I’ve taken hatchbacks for granted as they have simply always been around as long as I’ve been alive. Two of the four cars I’ve owned have been hatchbacks (both Fords – an ’88 Mustang and a ’94 Probe), and my family of origin had also owned one. The latter ’85 Renault Encore ended up being an exceptionally good car with pep, efficiency, reliability, and the supreme ability to swallow my brother’s graduate school belongings almost completely in their entirety. Hatchbacks have always been a fact, for all of my life. Even my earliest road game of “count the Chevette” featured a hatchback. It’s almost impossible for me to imagine what it would have been like to be a firsthand witness to the nascent beginnings of the wide-opening rear door.
This is true especially of cars built in the United States. The AMC Gremlin, introduced on April 1, 1970 as the first domestic subcompact, did have an optional hatchback of sorts with a hinged, opening pane of rear glass, which sort of counts. When I think of a proper hatchback, the Ford Pinto Runabout and the Chevrolet Vega better fit my mental mold, with an entire rear assembly that lifts to provide access to the rear storage area. There were other, foreign hatchbacks also being sold around that time. To provide one completely random example, the Datsun 240Z sports car featured this kind of rear door, and it was the direct opposite of a cheap economy car. All this is to say that my impression is that toward the early ’70s, the idea of a hatchback was still novel enough to sidestep any connotations at all, good or bad, as compared to the ’80s, by which point (in the U.S., anyway) hatchbacks were considered something of a downgrade from cars with proper trunks.
Chrysler Corporation wouldn’t offer any domestically-built hatchbacks until the L-body Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon five-doors arrived for model year ’78, though they had been selling the sporty, Mitsubishi-sourced Arrow Hatchback from ’76. American Motors and GM would each double-down on the third door with the introduction of hatchback versions of their compacts for ’73. The Hornet hatch, in my opinion one of the best-looking AMC cars of all time, got completely new, semi-fastback styling from the B-pillar back that year, looking a bit from a rear three-quarter perspective like a cross between the Hornet notchback and the pretty first-generation Javelin. The GM X-bodies (Chevy Nova, Pontiac Ventura, and the new Buick Apollo and Oldsmobile Omega) also included a new hatchback body in their respective lineups for ’73. Unlike with the Hornet, the Nova hatchback featured styling almost identical to that of its notchback counterpart. The cutlines in the rear and the smaller window area were the only obvious, external tells.
There was also that stylized “hatchback” badge in lower-case italics on the C-pillar to clue people in that the owner was hip to a new, automotive trend. The hatchback had big benefits in utility. According to the 1974 sales brochure, rear luggage capacity of the hatchback with the rear seats folded down was 27.3 cubic feet, which represented an 87% increase over the trunk-backed coupe’s 14.6 figure, and significantly more than the subcompact Vega hatch’s 18.9 cubic feet (also with the back seat down).
One would still have a significant amount of liftover to deal with as with many cars of that era, but one could essentially use one of these Novas as a mini-wagon if needed. Certain versions of Chrysler’s compact A-body Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart also had fold-down rear seats for added utility, but in my mind, I always go straight to the mental “bicycle test”. Would I have been able to put my ten-speed in the back without damaging it or my car? I’m thinking this feat would be much easier in this Nova hatchback than in my family’s old ’71 Duster, even if its rear seat had folded down.
The ’74 Nova was a popular car, with over 390,500 sold. Of that number, only about 80,600 were hatchbacks in both base and Custom trim, which accounted for just over one fifth of total production. Judging by the sweet Cragars on this fine base model, I’d wager that this one originally came with a 350 cubic inch V8, of which 20,600 were made. (Base hatchbacks with the 250 cubic-inch six cylinder numbered 13,700 units). We know this one isn’t an upmarket Custom, as it’s lacking those model-specific badges on the front fenders.
The starting price of the V8 hatchback was $115 more (about 4%) than that of the notchback counterpart, which I think was a reasonable price to pay for that extra usability. I have read in the comments here at CC from former occupants of the hatchback model that the re-engineering required for that lift-up rear door cut significantly into rear headroom. I’m not sure I’d expect any of my friends of average height to ride back there for an extended road trip, and if I was providing the ride, no one should complain. The hatch version also added about 110 pounds to the curb weight of the notch, and the curb weight of a ’74 V8 hatch would have started at around 3,300 pounds.
As for the car’s basic styling, I have come to appreciate the relative rarity of the ’73 and ’74 models in comparison to the styling iterations of this generation of X-body that came both before and after it. The original ’68 design had lasted five model years through ’72 with only minor detail changes in its exterior, and then the European-inspired ’75 restyle also ran for five model years through ’79. I do think the ’68 has a cleaner, more handsome shape, especially in profile, but the ’73 and ’74 are cool to me because they just seem so of-their-time, so almost-there stylistically. Some of my most fun teenage memories are of riding around in a best friend’s ’76 Nova coupe, so I’ll always have a soft spot for any rear-drive X-body with a Chevy badge on it. This particular example also looked like such a throwback to the parking lot of my high school, like one of cooler cars belonging to one of the guys who was handy with a wrench, from a GM factory family with extra garage space out back.
This two-year iteration of Nova also reminds me of two cultural touchstones: the movie Pulp Fiction (a perennial favorite of mine) and as one of Jim Rockford’s recurring rental cars on The Rockford Files. There’s nothing second-tier about any of that. I’ve done a lot of thinking about what specific year one might consider the turning point from at which the hatchback had pivoted from being seen something unique, new, and useful, to retrograde. A year in the late ’70s, maybe? Please, nobody say the advent of the Mustang II, because those hatchbacks were mad plentiful. A year in the early ’80s might also make sense, when offering a hatchback version of an economy car seemed like a prerequisite for its success in the marketplace. Regardless, it was great to see a decisively strong-looking hatchback at the curb almost exactly six years ago as a reminder that even before the current renaissance of expensive Porsches and Audis featuring a wide-opening rear door, hatchbacks weren’t universally seen as the calling card of cheap wheels.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, June 9, 2018.
Brochure photos were as sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
A hatchback was already offered on the Jaguar E Type/XKE Coupe from 1961.
I’m sure there are even older examples, like some stray Bristols, or something. Good QOTD: first widely offered hatchback…
Probably the first mass production one (as opposed to a special) was the Citroen Traction Avant Commerciale in 1938. Front wheel drive too.
On your side of the channel, how about the Aston Martin DB2/4? Hardly mass-production, but who else offered one in 1953?
I am sure someone will know the history of hatchbacks, but the Renault R4 comes to mind. It was introduced in 1961, and at the same time a hatchback version of the Citroen 2CV was introduced. It was not common, but a friend of mine has one, and it is the only one I have seen. The model was called 2CV Mixte. The spare tire was moved to fit under the hood and over the engine. The rear seat was replaced by a folding version and a frame was used to allow the truck lid and rear window to open as a hatch. As the rear window is mounted in the fabric roof, no hinge is needed above it.
Didn’t the E Type “door” pivot sideways? I think of the MGB GT as being the first common hatch in the US, though perhaps common is overstating it. But they were regular sights here, especially if you or your friends had the Corgi diecast toy with opening hatch and doors … but no opening hood (bonnet).
Yes, that was my recollection as well. I had a friend some 60 years ago whose older brothers had nice cars…one was an XKE, and it had a side opening hatch instead of the much more common roof hinged hatch. Don’t know if it would be considered mass produced, but it came out a few months before the Renault 4 (March vs July 1961) but of course the hatch of the R4 was a matter of practicality in a short car to give it storage space.
I’m also a fan of hatchbacks, though I tend to like more “upright” rear openings rather than “fastback” openings like on this Nova (and the AMC Hornet Hatch, Plymouth Duster hatch, etc) mostly due to packaging efficiency, but also living in the sunbelt, due to heat, I dislike large horizontal backlights.
It is getting hard to find new hatchbacks for sale (of course that’s true of cars in general) such that I think the only model I’m considering to replace my current ’00 Golf is a Mazda 3 hatch. Don’t care for CVT, so Toyota and Honda are out (I’ve owned manual cars only since 1981, but no one in my family can drive manual, in my old age that can be an issue so my next car needs to be automatic).
I don’t care that many people associate hatchbacks as cheap cars, I realize they are harder to make stiff bodies, and can be noisy, but their versatility to me trumps these downsides.
I, too, have been fond of hatchbacks since getting my license in an automatic 1975 Rabbit in 1977. Forward to 1978 when my folks bought a four door stick Chevette, giving me the opportunity to learn to operate a manual.
When I got out of college a few years later, I tried to get the money together for a four door hatch Tercel, but was $500 short.
Now, forty years later, I’ve a manual Chevy Spark (with a hatch, natch), with crank windows, hard surfaces galore and plenty of utility. Dollar for dollar, best car I’ve ever had.
It was great to read kind of a start-to-present summary of your experiences with this useful body style. I rented a Chevy Spark years ago to drive back for my high school twenty-year reunion. It was kind of a metallic cotton candy pink, but it was so great on gas and became kind of an unofficial mascot for that weekend!
I regularly put my ten speed in the trunk of my Dart Sport, without any fold down rear seat. All I had to do was quickly remove the front wheel of the bike using the handy dandy butterfly nuts.
My buddy had a Cutlass and if his ten speed was in his trunk, he had to leave the lid open and tied down.
Awesome. I’ve been watching some old Chrysler Corporation dealer promo videos on YouTube, and I think I remember one comparing a Plymouth Duster with a Ford Maverick
When the length-by-length comparison was shown, it occurred to me just how much longer the Duster was, and a lot of that was out back. There was no long hood, short deck with that car, which probably explains it’s extra usefulness. Completely understand and respect that your Dart Sport had passed the “bicycle test”.
I’m convinced that hatchbacks lost their popular appeal in the early 1980s due to one reason:
The Chevrolet Citation.
When the best-selling hatchback becomes inescapably associated with recalls, torque steer, brake failure, shoddy build quality, and the trauma of commutes and vacations ruined due to dates with the mechanic…it makes sense that buyers would shy away from any vehicle having a resemblance.
This rings as cogent.
I never thought of the Citation effect, but I think it was primarily the fact that hatchbacks were usually cheap, low-end cars. Vega, Pinto (yes I know they didn’t have hatches originally and/or exclusively), Chevette and others stuck with that form factor while the Civic and Accord quickly added 4 door sedan variants which had nicer trim, and soon outsold the hatch style they had started with.
It’s stunning in retrospect how long it took Honda to come out with a 5-door Accord (a wagon that was really very hatchbacklike, akin to the AMC Sportabout but with a floor-opening hatch since competitors were all 3-row).
This reached its’ peak in the third generation with three 2/3-door models (the original sloped hatchback, the “Aerodeck” shooting brake never sold in the US and the trunked coupe) but only a 4-door sedan in a segment where 2-doors were fading fast.
They should’ve had a 5-door hatchback cued up and ready to go for the second model year of the first generation.
Hatchbacks became a fad, and like most fads, it was overextended before falling back to where it was truly essential and obvious, as in genuinely small cars. As to the Citation, keep in mind that there was no Citation wagon. And when the A-Body wagons came along in 1982, they satisfied Americans’ preference for a genuine wagon in this larger size category.
As a repeat hatchback owner who once brought a full-size fridge to the dump in a Honda Fit (admittedly, tying the hatch shut with an orange overlength flag was involved), I definitely appreciate the function.
It turns out all it took to make the “cheap wheels” stigma go away was an extra inch of ride height and some rugged-looking plastic flares and rocker-panel trim.
Exactly.
And fridge in a Fit? Those cars have just earned a new level of my respect!
My sister’s neighbors , in “73”, had the car shown in the “brochure ad”. Can’t tell if the one pictures has “bucket seats”.
The neighbor’s car did. Was quite an eye catcher as I recall.
I didn’t peek inside the car to see what kind of seats it had, though now I’m curious. Based on most Novas of this generation I’ve seen, I’d guess that it had benches – even with those aftermarket Cragars on it.
I miss hatchbacks. That’s probably a result of having owned a Saab 900, which was an incredibly useful car (when it wasn’t busy draining my wallet for repairs).
I wonder if North American attitudes towards hatchbacks would have been different had the bodystyle been pioneered by mid-size cars like the Nova, rather than cheap little cars like the Vega and Pinto. The hatchback stigma has always baffled me, but hatchbacks eventually got their revenge because these days virtually everyone drives SUVs/CUVs, etc., which are essentially… hatchbacks.
Also, on the random subject of hatchbacks, I wonder when the term itself first came into use? I can’t think of a car before the Vega that used the term hatchback, but maybe there were European cars called hatchbacks, and the name was picked up by GM for use in the Vega? I have no idea.
Eric, you bring up some great points and questions – when did the term “hatchback” enter regular automotive parlance?
The Nova was ostensibly a compact (not a midsize – that would be a the jumbo Colonnade Chevelle / Malibu), and the Vega and Pinto were subcompacts. Yesterday’s rerun of the wagon comparison between the Malibu, Volaré, and Fairmont was a great reminder of how size classes were being redefines by the end of the ’70s.
And you’re right about the hatchback’s revenge! It’s full-on. Even cars with proper trunks *look* like hatchback’s, with their fastback profiles.
I looked into this topic a bit during the day today. As far as I can tell, 1960s Renaults were the first modern-type hatchback, though it doesn’t look like Renault used that term (other terms, such as sedan-wagon were used).
The first reference I’ve found to the term hatchback was an April 1970 New York Times article on the upcoming Vega. This was still a few months before the car’s introduction, and the article announced that GM was naming its new subcompact “Vega.” The article went on to explain that one of the bodystyles would be a hatchback, and explained that a hatchback is:
“a combination back window-trunk lid, hinged at the roof, that swings up to allow maximum access to the trunk space.”
I’m not positive that Vega was the first time Hatchback was used, but I haven’t found anything older yet.
Oh… and sorry about my compact/mid-size mix-up!
Yes, the 1961 Renault 4 can rightfully be called the first mass-produced hatchback. There were a number of cars that used some type of rear opening going back decades earlier, but the R4 set the template for how the hatchback would become so common, especially in Europe.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/le-curbside-classic-renault-r4/
I haven’t had a car with a conventional trunk for around 20 years, opting for a hatchback or wagon since then. In fact, the first car I bought with my own money was a VW Rabbit. Cars with trunks, for me, would be aberrations.
Yes, the “bicycle test” would be a good measure for me as the attraction of hatchbacks is always about practicality. That’s the same reason why I also like cars with 4 doors (the Rabbit was a 4 door hatchback) and wagons. I never ever really understood why hatchbacks seemingly went out of style. There are some good explanations here in the comments, although I’ll say that CC is kind of begging for a real comprehensive coverage of the style.
Jeff, I agree with you that a comprehensive, CC-style history of the hatchback would make for some great reading, if it hasn’t already been done.
For a new car purchase, I could see a hatchback’s added versatility as a definite shopping list item, especially for a household with just one vehicle.
I had a ’77 Datsun Z 2+2 and it was amazingly useful with the rear hatch. Likewise I found my ’90 Civic to be very flexible. Fox Mustangs had a hatchback for several years, and that made it a genuinely useful vehicle. I agree that SUVs/CUVs are the hatchback’s revenge.
I can imagine that your 280 Z 2+2 was a great combination of many things – sports car, with emergency +2 seats, and able to carry things with that useful hatch.
I absolutely loved the utility factor of my ’88 Mustang LX hatch. I shuttled my belongings to and from college in that car. I even fit a small banana tree back there when I took my dad to the nursery to buy it!
My first car was a hatchback, a 1975 VW Rabbit. I liked the idea of having readily available extra cargo space, and it was very handy for that purpose. As a young single guy, I did not spend the extra coin for the 5-door model, choosing the 3-door instead.
My mother had a second year (1981) Chevy Citation 5-door. She avoided most of the dreaded X-car problems by not buying the car in its first, extended model year.
Much later on, my wife and I owned a 2014 Toyota Prius, which could hold an amazing amount of cargo with the rear seats folded down. My son now has this car in Brooklyn, NYC.
My “81 Citation”, three door, was purchased new in “April 1982”. It too did not have many of the “dreaded problems”. It did, though, have “waay , too many issues in general.
Mainly, after it(and my) second anniversary.
I did keep it till “Feb 1986” though.
It’s funny about the Citation. For as many horror stories as I’ve read about them, here at CC and otherwise, there have also been a counts that owners had a pretty uneventful ownership experience. My uncle had maintained for years that his bought-new Citation was a good car. His probably was.
Disclaimer: Three of my four cars have been hatchbacks, none bought new. ’84 Suzuki Swift, ’87 Ford Laser, ’05 Mazda 3. From tiny to smallish-medium. So I’ll admit I’m biased in favour of hatches. But…
I feel there is a size beyond which a hatchback doesn’t make much sense. I’m not quite sure where I’d place the upper limit, but this Chevy is on the wrong side of it, IMHO.
With a seventies-type rear overhang, access to the inner reaches of the cargo hold gets awkward with a large three-door body, especially when you have to have so much below-floor space dedicated to a live rear axle, various arrangements to suspend it, and a fuel tank large enough to keep the engine fed for any reasonable distance. These days of course you’d have IRS and the tank probably under the rear seat. And you wouldn;t need such a huge tank.
Oh, mustn’t forget the spare tyre! More load space lost…..
In the mid-seventies Holden offered the 102″ wheelbase Torana as a three-door hatch, so kind of splitting the difference between this and a Monza, size-wise. Aside from the SL/R performance verions, I only saw one optioned up as a regular non-performance car, and that was a 4.2 SL, so close enough. Actually two: a friend at college had one with the 1.9 litre four. That must’ve been really slow. While the big sloping hatch made for a nice-ish semifastback coupe (except for some clunky detailing), the high load floor made for quite a shallow cargo hold. But at least the coil-sprung axle had room to move without fouling the fuel tank.
And this Chevy is so much bigger.
These are great points, Peter. I think that with this Nova, and other U.S.-sized compacts of that time, automakers were experimenting with this body style, probably as a learning experiment as much as anything else.
Another thing to remember is that aside from the (useful, attractive) AMC Hornet Sportabout wagon and a bunch of smaller ones from various automakers, there weren’t any wagins in what was considered to be the compact class. The Volaré and Aspen wagins wouldn’t challenge the Hornet Sportabout until ’76. Maybe the X-body hatches like the Nova were intended to give buyers some wagon-esque alternative to those other cars (and its own Vega Kammback).
In the late-’80s, a colleague used to refer to hatchbacks as ‘rattlebacks’ and preferred saloons (sedans) for the NVH (and probably rigidity) reasons. After all, a true hatchback would have an estate-type rear panel, whereas the more usual liftback-style has a panel between the lights to compensate for the loss of a parcel shelf.
I think that probably is the real reason that sedans became regarded as more premium and hatches fell out of favour.
An oddball would be the Renault 7 – basically a 5 with a boot (trunk) and retro chrome bumpers, made in Spain. Seems very odd, considering Renault’s practicality theme.
Of course, it spread. I seem to remember hatch versions (eg Escort) being cars for da yoof and saloons (eg Onion) being Gran’pappy cars for a while.
Today, the Germans downplay the 5th door on their allegedly-premium D-segment offerings.
Perhaps interesting is that Dante Giacosa wanted a liftback for his brilliant 128 (see Zastava) but the management felt it was too avant-gard for the market and chose the sedan and wagon versions instead.
“Rattlebacks” – that’s great. Before I had read your comment, I had forgotten the tradeoffs in body stiffness with the hatchback body style. I rememeber much being made of it when the ’93 Mustang hatch was replaced with the ’94 semi-fastback with the trunk, and how much stiffer the body seemed. This probably wouldn’t matter as much for the average vehicle, but for a performance car, cornering and body stiffness are very much a thing.
I will join you in coming late to an appreciation of the 1973-74 Nova. Though I found the 4 door a styling downgrade from the earlier and later cars, the 2 door (and hatchback) was quite hansom, in its square-jawed way. This one was a very nice example.
“Square-jawed” is a great way to describe the styling refresh. I did like the forward-canted look of the 1968 – ’72 models, but the front fascia of this restyle seemed to be staring you directly right back in the face. In a good way.
Ive owned a lot of panel vans wagons and hatchbacks my current ride is the last C5 Citroen with hatch, the next model only came in sedan and with steel suspension a real step back into the dark ages. There were C5 wagons but they are hard to find for sale or I’d have one already, my other car is a wagon or Estate as Rootes group called it,
I had to look up the C5 hatch, as I’m not familiar, but it is a cool-looking ride. I like!
My name is Ambrose, im 71 now, yes I had a 1974 nova hatch back, ,it was the best car I ever had . But that picture there has to be a repaint nova, reason I say this is 74 nova had a decal package on it, like two straps on both sides of the fender an hood , plus a big nova ss sticker on the side front fender right in front of the door . It had a half vinyl roof ,plus with the same decals on the hatch an fenders . Mine was royal blue with black an gold stripes it was a very pretty car, wish I had it back .loved that car many memories.
Hi, Ambrose – Your Nova sounds like a great looking car. I wouldn’t doubt that the featured car had been repainted at some point, just based on its age, lived-in condition and its aftermarket Cragars. I’m also certain that not all hatchbacks were SS models. The one in the one of the brochure photos above wasn’t an SS, though like yours, it did have the vinyl half-roof.
All 3 of my cars were hatchbacks – Pontiac Acadian, Pontiac Firefly and Pontiac Wave. I had a similar experience to the earlier poster hauling a fridge in their Honda Fit. One of my best friends bought a full size portable dishwasher at Sears and the delivery charge was $ 75.00 this was in the late 90’s or early 00’s and I said we can take it in my car – 2 door hatchback Firely and when I pulled up to the delivery dock they almost laughed and said it would never fit, I said yes it would as I measured and they were totally surprised that not only did it fit, the hatch was able to close fully.
I’m thoroughly impressed. In the U.S., the Firefly was our Chevy Sprint, replaced by the Geo Metro. I wonder if a dishwasher would also fit in the back of a Metro.
This borders on legendary to me.
Some of us might recall the 2004-07 Malibu Maxx. A hatchback of a different era.
The Malibu Maxx won me over one summer as a rental. I didn’t love the styling, but it was roomy, comfortable, peppy, and that rear sunroof was a beautiful touch. I could get behind everything but its looks.