Hatchback vs. Trunk
07-21-2003 | 02:10 AM
#19
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,372
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Originally posted by Burmite
Hatch. A hatchback I think would make designing a better looking rear easier. Long swooping glass all the way to the rear like on the 3rd and 4th gens looks awesome. The Corvette Coupes look so much better than the Hardtops. The hatch is also more practical with extra storage space.
Hatch. A hatchback I think would make designing a better looking rear easier. Long swooping glass all the way to the rear like on the 3rd and 4th gens looks awesome. The Corvette Coupes look so much better than the Hardtops. The hatch is also more practical with extra storage space.
07-21-2003 | 08:41 AM
#21
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 766
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
To add my .02 cents to this discussion, I'll come down on the side of a coupe as opposed to a hatch - but in the end it really doesn't matter one way or the other. I wouldn't be offended if the hatch made a return.
An explanation for the shape of the rear floorpan that I read way back in 94 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that the third gen car was a monocoque design and to maintain the inherent strength of a monocoque body, openings had to be as small as possible. The openings in the third gen structure weren't really all that small and contributing to a weakening of the design was the overly large hole in the structure created by the hatch. The article went on to say that in order to address structural concerns with the third gen, openings (ie. doors and hatch) were made smaller on the fourth gen car and the rear floorpan had designed into it a deeper (than the third gen) inverted box section in order to add strength to the unibody. If one compared the hatch size of the third gen to the fourth gen, the hatch opening of the previous car was larger.
I think a coupe would allow for greater structural rigidity which pays dividends in performance as a stiifer body structure contributes to a more effective suspension and also gives the car a more conventional cargo space. Rear quarter windows would also alleviate the claustrophobic rear seat area as well and break up the oversize b pillar. I don't think that a coupe automatically means a less sporty presence than a hatch (despite the funnelling action of rain/water run-off into the trunk when the hatch is open having entertainment value all it's own:-).
What the General really needs to address is the design/layout/execution of the passenger cell.
An explanation for the shape of the rear floorpan that I read way back in 94 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that the third gen car was a monocoque design and to maintain the inherent strength of a monocoque body, openings had to be as small as possible. The openings in the third gen structure weren't really all that small and contributing to a weakening of the design was the overly large hole in the structure created by the hatch. The article went on to say that in order to address structural concerns with the third gen, openings (ie. doors and hatch) were made smaller on the fourth gen car and the rear floorpan had designed into it a deeper (than the third gen) inverted box section in order to add strength to the unibody. If one compared the hatch size of the third gen to the fourth gen, the hatch opening of the previous car was larger.
I think a coupe would allow for greater structural rigidity which pays dividends in performance as a stiifer body structure contributes to a more effective suspension and also gives the car a more conventional cargo space. Rear quarter windows would also alleviate the claustrophobic rear seat area as well and break up the oversize b pillar. I don't think that a coupe automatically means a less sporty presence than a hatch (despite the funnelling action of rain/water run-off into the trunk when the hatch is open having entertainment value all it's own:-).
What the General really needs to address is the design/layout/execution of the passenger cell.
07-21-2003 | 08:55 AM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Performance nuts will tell you:
Trunks are lighter than hatchbacks. Glass is heavy, and there is a LOT of it in F4.
Now, that being said, I managed to load an upright 240V air compressor in my Camaro SS when I bought it - pretty nifty.
The guy at the store I bought it from was rather surprised it fit.
Trunks are lighter than hatchbacks. Glass is heavy, and there is a LOT of it in F4.
Now, that being said, I managed to load an upright 240V air compressor in my Camaro SS when I bought it - pretty nifty.
The guy at the store I bought it from was rather surprised it fit.
07-21-2003 | 08:58 AM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by PacerX
Now, that being said, I managed to load an upright 240V air compressor in my Camaro SS when I bought it - pretty nifty.
The guy at the store I bought it from was rather surprised it fit.
Now, that being said, I managed to load an upright 240V air compressor in my Camaro SS when I bought it - pretty nifty.
The guy at the store I bought it from was rather surprised it fit.
07-21-2003 | 09:27 AM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,531
I'm all for performance! But I start to think of all the times the hatch has been so useful.
The sheer amount of stuff I've fit in my car whenever I move. I think it was 700-800lbs last move. Also the 9'x11' roll of carpet, the 32 inch TV, 2 breakfast tabel chairs, etc. (not all at once of course, lol) All of this in a high performance sports car. GM should've emphasized this more in it's advertising.....
Either way it wouldn't be a deciding factor for me. As far as aesthetics go, they could make a good looking car either way. Weight of glass? Could they reduce glass area and still retain visibility? Would going to IRS free up additional room? How much and where? Could the new stucture be adapted for increased rigidity and still have the hatch? I wish I knew.....
I've seen the storage area of 1st and 2nd gens and they are pretty small compared to the 3rd or 4th. IMO my car is VERY practical for what it is.
The sheer amount of stuff I've fit in my car whenever I move. I think it was 700-800lbs last move. Also the 9'x11' roll of carpet, the 32 inch TV, 2 breakfast tabel chairs, etc. (not all at once of course, lol) All of this in a high performance sports car. GM should've emphasized this more in it's advertising.....
Either way it wouldn't be a deciding factor for me. As far as aesthetics go, they could make a good looking car either way. Weight of glass? Could they reduce glass area and still retain visibility? Would going to IRS free up additional room? How much and where? Could the new stucture be adapted for increased rigidity and still have the hatch? I wish I knew.....
I've seen the storage area of 1st and 2nd gens and they are pretty small compared to the 3rd or 4th. IMO my car is VERY practical for what it is.
07-21-2003 | 09:50 AM
#25
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 382
From: Round Rock, Texas
Beyond performance issues, I vote for a trunk w/fold down seats ... security of contents and security of passengers from contents in a collision. It's not always a bag of diapers being stored in the back 
07-21-2003 | 10:54 AM
#26
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,711
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by SharpShooter_SS
An explanation for the shape of the rear floorpan that I read way back in 94 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that the third gen car was a monocoque design and to maintain the inherent strength of a monocoque body, openings had to be as small as possible. The openings in the third gen structure weren't really all that small and contributing to a weakening of the design was the overly large hole in the structure created by the hatch. The article went on to say that in order to address structural concerns with the third gen, openings (ie. doors and hatch) were made smaller on the fourth gen car and the rear floorpan had designed into it a deeper (than the third gen) inverted box section in order to add strength to the unibody. If one compared the hatch size of the third gen to the fourth gen, the hatch opening of the previous car was larger.
An explanation for the shape of the rear floorpan that I read way back in 94 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that the third gen car was a monocoque design and to maintain the inherent strength of a monocoque body, openings had to be as small as possible. The openings in the third gen structure weren't really all that small and contributing to a weakening of the design was the overly large hole in the structure created by the hatch. The article went on to say that in order to address structural concerns with the third gen, openings (ie. doors and hatch) were made smaller on the fourth gen car and the rear floorpan had designed into it a deeper (than the third gen) inverted box section in order to add strength to the unibody. If one compared the hatch size of the third gen to the fourth gen, the hatch opening of the previous car was larger.
) for safety, and adds a usable rear storage space. It also serves as a de facto rear brace to keep that C5-sized rear hatch opening to keep the body from flexing in typical hatchback fashion.
07-21-2003 | 11:57 AM
#28
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,531
Originally posted by jg95z28
Hatchbacks add weight because of the excessive amount of glass used. If I wanted a mini-van... I'd buy a mini-van.
Trunks are the only way to go!
Hatchbacks add weight because of the excessive amount of glass used. If I wanted a mini-van... I'd buy a mini-van.
Trunks are the only way to go!
Right now I can carry almost anything I want AND have excellent performance! If the Mustang and my Camaro had similar performance than I would choose the F-body because it's so much more practical.
No practicality is not my prime concern, but don't underestimate it's weight when making a car purchase (sports car or not)...especially when you can only have 1 vehicle.
07-21-2003 | 01:09 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
Originally posted by Joe K. 96 Zeee!!
That's fine for those who have the budget and space for a 2nd vehicle. For others though, versitility is a nice feature when you want a performance car and don't want to drive a mini-van/truck.
Right now I can carry almost anything I want AND have excellent performance! If the Mustang and my Camaro had similar performance than I would choose the F-body because it's so much more practical.
No practicality is not my prime concern, but don't underestimate it's weight when making a car purchase (sports car or not)...especially when you can only have 1 vehicle.
That's fine for those who have the budget and space for a 2nd vehicle. For others though, versitility is a nice feature when you want a performance car and don't want to drive a mini-van/truck.
Right now I can carry almost anything I want AND have excellent performance! If the Mustang and my Camaro had similar performance than I would choose the F-body because it's so much more practical.
No practicality is not my prime concern, but don't underestimate it's weight when making a car purchase (sports car or not)...especially when you can only have 1 vehicle.
A trunk can be just as convenient when offered in combination with a fold down rear seat.
