We’ve had it drilled in our heads that Americans don’t like hatchbacks, but that certainly wasn’t always true. The sight of this older upload by Triborough–and a few of the comments on Jim’s recent Accord wagon post–got me wondering: by what process did we decide the hatchback wasn’t cool?
After all, the Accord came over as a hatchback and more significantly, VW brought the Rabbit–and not the Jetta–to Pennsylvania for American production. Then there were GM’s X-bodies, like this Nova, which enthusiastically advertised their third door, with Chevy and Pontiac going so far as giving it top billing in their front-drive reinventio for 1980. It might have been surprising in such a context that there were no three-or-five door Aries or Reliants, but Chrysler eventually made the decision to graft one onto the K-derived Lancer/LeBaron GTS and Shadow/Sundance.
The former cars landed with a thud upon their 1985 release, which was the same year that the newly released Golf and Jetta swapped places in the popularity hierarchy and a year before Honda would release their final Accord hatchback. It would seem the death of the hatchback began in the mid ’80s, well before ultra-miserly econoboxes fell out of favor and the rise of the SUV. Notchback versions of certain cars, like the Fox Mustang received second billing to hatchback models until the end of their run, while other models, like the Cavalier and its J-car siblings, were vastly more popular as sedans. Then there were cars like the Escort and various Saabs which were most popular when sold in three- and five-door versions, losing sales appeal when moving to a traditional three-box format.
So rather than asking when or why the hatchback died, I’d like to pose the question of how. Was there a certain moment that the bodystyle jumped the shark in most Americans’ eyes? Can it be traced back to a certain popular representation or a singularly horrible car? And why did its mainstream disappearance begin so suddenly only to turn into a protracted process?
Related reading:
1974 Chevy Nova Spirit Of America: Red, White, Black and Blue
1976 Hornet Hatchback: AMC’s High Water Mark
CC Follow-Up: The Elusive Corsica Hatchback
Who said that Americans don’t like hatchback cars? I’ve always loved hatchbacks. They’ve always been my favourite body styles for cars, second only to the station wagon. I’ve always found them more attractive than the regular sedans.
Auto manufacturers say that Americans don’t like hatchbacks or wagons. Canadians like them though. Whenever a new model from a European or Asian manufacturer comes to North America, the Canadian auto journalists invariably ask, “Are we getting the wagon/hatch version too?” and the expected response is, “No, the Americans won’t buy enough of them to justify it.”
How can auto makers say that? How do they know what car buyers will buy?
Marketing studies and purchase history of similar models. Same argument for the compact pickup segment, or lack of.
The problem with these marketing people is that they only look at a small percentage of the car buying public and they assume that the whole population wants nothing to do with small trucks or hatchback cars. Compact trucks may not be for everyone, but that’s why we have full-sized trucks for those who need it. I think that instead of discontinuing the compact truck, they should’ve kept them on the market for those who need it/want it.
Unfortunately, most car makers want to sell to EVERYBODY, not just a small niche market.
They look at a small percentage and extrapolate to the larger public, just as other types of surveys and polls do. Remember at election time, the news reports about who’s leading end with a disclaimer like, “Results accurate to within +/- 5%, 19 times out of 20”. They have a whole department of (or contract out to) statisticians who get paid to design and conduct surveys that reflect the broader market.
Auto manufacturers are not altruistic, they are private enterprises interested in maximizing their profit. They also have limited resources to design and manufacture vehicles. They are going to use their resources to manufacture those that they believe will maximize profit. Sometimes that means that they will shy away from trying something new, or from keeping something that didn’t sell well in a previous model cycle. A failed product is an expensive mistake.
Look at some recent and current hatchback/wagon models. How well have they sold? Chevy Malibu MAXX? Dodge Magnum? Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon? The Magnum is the most successful of these examples, and it still wasn’t good enough to warrant keeping alive when Chrysler’s LX platform was updated.
The Maxx was not a good looking car. The Magnum and CTS wagon were not bad. The Magnum was only a wagon to start with, but with a sedan available, sales of the wagon dropped off. I think the crossover SUV is where the wagon market is or the minivan.
I don’t know about hatchback, except that they seem to be coming back now. However Cadillac has not had much success in marketing the CTS wagon. I was interested in replacing my 2007 SRX with a CTS wagon. My local dealer did not have quite what I wanted as the used one they had was without a Nav. They thought they could get what I wanted from their certified used program, but I wanted a 2012 with premium trim and the touring package with Recaro seats. Months went by and I found a new 2011 at a dealer that I pass by on my quarterly trips to the Mayo Clinic. By this time 2013 model year is in progress. I made what I thought was a reasonable offer to trade the SRX for the CTS wagon, which their sales guy said they really wanted to sell. But the manager seemed leery of my SRX. Other dealer also seemed to be uninterested in selling their wagons, as I did find a couple of 2012 wagons with the package I wanted but there was little interest in trading.
When I traded the SRX for the ATS, which had stuff the CTS didn’t offer -(adaptive cruise, driver awareness package) – my SRX lasted less than a month on the used car lot and spent part of the time waiting to be cleaned up.
I don’t know if Cadillacs problem with the CTS wagon is because no one wants wagons, or if the problem is that dealers are afraid that they won’t sell, and so won’t stock them.
I think it is a falacy! I have owned an 85 Ford escort, 2002 Protege 5, Pontiac Vibe , a Malibu Maxx and now a Saturn Astra. My Saturn L series wagon was a “sorta” hatch. You sure see lots of Fiestas, Sonics, Focus, Mazda 3 and Subaru Imprezas, and to a lesser degree VW Golfs. I read once that GM regretted not bringing over the Cruze hatchback from Europe as it likely cost them 30-40,000 units in sales to the Focus. You just cannot beat their utility. If anything I think they are making a comeback and it is picking up steam as we slowly downsize from porker pickups and SUVs in the face of soon to be $5.00 gas.
I don’t know but hatchbacks like fastbacks , have always been popular for a few years then faded away .
I rather like the Nove and Pontiac Ventura hatchbacks , here in Sunny So. Cal. they’re *very* sought after by the Hot Rodders these days .
-nate
I agree. My favourite are the Toyota Camry hatchback. I’ve never owned one, I’m sorry to say, but I’ve always liked the look of them, and I would think they’d be more practical than a sedan, since instead of having a small trunk lid to open, you have a larger hatch.
Agreed–those 1st-gen Camrys look far better in hatchback form. Personally I also loved the Mazda 6 hatchback–the more rakish c-pillar worked so well on that body style.
I tend to agree, though, that a lot of it may have do with negative associations from the small, tinny, largely unpleasant 70’s and 80’s subcompact econoboxes that tended to come in hatchback form. Those turned off older buyers, and younger ones aren’t familiar with them enough to even register it on the radar. For example, consider the Ford Fiesta (looks horrible as a sedan with an afterthought of a trunk tacked on, but people still buy ’em) and the previous generation Kia Forte (which offered an attractive 5-door hatch, which was more attractive than the sedan, and nobody bought).
My cousin had a 1976 Toyota Celica Liftback when I was a boy, and it was anything but “tinny”. It was as solid as Toyotas generally were, even in the 70s. 🙂
The majority of my hatchback experience comes from an ’83 Escort, Not so solid, that one! Perhaps I’ve unfairly characterized some others though.
Never. Would have considered this versus a truck for my last one. Thinking of it, my SUV could be thought of as either a hatch or a wagon
Now that I think of it the family car also has a door in the back. It’s a Nissan Cube, and it’s difficult not to think of it in the same vein. Less practical than our first cube (Nissan six speed manual) as a trailer hitch voids the warranty on the rubber band transmission.
Hatchbacks and wagons both. Just driving past a Costco/Wal-Mart/Target parking lot will show how we like to load up on “stuff”, then to get it all home we eschewed hatchbacks… now everyone drives SUVanovers (SUV, minivans, crossovers).
I’ve been liking Novas a lot more than I used to, and this hatchback is great!
In high school back in the mid-’90s, there were TWO old Novas in the parking lot year round here in Michigan. One was my best friend’s, a southern ’70 with a straight-six that wasn’t too rotten when he sold it.
The other was a bright orange ’74 hatchback that an acquaintance drove. It was really nice, but the last time I saw it years later, the tin worm had gotten to it pretty badly. I never liked them much back then, but times change!
I owned a hatchback/liftback until I my first was born, than we migrated to sedans. But I am not sure it was because of my daughter or need for space. I think the car manufacturers just don’t want to offer 20 variations of any particular car anymore. You used to be able to wander on a lot and know you could find a corolla wagon, sedan, liftback, hatchback, coupe. Same for most any model from any other manufacturer, GM, Ford, Honda, Datsun/Nissan. Didn’t matter what you wanted they had your type. Now for costs purposes, ease of sales, etc. And yes somewhat due to customer preference we get limited offerings from the car company’s.
Maybe, just maybe because it was the French who made a success of this concept?
Just kiddin!
I guess we found the MPV to be evenmore practical than a hatchback, on the other hand, things come in waves, the hatch maybe low now, in Europe it never disappeared although I believe sales suffered from the MPV and SUV vehicles, which are in principle hatchbacks too.
I love it!
Times were tough in the wake of Jimmy Carter. People were feeling the pinch of our diminished stature as a nation. Hatchback econoboxes were our penance for electing the clown. When Reagan saved us from the brink, we responded to our recovered prosperity by eschewing hair-shirt hatchbacks with their rattles, road noise, lack of security and flexible body structures. For Americans old enough to remember the late ’70s, hatchbacks are a reminder of a dark time in our history and mistakes we wish we could have avoided repeating.
Very possibly. It also didn’t help that two of the most popular hatchbacks of the day were named “Vega” and “Citation”. They certainly didn’t help in distancing hatchbacks from the “cheap and tinny” reputation.
Doing some driving in an old Citation might have put it into my teenaged mind that I don’t like hatchbacks. Cheap POS. In the same situation an old Caprice Classic Brougham was available-now that was a car, apples to apples at least. Both had seen better days, but even in less than stellar condition, I’d take the Caprice every time.
My cousin had a 1976 Toyota Celica Liftback. I was only 5 yrs old at the time, but I remember it being yellow in colour. It was a good looking car, but I didn’t like the yellow colour. It made the car look like it had been pissed on.
The hatchback and the station wagon were casualties of the rise of the SUV (IMHO). The hatchback design was for consumers who wanted the practicality of a car and a car’s MPG, but greater cargo space, and this design gradually lost its popularity as Americans lusted for bigger and beefier status symbols that could accomplish this goal. Let’s face it: Big is in – look at the bloating of smaller trucks (Tacomas, Dakotas), SUVs (Outbacks, Foresters) and cars; in general, the more outsized the monstrosity, the less graceful the hatch.
Although there are a number of sporty, mainstream hatchbacks that have been designed over the last 10-15 years (like the current Mazda 3 or 90s-2000s Camaros and Firebirds), hatchbacks have also had a long association with economy cars (think Escorts, Civics or Versas, for that matter). I think many people associate hatchbacks with “cheap” cars and may think less of them than of the large, gilded SUVs that have been eating the hatchbacks’ lunches for a generation now.
I’ve always driven hatchbacks or wagons and have a great admiration for the design. I once fit two large bookshelves into the spacious hatch of my Saab 9000. Indeed, there are still some unique hatch designs that are very prevalent, like on the Prius and its many derivatives, that suggest that the mainstream hatchback may just still be clinging to life.
I agree. The SUV is fine for off-road use or if you need a truck based vehicle for towing, etc. But not everyone needs a truck based SUV for most driving. Sometimes just a hatchback car or a station wagon can do the same job.
As I’ve owned nothing but hatchbacks since 1981, I guess you could say I’m a fan of them.
An earlier post commented on the lack of “mid-sized” hatchbacks that used to be offered (models like the Accord and the 626 last had them in the 80’s when they were discontinued in favor of the sedan version). Even though I didn’t buy it, I appauded when Chevrolet came out with the Malibu Maxx 10 years ago, though it only lasted one model generation before it too was discontinued in favor of the sedan. The mid size is really where you tend not to see hatchbacks anymore, at least in the US.
I know that manufacturers are cutting back on the number of models since it reduces inventory costs…so much so that I kind of think there’s an unspoken “guidence” from manufacturers that says you should buy something else they sell instead of what you want, for instance the aforementioned Malibu Maxx buy would be guided to instead buy a small Chevrolet SUV (like the Equinox). I think wagon buyers (who like space) were guided to minivans, whereas others (as well as hatchback fans) were guided to instead buy an SUV, even if it was bigger that the model you were replacing. To me, it looks like if you liked large RWD cars, you should buy a truck (especially now there are crew cab models)….if you like 2 door cars, you either go sporty 2 door or are directed to forget about 2 doors and go with a 4 door; if you like small trucks you should buy a big truck. (it is almost like saying you shouldn’t like what you like, this other thing (which is not the same) is better.
That being said, I think I’ve noticed some of the few hatchback models offered especially by Asian makers being priced higher than the sedan version. I’m OK with that myself, as I kind of think of it as an “inventory tax” for them stocking/making something that isn’t very popular, I’m just glad they still sell it..models like the Nissan Versa, and Kia Forte are more expensive as hatchbacks compared to the Sedan (they even sell a coupe version of the Forte). My current car (VW Golf) I think is now more expensive than the Jetta, though it used to be less expensive (though decontenting of the Jetta may have something to do with that)…but even if I had to pay more to get the hatchback because my preference doesn’t match that of what sells the most volume, I’d go ahead and do that (I’ll admit that my tastes don’t usually match the mainstream, alas).
There have been a couple others here and there; around the same time as the Maxx there was a hatchback version of the Mazda 6 and the Hyundai Elantra. Neither was all that popular.
The point about model cutbacks becomes quite clear when one tries to determine the last time a manufacturer offered a full line of bodystyles of the same model. The last I can think of, off the top of my head, would go all the way back to 1994 in the USA with, of all things, the Chevy Cavailer, which offered 2- and 4-door sedans, a convertible, and a wagon. The wagon disappeared from the lineup with the ’95 redesign and I can’t think of another since. The closest you can find today are the Kia Forte and Hyundai Elantra, each of which offer a coupe, a 4-door sedan, and a 5-door hatch, and the 2nd generation CTS (just replaced),which offered coupe, sedan, and wagon. I can’t think of any other model that offers more than 2 body styles and even those are getting uncommon.
Mercedes-Benz and BMW still do things this way, more or less…
C-Class: coupe, sedan, wagon
E-Class: coupe, sedan, convertible, wagon
3/4-Series: coupe, sedan, 5-door hatch, wagon
5/6-Series: coupe, sedan, 5-door hatch, convertible
Not sure how I overlooked Benz, and you’re right that the E-klasse is a definite full line holdout.
I wasn’t combining the 3/4 and 5/6 series since the nameplates are different. Also I’ve never seen a 3-series GT; are they even sold in the USA?
The 5 series GT is hideous enough as it is.
The 2000-2007 Ford Focus offered you a choice of the following
1. 3 door hatch(ZX3)
2. 5 door hatch(ZX5)
3. 5 door station wagon(ZW5)
4. 4 door sedan (ZX4)
While they did not offer a coupe during that time, the following gen(08-11) offered a coupe while dropping the hatches)
@Chris M – Yeah they sell them here, but they’re still pretty new. I only began seeing them a few months ago. Believe it or not, there’s an “X4″ that’s about to come out too, which is more or less a jacked-up 3-Series GT!
The BMW odd/even split is new as of this year, and the 4-Series is just a 3-Series coupe by a different name. The 5/6-Series have historically been separate, but I think all the recent 6es were based on the 5- platform anyway. Same goes for the 1/2-Series – unless it’s an “ActiveTourer”, which is a Mini-based car. Confusing enough??
EDIT: Sorry for the double post down below. Half the time when I hit “reply” on my phone it’ll just dump the comment at the end of the page and I’m not sure why. I am sure it’s a problem with my phone rather than the site, though. Drives me nuts! Here’s the X4, which looks to be a fat 3-Series GT with a raised suspension. They’ve also got the X1 and X3 based on the 3-Series platform, which BMW claims are CUVs, but they look more like wagons (of the Allroad/Outback variety) to me.
I think the minivan did the wagons in. But the SUV became popular too, perhaps as an alternative to the minivan. What people wanted changed for probably many reasons.
+1
Even the article is hinting on the turning point. Chrysler’s minivans hit the market in the mid eighties (’84 IIRC).
I think hatchbacks will come back because today’s sedans look like hatchbacks without the hatch. Instead they have mailbox flaps for trunk lids.
I love hatchbacks and it seems I went almost full circle: Renault 4, first car in our family.
Mazda 323, my first car in the US.
2 minivans
no SUV
Pontiac Vibe, current ride.
Yep, that’s it. What’s a Minivan/CUV/SUV but a more space-efficient hatchback that sometimes sits higher off the ground than a wagon. That, plus as noted above aren’t really our style, and most hatchbacks were fastbacks, with the notched K-variants the main exceptions.
Interestingly, there’s one other market where notchbacks are prefered to hatchbacks – China. I lived there for a couple of years, and virtually every car was a 4 door notchback sedan. It’s the only other market where the Jetta outsells the Golf, and since they sell more there, that’s why our latest Jetta was stretched in the rear and de-contented. (Most Chinese Jetta-sized and especially above have drivers – labor is cheap).
I believe part of the problem was that most people were initially exposed to hatchbacks through contacts with inexpensive imports and then the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin.
Hatchbacks were undoubtedly practical, and perhaps even sporty to some extent, but to many Americans, they also signified “inexpensive” or even “cheap.” At least, that was the feeling in my family.
My parents had no problem with small hatchbacks, but they were not viewed as “proper” family cars. A hatchback was okay for the second car, or a car for young singles or college students. They never would have bought a hatchback for their “main” car.
Nor would they have bought one of the “aero” 1978-79 Cutlasses or Centurys that looked like hatchbacks, even if they weren’t. My parents were Oldsmobile loyalists in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I remember both of them commenting negatively on the looks of the GM fastback intermediates. They thought those cars looked both cheap and odd.
Honda, in particular, seemed to understand this…the first North American four-door Accord was a notchback sedan, and when it introduced the first North American Civic non-wagon four-door in the early 1980s, it was a notchback sedan. Honda trimmed the interiors of both to suggest high-line domestic cars, and the American public bought as many as Honda could produce.
My mom’s friend had a Chevy Vega when I was a boy. I remember she enjoyed it very much. She had owned several hatchbacks over the years. Her current hatchback is an 08 Toyota Prius. Although not the most attractive vehicle on 4 wheels, it’s certainly been practical for her.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Hatchbacks died in the U.S. long before the SUV craze started, so SUV’s can’t be blamed for their demise.
Not only were they found on cheap cars (add Chevette and Omni/Horizon to your list), when both hatch and sedan models were offered, the base model tended to be a hatchback. The reverse is often true now (base model Fiestas and Foci are both sedans now, and the high-end ST models can only be had as hatchbacks). Only time will tell whether this can eventually reverse the hatchback curse.
Good points. I wonder if hatchbacks just look too much like fastbacks, which have also never caught on in mid size or larger cars. GM couldn’t sell that many of them in 1949-52, and the late 70s Aerobacks were a big bust. I knew a guy with an 80s Nissan Stanza hatchback sedan. I recall thinking “my, what an unattractive car.”
It does seem like the “premium hatchback” has never worked in this market–though that may be an oddity particular to France. Another illustrative example there is the Sterling 825/827 – while the car didn’t sell too well as a whole (due to the fact that Rover somehow found a way to make an Acura Legend unreliable) the hatchback versions are like hen’s teeth. I’d also attempt to use the total failure of the Rover SD1 to make an impact here as an example, but there were many more things wrong with that product launch than simply the body style.
While hatchbacks do have obvious practical advantages, they also have their downsides. My ’85 Accord hatch was noticeably noisier than the four-door (road noise suppression was not an ’80s Honda strong point anyway and the three-door format didn’t help) and when the hatch struts wore out, it became an annoyance. As a college student, it was a better compromise, but if I’d been shopping for something more grown up, I would have preferred a four-door.
“Hatchbacks were undoubtedly practical, and perhaps even sporty to some extent, but to many Americans, they also signified “inexpensive” or even “cheap.””
One can debate why this came to be, or whether it’s right or wrong that Americans think that way, but this is basically the answer.
I’m reminded of a TV show I saw years ago in which the fact that a character had seen his economic situation decline was driven home by noting that he was reduced to driving “a red hatchback”. (Possibly an episode of “Frasier”, referring to Niles after he and his wife divorced.)
Excellent cite!!! I have been recalling this Frasier episode the entire time I have been scrolling through these comments. Of the hatchback, Niles said something like “Why a car would be named after its most hideous feature is beyond me.” As a VW Golf driver at the time, disgust of hatchbacks was beyond me.
It’s probably due to increased road noise and the perceived ‘utilitarian’ nature of a hatchback that has caused Americans to avoid them. Hatchbacks have always been noteworthy for their lack of crumple resistance in an accident, as well.
Finally, there’s the whole security issue of having stored items being visible to thieves. I guess the idea is this isn’t as bad in an SUV since they sit higher and items in the cargo area aren’t as easily spotted to the casual observer.
Never saw a hatchback with visible stored items. Here’s the solution, it moves up and down with the hatch automatically. As for the road noise, exactly the same as in any coupe, wagon, SUV, CUV, MPV and the rest of the alphabet.
And lots of those covers are a pain. They keep you from putting taller things back there w/o removing it and then when you do remove it where to you store it. Many are louder on the inside because that area can act as a resonance chamber and you hear what ever you have back there flopping around easier.
All disadvantages of a hatchback, if there are any, are not unique for a hatchback but also relate to coupes, wagons, SUVs, CUVs, MPVs and the rest of the alphabet.
It’s true of hatchback coupes, but not notchback ones (remember those?).
“…and the rest of the alphabet.”
Love it!
@ AUWM, summarized: any car with a window in the 3th or 5th door.
Given the size of the deck-lids and trunk openings on many current models (looking at you GM) they’d make much more sense as a hatchback – then you’d at least be able to put something other than soft luggage in the trunk.
I was able to get a 55 inch TV in my ATS trunk without taking it out of the box.
I think it was actually the Citation and its horrendous reputation that began the downfall of hatchbacks. That was their make or break moment in the U.S., IMO. Will expand on this thought when I get home from work, don’t have time right now!
As promised:
I think the Citation was the turning point, and I’m not really sure how much it even has to do with it being a hatchback.
Back in the 1970s, hatches in America meant very small cars almost exclusively. Pintos, Vegas, Hondas, Toyotas, Datsuns, etc. The American subcompacts were accepted as basic, throwaway transportation but never taken seriously beyond that. The Japanese hatches were a huge hit on the coasts but hadn’t yet been embraced by the broader public en masse. Like almost all trends, automotive and otherwise, they started in the big cities and slowly spread. At the same point the Japanese and European cars began their outward puff in dimensions, GM was debuting the FWD X-cars. First year sales of the Citation were insane – it coincided perfectly with the second energy crisis and America had bought into the hatch in a big way. Then all the problems began and it was a huge story. X-car sales plummeted. Right around the same time is when Hondas and Volkswagens with trunks started popping up and began to outsell their hatch brethren in the same exact way that the GM A-bodies became an enormous hit despite being (literally) the same exact car as the sales-AIDS Citation underneath. That was the moment where hatches should have crossed over into the mainstream, but it wasn’t to be. A few short years later they were already being mocked in rap songs.
The type of people that loved hatches before the Citation continued loving hatches – which is why Saab was able to exist for many years and cars like the Honda Civic Si/CRX are considered cult classics. Mainstream America continued to accept hatches on their sporty fastback coupes and throwaway subcompacts as they did before, but it’s only recently that they’ve made any inroads again.
And is the Citation itself really to blame? Hardly – the problems it had weren’t at all related to it’s body style. Plus, they were all corrected within a few years… but we’d already moved on to Celebrities and Centuries and Cutlass Cieras. Just another knee-jerk reaction; America liking or disliking cars with or without hatches is, for the most part, one of those entirely arbitrary “matters of taste”. But the effect it’s had even to the present day is pretty dramatic. Car buying trends show that people want 4-door cars with hatches… yet they don’t want hatchbacks, which is totally insane if you stop and think about it for a moment.
Hatchbacks were great, growing up we had a Vega hatchback, and later a Dodge Colt hatchback.
Friend of mine bought a new Mustang 5.0LX hatchback, wonderful car.
I think what happened is the pivot point on the hatchback just moved further back and they became minivans and CUVs
The New Beetle and now Beetle are both hatchbacks, and mine could swallow huge amounts of cargo. It’s one of my favorite body styles.
Excellent! That’s still what I expect to see behind a Bug’s rear lid.
One size fits all.
YES which might be a Citroen C1, Peugeot 107 or even the Toyota Aygo all of which were not available in North America.
Pedro, the one above is a Toyota Aygo. But you’re right of course, the Citroën C1 and Peugeot 107 are the same cars.
El cheapo and very basic transportation with a 1.0 liter 3 cylinder, yet very practical little cars. Exactly how masses of (young) people want them.
looks like a lollipop. Everybody loves a lollipop!
The brand new Aygo, Manga-style !
Toyota Prius has been a very popular hatchback ever since 2004. Lots of room back there, especially with the back seats down. Around the coastal big cities anyway Prius hatchbacks are big sellers.
Its Kamm-type high-in-the-back shape is ideal for hatchbacks. As we see that shape going mainstream for mileage, maybe we’ll see more hatchbacks along with it.
Now that I think of it, I’ve had three hatchbacks, a Spirit of America ’73 Nova for 3 years, an ’86 Celica GT for 11 years, and my current 2010 Prius for 4 years so far.
The hatchback in my Honda Fit takes it from being a fun car of limited usefulness to a genuine all purpose vehicle. I have loaded all kinds of stuff into the little thing.
There’s probably less than zero demand for a Prius with fewer than five doors.
And Honda’s been making sedan versions of each generation of Fit primarily for various emerging Asian markets but also for Japan’s blue-rinse set, and has never bothered to even offer them here most likely because they’d have to charge too much less for the diminished style and functionality compared to the Fit hatch.
I recall seeing a Prius coupe concept a few years ago, with promises of going into production, although noting seems to have come of it.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–mHGLcnhX–/18ay36gt5l6t2jpg.jpg
That’s a photoshop, but it does look good. Makes me wonder if it would sell but I still suspect not. The Honda CR-Z’s petered out and Caddy ELR might as well have the steering wheel slimed with pus, but one is strictly a 2-seater and the other costs as much as a Tesla so that doesn’t preclude a 4/5 seater green coupe at a lower price point.
I like the Honda CR-Z, I think it’s a pretty cool car, but it’s the perfect example of how full of shit people are. If you told the internet in 2007 or so that Honda was going to build a CRX successor, it was gonna be priced like the original, plus it would have a manual transmission AND be a hybrid, you would get a billion virtual deposits or whatever. Yet, they can barely sell 10k a year.
Allegedly it’s too slow, too expensive and too heavy. The last one, fair enough – but we’re long past the days of 2,100lb. curb weights. That’s a given, and it’s not like there are lighter, nimbler cars available in the same class, or ANY other cars available in the same class. Too slow? Too expensive? I think those are some rose-tinted memories of the original.
The Cadillac ELR being a disaster waiting to happen really bums me out. I thought they’d do much better. That’s a really cool car. When I was at the NYIAS people seemed to be very into it. Maybe the price wasn’t such a smart idea, I dunno.
On the bright side, the Lexus CT200h also fits in this category and seems to do OK!
Nobody’s mentioned the effect BMW and Mercedes had yet? The E30 3-series in particular was *the* aspirational car of the ’80s and it was a shoebox sedan.
True; BMW’s last go-round with a hatchback was the 2002 Touring. Mercedes did have that odd short-tailed variant of the C-class that had a hatchback for a while, but that’s all there.
The Nova at the top brings up an interesting point though–both it, and the following generation Nova hatchback, looked identical to the 2-door sedan in profile. They simply combined the glass into the trunklid and moved the hinge point. You don’t even notice it’s a hatchback if you’re not looking for it. Maybe that’s an idea that needs to see the light of day again, especially given the steeply raked C-pillars and back glass of so many current sedans? They’e practially fastback in profile anyway, why not add some utility back in?
The current BMW 3- and 5-Series GTs are 5-door hatchbacks (with a close-to-fastback profile).
I liked the E36 Compact, sold here as the 318ti, but BMW seems to have sold about a dozen of them. It seems to have suffered from a perception as the “entry-level” BMW, and it didn’t fit into BMW’s marketing.
My understanding was that the 3-Series and 5-Series GTs were also selling poorly. They fall into a really odd marketing position because aside from being a five-door, the GT is substantially bigger and heavier than the sedan version. My impression was that the European market’s reaction was, “Er, what are these supposed to be, exactly?”
When I look at pictures of the 3-Series GT it looks horrible, but when I see them in person they look pretty sweet – and I’ve seen quite a few (which doesn’t really mean anything in regards to how well they’re selling). Does the one below look any better? I notice that cars with very metallic-looking paint don’t seem to show well in JPEG format, this color is more of a solid.
The other issue with the GT is, at least in the US, they’re AWD and automatic only as is the Touring (wagon). With those limitations and a price a solid $10k above a base sedan, most people looking at them probably figure they might as well go for the wagon. Probably more or less the same thing in Europe, except higher-end wagons there are a lot less niche.
@nlpnt – How many wagons are BMW selling in the U.S., though? I wouldn’t be surprised if the GT outsells them. They don’t even offer the 5-Series Touring here.
I think the 5 GT was built on the 7 platform and had a longer wheelbase – perhaps aimed at the Chinese market. For something that doesn’t sell well they’ve built something like 250,000 since introduction (from an article on a new BMW), which doesn’t translate into that many per year. More telling would be how many of those buyers wouldn’t have bought a different BMW if the GT didn’t exist?
It’s gone a step further now, where the 4 Gran Coupe, 3 GT and X4 represent the question “how tall would you like your 3-series 5-door fastback?” Surely they have saturated the market.
That would be a good idea. I’ve intimated that I am not a fan of the wagon/hatchback and part of it is the look. Maybe it would sell better if it looked more like a regular car? Who knows.
INMHO, hatchbacks only belong to cars smaller than the Nova like the Citation and Monza. For cars the size of a Nova, hatchbacks just don’t look right. GM should have made Station Wagons in production for the NOVA Group since they were basically large cars anyway you look at it.
Tesla Model S, Audi A7, Rover SD1…
Top model Renaults were also hatchbacks. This one was the last of the breed, the Renault Safrane.
Shiny Happy People in the background. Daddy got himself a nice set of wheels, a 268 hp Safrane Biturbo.
GM agreed with you for a spell. IIRC the chevy II had it thru 67. In 68 the big brother to Nova ( Malibu) had it for a while per the recent article and they dropped it for the Nova group. Not sure how well they sold but they sure meet the definition of handy.
I think Nova wagon with a small trailer would do anything my utilitarian self could dream up.
As we’ve talked about here before, a lot depends on whether a car was designed first as a hatch or first as a sedan. Cars where the sedan was the starting point often end up looking awkward in hatchback or wagon form because the pillar and door window shapes don’t match up. Conversely, cars that were designed primarily as a hatch or wagon tend to look sort of odd in sedan form — the current-generation Ford Fiesta is a good example.
There are a few cars that contrive to look like a three-box notchback while still having a rear hatch. The current Skoda Octavia pulls that off pretty well.
I love Nova (and all X body) hatchbacks – especially the 75-79. Those 1st gen Camry hatchbacks are awesome.
How can one blame the Citation, Vega, or Pinto? When the Accord was a huge hit as a hatch? So many Boomer go on and on about how great their first Accord/Civic/Japan Inc hatch was.
It is more to do with when Boomers turned to Yuppies, there were more ‘sport sedans’ available, and a BMW 3 or 5 series sedan was a status symbol. But, if they couldn’t afford one, the new Accord ‘trunk-backs’ would suffice.
Also, trunks became more roomy and practical, instead of just tacked onto a ‘opera window’ coupe. Compare 70’s personal lux coupe trunks to later era sedans and one can see why.
I have noticed that hatch sales bottomed out when Boomers were a (super?)majority of the new car market, so I have thought it’s partly generational.
Speaking as a Gen X-er who owned the old, cheap, tinny hatchbacks at a point in their lives when their crudities were readily blamed on age and condition rather than form factors and in mine when I was glad to have any car at all, then went to trunks when a hatchback became too hard to find used before going back to hatchbacks as a new-car buyer because I had missed their usefulness – I can’t be the only one.
And, judging by what I see on the streets and who’s driving them, I’m not.
THats more of a liftback than hatch back and what you call a Camry was sold here as a Corona thats what I;d shot yesterday when I discovered the cohort didnt work anymore its on there now to show you the difference in marketing Toyota employs around the world.
Negative, Bryce – that car was never sold in the U.S. From 5 minutes on Wikipedia I know it’s a T150 Corona/Carina II liftback. The first Camry sold in the U.S., and only one available here as a liftback, was the V10 model – which is the same thing that was sold in Australia, and the second one was the V20 model – also the same as the Camry sold in Australia (aka the 1st gen Holden Apollo). What they were called in New Zealand, or if they were ever officially sold there, I do not know.
From the front minor trim differences only The Appolo wasnt in NZ by that time the new widebody Camry was here it arrived in NZ in 1990 NZ was the proving ground before world release which saw a different lower power engine taller final drive and softer suspension those Apollo Camrys are very very rare here only being sold fo 12 months or so
Another view NZ models do not match Australia’s Oz didnt get FWD Coronas at all their last model was a Jap market RWD wagon imported and sold in 86 after that only Camrys but NZ had Coronas into the mid 90s, this is an 86 model the one at the top appears to be an 84.
I know they look similar, but they’re totally different. We didn’t get any FWD Coronas in the U.S. either – the V10 Camry (pictured in the article) replaced them here just as in Australia. I’m guessing the V10 Camry was also never sold in NZ. The car in your picture was called the Corona (T150) in Japan and the Carina II in Europe and it’s a smaller car than the American/Australian 1st gen Camry.
Thanx, man! Thanx for your photo of this RARE car (really rare)! I’m a fan of this chassis – T150. And I newer seen before the rear spoiler like on your photo. I think it’s a real Toyota part – # 76085-20040.
Also I know that on sedan Corona T150 Toyota installed another rear spoiler – part #76085-20030. It looks like on photo in attachment.
I have a plea for you – if you have more photo of this car – could you send it for me? Thanx a lot
Another one photo of rear spoiler Corona SEDAN T150
I think they are two different cars, Bryce. The Corona that you photographed was advertised in NZ by the host of the “That’s Incredible” TV show. I remember the chamfered taillights as being something that aided the drag coefficient…apparently. The car at the top of the page is a Camry – more angular in design and if related to a Corona it would be the previous generation.
So was the early 2000s mazda6 the last ‘full line’ midsize car? It could be had as a 4-door notch, 5-door hatch, or traditional wagon.
“Then there were cars like the Escort…which were most popular when sold in three- and five-door versions, losing sales appeal when moving to a traditional three-box format.”
When the 1991 Escort/Tracer was introduced, IIRC, the original plan was for the 4-door Escort sedan to come only as a hatchback, just like in the previous generation, while the 4-door Tracer sedan would come only as a notchback. I guess the idea was for the more downmarket Ford to get the “economy car” hatchback body style, while the more upscale Mercury would get the more formal notchback. This would establish some differentiation between the two, and some exclusivity for the Mercury
After one model year, Ford concluded that hatchbacks were going out of style so fast that the Escort couldn’t survive with a hatchback as its only 4-door sedan. So Mercury exclusivity went out the window; an Escort version of the notchback then appeared, complete with Tracer rear-end styling (since the body style had never been intended to be offered as an Escort).
On the flip side, when the original Focus was developed (after the Escort hatchbacks had been dropped) the plan was for the US to only get the sedan and wagon with the Escort ZX2 carried over until a Focus coupe with a trunk could follow. After much lobbying by the brass in Canada, the ZX3 was added (in the US as well) and proved to be a good enough seller that the coupe was scotched, the Escort ZX2 became a fleet queen and the 5-door hatch followed for MY2002.
When the 2008 facelift dropped the hatches in favor of the long-delayed coupe it joined the Escort ZX2 in the ranks of the unwanted and easily forgotten, and I suspect the next person to suggest Ford market a (sub)compact coupe with a trunk will be hung upside-down from the Glass House.
My father’s first american car was a hatchback, a 1973 Ventura. My mother learned how to drive with it.
I figure two things held hatches back. One of the mega sellers to the mainstream buyer was the early Citation. It quickly fell from favor and may have put a bad vibe in the segment. At the same time, things were very broughamy in the mainstream domestic market, and a hatch simply wasn’t a proper Brougham. The most formal of of the Citation’s cousins, the Skylark notch, was the longest surviving X car by far.
Cars like my father’s 1984 Chevette, with poor insulation and rattling hatch door were also annoying and made me a hatchback hater before I was old enough to drive! I liked the car’s styling but didn’t like riding in it.
Yesterday, I went to the hospital with a friend of mine who’s handicapped and while getting there in the paratransit bus, the rattling reminded me that 1984 Chevette hatch! I was sitting on a bench next to my friend’s wheelchair and I could barely hear the driver when she was speaking to me on the way back to my friend’s home! She told me that after riding all day on Montreal’s streets in that bus, she often feels her head is about to explode because of those annoying rattles! She still managed to have a smile and nice conversation while working in that miserable vehicle all day. I wouldn’t ride much longer in that bus than I did yesterday, I’d get crazy if I had to hear that insane noise all day long!
@Chris M – Yeah they sell them here, but they’re still pretty new. I only began seeing them a few months ago. Believe it or not, there’s an “X4” that’s about to come out too, which is more or less a jacked-up 3-Series GT!
The BMW odd/even split is new as of this year, and the 4-Series is just a 3-Series coupe by a different name. The 5/6-Series have historically been separate, but I think all the recent 6es were based on the 5- platform anyway. Same goes for the 1/2-Series – unless it’s an “ActiveTourer”, which is a Mini-based car. Confusing enough??
Wow that blue Nova sure brings back memories. My high school friend had a 1972 green version of this same exact car with a 307 Chevy V8, A/C and disk front brakes. It was a former little old lady car. We had more fun in that car! Before he was done with it he had that little 307 souped up with a performance intake and 4 BBl carb, headers and a power cam and we used to blow away the majority of other cars in races at the time. That car drank gas to warm an oil baron’s heart, had no brakes after about 3 hard stops but it sure went like stink when the go pedal was put down. Ah the memories of simpler times!
I think the Nova in this article has the 307, too. I saw the same car last fall and talked to the lady who owned it briefly. She said she wasn’t sure what kind of V8 it had, but it wasn’t a 350.
Your friend’s car sounds awesome! I’ve never heard of anybody spending any $$ on a 307 and there’s something about a warmed-up “economy” V8 that’s strangely appealing to me.
If I had kids in the back seat, I would feel safer with the extra crumple space in the trunk. I don’t know how many parents out there felt the same way. That may have had an effect on sales, but it’s difficult to say if that was a major reason. The trade off in carrying ability is a lot, the lift back design really seems to be the best of both worlds, although you probably do lose some body strength because of the large opening. That is probably some of the reason newer cars have such a small lid and high rear structure, to increase crash safety.
The small lid actually offers only very little protection if at all during any rear end crashes. The small lid’s purpose was just to conceal cargo(es) from passersby or prying eyes of would be thieves.
I was once involved in a case where a person with a hatchback got into an accident. It was not a good thing that the spare tire was not fastened down.
Good point. Having luggage in the passenger area also could be not good,
I think the thing that held hatches back in the USA was that they were precieved to be a cheap car. Most of the time the hatch version of a vehicle was priced cheaper then the coupe or sedan and advertised as being a price leader so most folks growing up in the 1970’s and 1980’s automatically consider a car with a hatch as cheap. it did not help that the bargin basement cars(like Chevette,Escort,Omni/Horizon/Pinto etc) were mostly hatch backs.
Then there is the fact that some cars with hatch backs are called liftback or fastbacks (such as the Mustang and the Camaro/Firebird twins and Celica etc) this further muddies the water regarding hatches.
THat Safrane posted above is a beautiful car! Man, I’d get one of those in a heartbeat. Of course I complain about having a hard time having my Mazda serviced in the boonies where I live, I can’t imagine owning a French car out here in “flyover country”…I also really like the Lebaron GTS way at the top. A neighbor growing up had a brown one, and a friend had an 86 Dodge Lancer (not the later Mitsubishi) that was just like it. I also had a Dodge Shadow and a Plymouth Sundance “Duster” that were hatchbacks, but kind of “disguised” as having trunks.