[magduf]

It's made sense to build Japanese and European cars in the US for a very long time. Honda has had 2 plants in Ohio for at least a couple decades now, and Toyota, BMW, and others have had plants here for a long time too. The US is the world's largest auto market, and US labor rates are lower than Japanese or German labor rates, plus there's a savings when you don't have to ship a 3-5000 pound object across an ocean, so of course it makes sense to build the highest-volume models here where they're bought (especially models that don't sell outside the US).

As for "cowboy cosplay", the Tundra doesn't make much sense elsewhere because gas prices are generally higher in other industrial countries, and in less-wealthy countries with low gas prices (like the middle east) they buy smaller trucks (and wealthy people there don't buy trucks at all), so a large pickup truck obviously isn't going to sell well there. America is just a unique place where 1) gas prices are low, incentivizing buying larger vehicles, and 2) personal wealth is high enough for middle-class people to afford a very large truck, and 3) owning a truck for use as a commuter vehicle (rather than a utilitarian vehicle) is esteemed for some odd reason.

[blt]

> owning a truck for use as a commuter vehicle (rather than a utilitarian vehicle) is esteemed for some odd reason.

Isn't this basically what they meant by "cowboy cosplay"?

[remarkEon]

I've owned 4 cars in my life, a crappy 1995 Dodge Neon (May She Rest In Peace), a Jeep Wrangler, an F-150, and a 3-Series BMW. By far the most enjoyable driving experiences were with the Wrangler and F-150 - because of the height of the cab. Sure, the BMW drives "better" and has tighter steering and suspension etc, but sitting at that height gave you a view of the road that not only made me feel safer while driving it also was just more comfortable (I'm tall, 6'3"). I was in the military with those middle two cars, and they obviously had other utility for me than the comfort. It isn't just "cowboy cosplay".

[magduf]

No, it's cowboy cosplay.

The Wrangler is an utterly terrible vehicle by every measure, except for one, and only one thing: going offroad. For any other use-case, it's the worst pick. It sucks for fuel economy, reliability, value for money (they're expensive), interior quality, stability (wheelbase is too short), towing (again, the wheelbase), comfort, etc.

The truck at least is good at towing and carrying stuff, but how often do you really do that stuff? For most truck owners, almost never; that's why I was talking about using them as commuter vehicles being odd. You don't see this much in other countries, and even for actual work use, they tend to use vans instead of trucks. It's mostly Americans who love trucks (and some middle easterners, who have found Toyota trucks are an inexpensive and reliable platform for mounting a machine gun).

If driving height were really important to you for a commuting vehicle, you'd get an SUV or CUV. Something like a Honda CR-V has ride/seat height along with a much more comfortable cabin for passengers, and a more sensibly-sized engine for good fuel economy, plus an overall smaller size so you aren't hogging parking spaces in lots with smaller spaces.

This is what I was referring to (and what someone else here coined as "cowboy cosplay"): Americans buy vehicles that are entirely ill-suited or excessively large for what they're actually using them for.

[grep_name]

> owning a truck for use as a commuter vehicle (rather than a utilitarian vehicle) is esteemed for some odd reason

That seems like an odd way to put it. I drive a truck as a commuter vehicle because I can't afford to own and insure a second vehicle as a 'utility' vehicle, nor can I afford for my only vehicle to be of low utility