[HN Gopher] Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks bette...
___________________________________________________________________
Toyotas and Terrorists: "Why are ISIS's trucks better than ours?"
(2023)
Author : marysminefnuf
Score : 83 points
Date : 2026-02-10 19:49 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.airuniversity.af.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.airuniversity.af.edu)
| taniks1618 wrote:
| I wish it was easy and simple to buy the Hilux in America. Many
| amazing foreign vehicles have been banned or heavily taxed by the
| Federal Government to prevent competition.
| hnav wrote:
| Even vehicles that are largely the same as those we get here
| are banned from being brought in. All because Mercedes didn't
| like being undercut by gray market imports and lobbied the
| government.
| Tade0 wrote:
| There's a similar thing currently going on in some parts of
| Europe, but the imported cars are for the Chinese market.
|
| In one high-profile case a Berlin-based VW dealership was
| importing the VW ID.6, which is a model exclusive to China:
|
| https://www.shop4ev.com/en/blogs/news/verkaufsverbot-
| id-6-bl...
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Imagine how much nicer driving around in the suburbs would be
| if the majority of vehicles were town cars like Honda Fits,
| mini-mini-vans like Honda Freed, pre-2003 Tacomas, and kei
| trucks/vans instead of the usual mix of unreasonably tall and
| boxy crossovers/SUVs and brodozer trucks.
| ericmay wrote:
| Well I don't think it would be that much different,
| truthfully. The problem of the suburbs is a matter of layout
| and zoning, not so much the vehicles used. If you fix the
| layout and zoning it'll naturally reduce vehicle size.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Would better zoning have a bigger impact? Of course.
|
| But it would definitely make an impact. If you are driving
| a Honda fit, there is no distance at which you can't see my
| kids.
|
| In a ford f-150, the driver probably needs to be at least a
| dozen feet away to see my kids
| Amezarak wrote:
| 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.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| Americans' appetite for small cars seems to be linked
| pretty closely to the inflation-adjusted price of
| gasoline. Automakers always want to push more premium
| vehicles, because they make their margins selling to
| people with more money to buy more features, more space,
| more performance. The low end of the market is lower
| margin and you have to make up for it with volume.
|
| When we hit another recession, we'll see smaller cars
| appear again.
| Amezarak wrote:
| 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.
| TitaRusell wrote:
| America will become like East Germany and the Trabant.
|
| And thanks to Trump's antics Detroit is losing the Mexican and
| Canadian markets...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Toyota must not think it is that amazing, else they would use
| their pickup factory in Texas to make Hilux's to sell here.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The Hilux isn't "banned" from the USA. Toyota can federalize it
| and sell it here at any time. Toyota doesn't bring it here
| because _we have the Tacoma_ - a truck designed to be more
| inline with American consumer tastes.
|
| If Toyota wanted to, they could readily start manufacturing
| Hiluxes in Mexico and importing them into the USA. Presumably,
| the reason they don't do this is because Americans hate small
| pickup trucks. Every single truck on sale in the USDM sells
| better in larger footprint spec.
|
| There's maybe 20k American who are willing to buy a new truck
| with the wheelbase the size of a Mustang (smallest Hilux). Even
| small BoF SUVs have the same problem. Take the FJ Cruiser,
| despite being a cult classic, it sold terribly in the USA,
| likely due to being too small.
|
| Plus, they are expensive. In Australia, the cheapest non-work-
| spec Hilux trim is ~$55k - which is like $38kUSD. A Tacoma
| starts cheaper than that and is much larger.
| HNisCIS wrote:
| They can't produce them here because of CAFE.
| kube-system wrote:
| CAFE doesn't prevent them from producing or selling it
| here, plenty of automakers just pay CAFE fines. The Tacoma
| and Hilux are very similar in overall size, but the Tacoma
| does have the wheels pushed slightly closer to the corners,
| likely for this reason.
|
| However, current CAFE fines are capped to a whopping $0.00
|
| The Hilux is also pretty tall and narrow, which I am
| guessing is very advantageous in markets where most buyers
| drive them on unpaved roads, and not very advantageous in
| countries where highway rollover tests are performed and
| they are primarily operated on highways with 12' wide
| lanes.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| testing22321 wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _It is also a very robust vehicle capable of withstanding
| elemental and physical extremities, as shown on the British TV
| show "Top Gear."[6]_
|
| If you haven't ever watched Top Gear, this is definitely one of
| the standout bits they did - putting that truck through absolute
| hell, and watching it continue to start up.
|
| I highly recommend it, even if you don't think of yourself as a
| Car Guy. It's basically a comedy show that just happens to use
| cars.
| wfleming wrote:
| For folks who have never seen it, these are the referenced Top
| Gear segments:
|
| - part 1: https://youtu.be/xnWKz7Cthkk
|
| - part 2: https://youtu.be/xnWKz7Cthkk
|
| - part 3: https://youtu.be/kFnVZXQD5_k
| latexr wrote:
| Second link is wrong (links to part 1 again). Corrected:
| https://youtu.be/xTPnIpjodA8
| hinkley wrote:
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear%3A_Polar_Special Top Gear
| drives a heavily modified Toyota Hilux to the North Pole.
| bwv848 wrote:
| I don't doubt how tough the Hilux can be, but Top Gear tended
| to stage a lot of things. Like they intentionally killed
| Hammond's Land Cruiser at the end of the Bolivia special. Plus,
| they had some pretty damn good mechanics, while Clarkson
| pretended to fix his cars with a hammer in front of the camera.
| kube-system wrote:
| Also the Hilux in that video hasn't been made this millennia,
| so the "shiny new ones" the article references likely isn't
| those.
| ortusdux wrote:
| IIRC, they have been caught pre-scripting scenes. The most
| famous incident being the Tesla Roadster debacle - https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_controversies#Tesla_R...
|
| "A BBC spokeswoman said several times in an interview that
| Top Gear was "an entertainment programme, and should not be
| taken seriously."
| treesknees wrote:
| Why do websites constantly insist on having small gray on white
| background text, stretching 160+ characters per line? Practically
| impossible to read on desktop. I wish people would think about
| default readability. Even Microsoft Edge's reading mode barely
| made a difference.
| testing22321 wrote:
| 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 compete.
| nextos wrote:
| AFAIK, the classic Toyota Land Cruiser (J70) has not been sold
| in EU for more than a decade since it doesn't comply with
| emission regulations.
|
| Interestingly, some are assembled in Portugal for North African
| and Middle East markets.
| fakedang wrote:
| Land cruisers are almost collectors items now in the Middle
| East. Transcends across wealth and status. Doesn't matter if
| it's a middle class office worker with a large family, a
| soccer mom living in the Palm or a filthy rich oil sheikh
| with an arsenal of sports cars stored away in his garage -
| they all have Land Cruisers (or the Prado).
|
| I might actually just get into the hobby of collecting Land
| Cruiser models, and maybe a few Japan-exclusive Toyota
| models.
| testing22321 wrote:
| The 70 series is still very easy to buy and register in many
| EU countries. The new 2.8 diesel is euro 6
|
| We types who drive around the world do it often.
| seemaze wrote:
| Been lusting after a 76 cruiser since I got my license. Settled
| for a first gen taco in the early aughts. It's been from Cabo
| to Dawson and back again twice and is still only half way
| through it's useful life..
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| The C8 corvette is car of the year for like 5+ years running by
| every major automotive publication. When GM/Chevy tries, they
| beat everyone else. Too bad bean counters ruin everything
| except their halo cars.
| gowld wrote:
| In case you forgot after you read the article: the article
| talks about the US providing Hilux trucks to allies in the
| Middle East.
| logancbrown wrote:
| The "protectionism" you cite is due to crash regulation and
| emissions standards.
| linkage wrote:
| This is unadulterated cope.
|
| America has 40% more traffic fatalities per km driven than
| the European Union and has less stringent emissions standards
| (especially for the Hilux's category, which is actually why
| giant SUVs became so popular over the years).
|
| The US government doesn't even bother with these spurious
| pretexts anymore. They openly admit that they want to coddle
| local automakers to ensure that the government has a supply
| chain of transportation vehicles in wartime. It's quite
| literally socialism for the entire American auto sector.
| bluGill wrote:
| Irrelevant - they still don't meet our standards.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > coddle local automakers
|
| Are you only including automakers headquartered in the US,
| or are you also including automakers who have a bunch of
| factories in the US?
| TitaRusell wrote:
| This in itself would not be so bad. After all Korea and
| Japan supported their auto industry.
|
| But the American car companies are just completely
| unwilling to make cars that the rest of the world wants to
| buy.
| neom wrote:
| Fingers crossed Carney changes for us Canadians, I was in
| Mexico for a month and rented a BYD Seal, fantastic car.
| NDizzle wrote:
| I, too, am waiting to execute my master plan to import a 70
| series Land Cruiser. Late 90s/early 00s model. It's almost
| time. Last car I'll ever need to buy.
| robotnikman wrote:
| I wish we could get the Hilux here. Had to settle for a Tacoma
| instead.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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 it to market.
| themafia wrote:
| Why not deal with the cause of the terrorism?
|
| Are we really worried what vendor they get their trucks from?
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _Why not deal with the cause of the terrorism?_
|
| _slaps forehead_ Why didn 't I think of that!
| themafia wrote:
| What's the alternative. In a terrorist camp somewhere:
|
| "Guys! We can't Toyota's anymore. I guess terrorism is over!
| Pack it up and go home!"
|
| Sheesh.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > Why not deal with the cause of the terrorism?
|
| I don't think that's a simple proposition.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Some terrorism is because we murdered the terrorist's family,
| and we could just stop murdering families. I don't think this
| one is, though.
| hnav wrote:
| No, these guys we seem to have funded and supported. We
| even helped a former AQ leader become the president of
| Syria.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| > Are we really worried what vendor they get their trucks from?
|
| There are for sure gun manufacturers that would love to sell
| terrorists guns, can car manufacturers that would sell
| terrorists cars. The harder they are to obtain, the less
| success the terrorists will have in their objectives.
|
| Do you really think we shouldn't care, understand or look to
| shut down supply chains?
| avidiax wrote:
| 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
| gowld wrote:
| 25% tariff isn't a roadblock for military spending.
| mjhay wrote:
| Regarding Western military procurement,
|
| "We have such sights to show you!"
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| theluketaylor wrote:
| > 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, wider
| version of the E class. They added 56 mm to the front fenders
| and discovered it wouldn't fit through the production line
| properly. MB contracted for Porsche to handle the low-volume
| 500e on a different production line.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| > 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.
| wedog6 wrote:
| 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.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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.
| HNisCIS wrote:
| 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 starting to see what appears to be the beginnings of a
| small pickup renaissance due to electrification but none have
| actually hit the market yet and trump has further stalled
| that progress by messing with EV subsidies and environmental
| standards.
| zdragnar wrote:
| They are massive because of the cafe standards. There's
| plenty enough of a market for smaller trucks, even the Ford
| Maverick which is closer to a car with a bed sold out
| immediately.
|
| I like my big truck but when it dies, if there's a small
| truck available that lets me plow snow and tow logs in the
| forest, I'll get it.
| kube-system wrote:
| The current Hilux is extremely close in size to the US
| Tacoma... It has also grown over the years. Although if you
| look at the footprint size (e.g. what CAFE measures), the
| Tacoma has the wheels a little more advantageously placed.
|
| I am sure they could consolidate the models to work in both
| the US and abroad, but my guess is they do enough US volume
| that it is not yet advantageous to do so. There's already a
| number of major parts that have been shared recently
| between the Tacoma and Hilux... e.g. the 2TR-FE engine and
| AC60 transmission. But usually Toyota chooses to spec the
| Tacoma as a more up-market vehicle, which makes sense given
| the US market.
| HNisCIS wrote:
| 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.
| thatcat wrote:
| CAFE stopped being enforced in 2022 and don't apply going
| forward.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| There are two ways to improve fuel economy. The first is
| technology (fuel injection, aerodynamics, hybrids, etc.). The
| second is to make the vehicle smaller.
|
| The first one is a trade off against cost, but the market is
| already pretty good at handling that one on its own. Fuel
| injection and aerodynamics don't add much to the cost of a
| car, so pretty much everything has that now. Hybrid batteries
| are more expensive, but the price is coming down, and as it
| does the percentage of hybrid cars is going up. You don't
| really need a law for this; people buy it when the fuel
| savings exceeds the cost of the technology.
|
| The second one is a trade off against things like cargo
| capacity. If you say that "cars" have to get >35 MPG at the
| point before hybrids are cost effective, or keep raising the
| number as the technology improves, it's essentially just a
| ban on station wagons. And then what do the people who used
| to buy station wagons do instead? They buy SUVs.
|
| The entire premise is dumb. If you want more efficient
| vehicles then do a carbon tax which gets refunded to the
| population as checks, and then let people buy whatever they
| want, but now the break even point for hybrids and electric
| cars makes it worth it for more people.
| benbojangles wrote:
| Big reveal: they're not but bringing out a feeling of superiority
| in your enemy inside a warzone makes them easier targets
| tomlockwood wrote:
| One of the books that influenced my thinking the most was The
| Accidental Guerilla by David Kilcullen where he posits that
| economic disadvantage drove a lot of people to insurgency. This
| article supports that. Worth a read!
| gowld wrote:
| Yes, humans do compete for resources.
| pocksuppet wrote:
| Not the same thing.
| tomlockwood wrote:
| Go on?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Glad to see my alma mater represented here doing good research.
|
| I served in Iraq as an AF commander. My 2001 Tundra is still
| going strong ;)
| downut wrote:
| So is mine (2001TRD bought new). Searched all over AZ looking
| for manual everything and I got it, except for the trans. It
| replaced an fj60 Landcruiser. Beautiful machine I worked on a
| lot (5spd trans, lift, exhaust, gas tank) but it needed more
| power. The FJ-60 replaced an absolutely bottom basic 4cyl 4wd
| 5spd manual Toy "Pickup", better than a jeep 'cause you could
| carry shit off road, that the child outgrew sitting in the
| middle behind the stick.
|
| The only thing I dislike about the Tundra is the gas mileage. I
| thought I would hate the auto trans but then I did some largish
| sandy-ish steps uphill and fuck me that was easy. Ah, there is
| another annoying thing: anti-lock brakes make sandy steep
| downhills with exposure much more interesting than they should
| be.
|
| When I die I want to be buried in it.
|
| God the new gigantic Tundras look awful. I think I'm seeing a
| lot more newish Tacomas these days, and they still look decent.
| They definitely look easier to park.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Hell Yeah V8 TRD rep
|
| I am thinking of upgrading to a Toyota Land Cruiser 200 but
| the full cab Hilux just can't be beat
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I loved my 1987 Toyota 4x4 pickup with all its mods. My wife used
| to say that I'd get rid of her before I got rid of it (wife's
| still here; I sold the truck long ago).
|
| But no way in hell would I want to be a real accident in one.
| That's why they're no longer sold in the US. Amazing off-roader,
| cheap and extremely reliable.
|
| But they're stuck in 1980's crash survivability while the rest of
| the world moved on.
| thatcat wrote:
| They're selling side by sides today in the <3500 dry wt.
| category which can be road registered. If used primarily for
| agriculture, they're even tax exempt from registration in some
| states. The 80's toyota pickup is better than a side by side
| and weighs less than 3500, arguably safer, and offers better
| utility for agriculture. There are plenty of Toyota
| manufacturing facilities in the US, which would avoid the
| chicken tax on import. It's not impossible or unreasonable for
| light weight toyota turbo diesels with hydraulic systems, an
| aluminum frame, and manual locking hubs to materialize.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| That's the dirty secret, is that a lot of the side-by-sides
| kind of suck in relation to an old Tacoma, S10, Mahindra
| Roxor or a Kei truck, and cost an arm and a leg. It's amazing
| to me that Polaris sells as many as they do, given what they
| cost and their capabilities.
| kube-system wrote:
| Just looked up their figures -- I would have never guessed
| they sell 600k+ units/yr of side-by-sides given what they
| charge for them
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
| netsharc wrote:
| 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..
| chongli wrote:
| 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.
| duxup wrote:
| 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.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| - Cheap + reliable - Parts for maintenance easy to come
| by - Strong enough to mount an 50 cal in the back
|
| You might have a mix of government owned vehicles, and ones
| rented from the local economy. You might be driving Hiluxes to
| work, and observing ISIS or partner forces using the same model
| as fighting vehicles.
| conductr wrote:
| Is the mounting problem even real? I've shot a 50 cal rifle
| unmounted and I'd venture to say it could be mounted to
| anything. It's mainly for ergonomic / accuracy / rapid fire
| stability and doesn't need significant structural support.
| You could probably mount it to an ATV if you wanted to.
| bluGill wrote:
| Sort of. A truck has a frame that you can drill a hole in
| and bolt the thing to. Simple and easy.
|
| A typical uni-body car is most than strong enough for the
| weight, but there is likely no place where the sheet metal
| is strong enough to support the bolt. You can make it work
| if you want, but it requires a more complex mounting
| system. (of course a truck has a nice open bed which has
| other advantages for mounting a gun - the typical car
| doesn't have a good place to mount the gun even if you
| build the mounting system).
|
| ATVs can carry the weight, but finding a place to put the
| bolts will be a pain.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Also, the guy can ride around standing in the back
| operating the gun; I can't see how that would work in a
| car.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _the writing has too much emotional bait of "Look how evil
| they are! Don't forget, we're the good guys!"_
|
| I mean, that blog seems to be an official Air Force
| publication. I don't find it very surprising that an army blog
| (of any nation's military) would stick to that nation's
| official narrative and not veer into larger geopolitical
| questions.
| netsharc wrote:
| But talking about the narrative can be written in a neutral
| way ("we're fighting terrorists"), and there's trying to
| convince readers (and maybe themselves) that they are as
| noble as the crusaders. Sad if you don't understand the
| difference.
| cma256 wrote:
| I can tell you precisely why foreign Toyotas (especially
| certain models) are more reliable that whats typically sold in
| the US. No electronics and parts which operate based on physics
| (pressure, gravity, etc). Both of these decisions lend
| themselves to a simple engine compartment and repairability.
|
| In the US, you can buy a five-speed 4runner which is about the
| simplest engine available on the market. Has all the benefits
| enumerated above and its trivially repairable by DIYers.
| However, even the 4runner has annoying garbage which can fail.
|
| Compare the newest 70 series Land Crusier in Japan to the US
| Land Cruiser (Prado). Difference is a v8 with no electronics
| and a 4 cylinder hybrid filled with electronics and a rats nest
| of tubes running across the top of the engine. Try working on
| that... Of course its get +20mpg compared to the Japanese
| version. I'm pretty sure the 70 series is 4 wheel drive always
| whereas the prado runs in 2 wheel drive but has a 4 wheel
| switch (more complexity -- better gas mileage).
|
| Anyway, intangibles such as availability of parts and lower
| pricing makes scavenging more economical and increases life
| span.
|
| Also, stability of the platform means there's lots of expertise
| that has developed over the past +30 years. Same design, same
| repairs, same parts. Makes things easy.
| stinkbeetle wrote:
| The V8 in the 70 series landcruiser uses computer controlled
| electronic injection. It also has other electronic / electro-
| mechanical systems like ABS and airbags.
| cma256 wrote:
| Fair enough!
| robocat wrote:
| > makes scavenging more economical and increases life span
|
| NZ exports the front half of Hiluxes, 4runners, Prados
| etcetera to the Middle East.
|
| Chop the front half off, put a bunch of em into a container,
| and ship them away.
|
| I was yakking with a car wrecker the other day, and he said
| the above to explain why it was hard to find second-hand
| parts for a 1996 Prado.
| tantalor wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
| PieTime wrote:
| Maybe stop US should stop funding ISIS, Al Queda in Syria,
| mujahideen in Afghanistan...
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| Don't be silly. Can't have stability in Israel's adversaries
| londons_explore wrote:
| Stories like this always seem one-sided.
|
| Can't a journalist or researcher find at least one person on the
| other side from back when this was done in ~2012 and interview
| them?
|
| Sure, many will be reluctant to talk, and Afghanistan isn't
| exactly a stable place right now, but all it would take is a
| phone call to the right people...
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| >Stories like this always seem one-sided.
|
| Nuanced "it's complicated" takes don't gain traction.
|
| Confirm the audience's biases and it's straight to the top.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| They sometimes get American trucks, too:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Mark-1_Plumbing_truck_inc...
| tamimio wrote:
| What's better than Hilux is the Land Cruiser 70 or 75 series,
| more reliable and bigger payload. That being said, you can never
| go wrong with Toyota, reliable yet simple, if you open the Hilux
| engine hood you can literally see your feet through the engine
| area because only few components are in there, compare this to
| say a german car, and you need a manual on just where to find the
| engine oil stick.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > ISIS may have acquired Toyota Hilux vehicles thanks to the
| perpetual cycle of U.S. involvement in Foreign Military Sales
| with the Middle East
|
| No surprises there. A lot of ISIS' actual weaponry was stuff the
| US had equipped the crony Iraqi military with, and was just
| picked up by ISIS when the Iraqi soldiers retreated - like a
| weapons cache in a computer game: Move over the building and your
| ammo slider goes up magically.
| tinfoilhatter wrote:
| Because ISIS was a rebranded Al Quaeda which emerged from the
| Mujahideen terrorist group which was funded by the US through
| Operation Cyclone headed by the Polish Jesuit Zbigniew
| Brzezinski. They've always had funding from the Jesuits / US war
| industry. It's no surprise they have access to these vehicles if
| one understands that all modern wars are orchestrated.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Reminds me of a back burner project I have. "The Technical In
| War".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-10 23:01 UTC)