is built to be a work truck, the Tacoma is built as a passenger vehicle that can do truck things.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#106

Post by skipkey »

HNisCIS wrote: post #72
rootusrootus wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota has factories in the US where they produce pickups. They could build the Hilux here if they thought it would do well in the market.

That's the thing though, they can't, at least until the very recent advent of EVs. We used to have similar vehicles (the old 80s/90s ford ranger, tacoma, etc) but they were regulated out of existence by CAFE standards. Even if you repealed CAFE today, the automakers have all built their entire business strategy around selling enormous expensive vehicles and generally despise producing lower cost options. We are start…

In 1993 I paid a shade under $10k for a new Chevy S10 where the only options were AC (not actually optional in Texas) and CD player in the radio. It was manual transmission, V6. Indexed to inflation that would be, what, about $24k today if regs allowed them to be built?

If it existed they would fill every rural high school parking lot in the south. Allow them to exist and someone will build them.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#107

Post by testing22321 »

kube-system wrote: post #105
testing22321 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is vastly different. Different engine, gearbox, axles, brakes. They share no parts. Its payload is double, its fuel economy is way better. It’s way, way tougher. I’m an Aussie living in Canada, I’ve driven many models of both extensively, family have them all.

They are both offered in a variety of configurations, and some parts are sometimes shared between the two. e.g. the 2TR-FE engine and AC60 transmission. Parts sharing is routine in the industry. The vast majority of parts on most vehicles are shared with other vehicles. But yes, the Hilux is built to be a work truck, the Tacoma is built as a passenger vehicle that can do truck things.

Nobody in the history of ever bought a Hilux with a gas engine.

I’ve driven through 70 countries on five continents, I’ve never seen a non-diesel Hilux.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#108

Post by bsder »

HNisCIS wrote: post #68
avidiax wrote: post #7

While I don't think it would prevent our troops from having foreign-produced trucks in theater, we can't affordably procure such trucks thanks to the Chicken Tax. I would also guess that giving a DoD contract to Toyota for a truck that may not be registrable in the US would also face institutional resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

Also, because of CAFE standards, the US can't even attempt to create its own competing light trucks as everything needs to be fucking massive to maintain the emission exemptions. The thinking was it would make cars more efficient but instead everyone just built obscenely large vehicles that were classified as trucks instead of passenger vehicles.

As much as I like to slag on CAFE, we have been here before.

Automakers simply hate making affordable cars. MBAs extol "Number must go up! BRRRRRRR!" and you cannot do that with cheap cars.

Remember the 70s? What did the big automakers do? They made bigger and bigger cars ever shittier and jacked up the prices. Sound familiar?

And then what happened? Japan showed up and cleaned their clock. And then the protectionist laws got passed, but it didn't matter because the Japanese cars were smaller and better and used less gas. Sound familiar?

History may not repeat itself, but it sure likes to rhyme.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#109

Post by testing22321 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #61
testing22321 wrote: post #5

Because the chicken tax keeps out great vehicles so the US automakers don’t have to compete. The hilux and 79 landcruiser are run of the mill workhorses in virtually every country in the world except the US and Canada. They run rings around the Tacoma and tundra. Tariffs and old world protectionism like the chicken tax are keeping the US automakers on life support, but they’re all doomed - they’re not even trying to…

Explain why, if they are so much better than the Taco and Tundra, we can get the latter here in the US without paying the Chicken Tax? Toyota manufacturers those trucks in the US. They could manufacture the Hilux here too, but they choose not to. So it seems like the Chicken Tax isn't the actual problem. Toyota seems to think Americans do not want the Hilux, at least not in sufficient quantities to justify bringing i…

> Toyota seems to think Americans do not want the Hilux, at least not in sufficient quantities to justify bringing it to market.

Correction: they think they can make more money selling the Tacoma and not the Hilux.

That’s not the same thing at all.

Re: Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?" (2023)

#110

Post by bluGill »

theluketaylor wrote: post #97
bluGill wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military has an incentive to ensure there are plenty of Americans who know how to design and manufacture things. A truck and a tank have a lot in common - if war breaks out we want the ability to take people of of trucks and get them making things the military needs. This is the same reason the Navy has for building ships in the US even though they can be done other places cheaper.

> A truck and a tank have a lot in common Maybe in 1942. Modern tanks cannot be built on highly specialized production lines that build road vehicles without years-long re-tooling. M1 Abrams tanks don't even use piston engines, they have turbines. A older, but well documented example how specialized modern automotive production has become is the Mercedes Benz 500e. In the 90s Mercedes wanted to build a more powerful,…

if we need tanks we need people who can build assembly lines. Retooling existing lines isn't the only option.
Post reply on HN