Yeah, my hatchbacks have all come with cargo covers, and I just leave them always there and closed unless I need the space for some reason.
I suspect that whether that looks “normal” or “suspicious” varies regionally. Where I live now, I haven’t had a problem.
It also helps that it looks like it belongs there. As opposed to when I would toss a sheet over the stuff in the back of my car which is more like someone leaving their purse on the front seat of a car with a sweatshirt draped over it.
Plus, a combination of where you live and shear luck will certainly play into it as well.
My wife’s last two cars (a Subaru Outback wagon, and a Mazda CX-7 crossover) both have/had thse covers. They are essentially like old-school retractable window shades on spring-loaded rollers.
I never noticed a difference. Maybe I’m just used to noisy cars?
Very strange. I’ve never seen a hatchback without a parcel shelf that keeps everything hidden. Even my parents’ car had one, and that was older than I am. I only take mine out if I’m putting the rear seats down to fit something big.
Price, available space to park, fuel mileage. Also, Europe has far, far better public transportation systems than the U.S.
I vaguely remember my hatchback being slightly louder, however on my current car (a sedan), at the moment, I have the back seats flipped down and I can hear a lot more noise. Not just road noise, but the suspension and other various squeaks and creaks coming from back there.
This is basically what the back of my hatchbacks (and lots of others) look like. You can see cutouts in this specific model for a cover/shelf, but it’s just an option, you’d have to buy it if you wanted it.
A Model 3 is not. It has a normal sedan trunk, not too far from a BMW 3-series sedan. However, the Model S seems to fit the category:
I don’t get this. Sedans are not as popular these days but some of us still like them better than SUVs (ugly, poor handling, poor efficiency) or hatchbacks (ugly and small). But a rear hatch in sedan form seems unequivocally better than a trunk. It increases the cargo space without ruining the lines of a sedan.
That said, it would require an extra structural member if my Model 3 had a liftgate, making the glass roof a tad bit less nice.
I saw a Porsche Panamera in the supermarket parking lot yesterday and it seemed to be a liftback, along with the Ford Mustang Mach-E.
And right there is what I mentioned before. The notion that “hatchback” means “ugly and small”. But a so-called “liftback” is just a hatchback using a sedan(saloon) or coupe profile.
By that same report, the Mach-E is alluded to as a “crossover”, and Ford itself sells it as a Utility Vehicle. (Which IMO makes giving it a “Mustang” name a further slap in the face, on top of the four doors. And there’s nothing “utility” about the “4-door coupe” profile. Look guys, you canned a perfectly fine line of regular family cars as monay-losers to go all-in on SUVs “except for the Mustang”… so now anything you come up with that you want to sell as worth driving is going to be called that?)
Panameras *are" “liftbacks” from all I can tell, though I don’t really know what Porsche marketers make of it.
Again, I’m totally not clear on how a liftback is different from a hatchback is different from an SUV or even a CUV.
According to the Liftback Wikipedia page, it’s the angle of of the slope. 46° or more (ie. VW GTI) is a hatchback, whereas 45° or less is a subset of hatchback called a liftback.
I disagree with you on the reason. SUVs are much more profitable for the manufacturers, between their marketing (SUVs are superior) & elimination of their less profitable competition (traditional sedans) of course there are a lot sold.
As for me, I always owned a hatchback/liftback (some were close to that 45° rear slope) until I just couldn’t buy a new one anymore. They still exist as first car/econoboxes & the past couple of years we now have them on the luxury end (Porsche Panamera, Audi A7, etc) but nothing, or at least very, very limited options in the middle segment where most of the sales occur. I had a Mazda6 hatch that @steronz referred to. I loved it & was pissed that they continued making/selling them in Europe but I couldn’t get one in this country when I needed a new car. It had fully opening rear doors so that family/friends could get in & out without me needing to put my knees in the dashboard & my nose into the steering wheel & them contorting like a pretzel to get in/out plus it had the large rear opening to put in/access my gear which is regularly in & out of my vehicle. While it didn’t have the visibility of an SUV because it sat lower, sitting lower meant less drag/better gas mileage as well as better handling because of less body roll.
When the Accord Crosstour came out I was drooling to buy one; a practical hatch with Honda’s reliability? Take my money, please…until I opened the hatch. The shock towers took up so much interior room as to make it that I couldn’t fit my bike flat in the back. Instant ‘no’ for me.
I always liked it, conceptually. But the hatch opening is absurdly tiny. Did you ever consider the Toyota Venza as an alternative? It was the more boring of the two, but seemed a more usable design.
If you look again at the Celica liftback…
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1976-Toyota-Celica-Pictures-c4191#pictureId=13508227
…notice how the verticalish rear bit with the tail lights remains. My hunch is that it was easier structurally to design. I’m thinking of how you put together a book case from Wal Mart and you have those wire crossbrace pieces to keep it from moving from left to right. If the bookcase isn’t square and plumb, that ain’t good. So the hatchback, which deletes that crosspiece, might require more bracing elsewhere because of chassis flex.
I asked my dad if he thought we should consider a hatchback. “Nah, they rattle too much.” That was when American mfrs were putting out crap—rattling when you slam the door, chrome falling off, etc.
I didn’t even know they made Celicas in the 70’s. I had no idea they were around for that long.
Not being a ‘car guy’, if you asked me what that picture was, I would have said ‘a 60 or 70 something Camaro fastback’.
And looking at pictures of 60’s/70’s Camaro fastbacks, I think it would have been a reasonable mistake.
And if you ask most people who are “car guys”, they would totally agree that Toyota totally copied the styling of American pony cars when they designed the first generation Celica. I’m sure that was on purpose, since they intended for the Celica to compete with the Mustang.
I have heard some car guys opine that most 1970s era Toyotas were basically styled like American cars, only smaller. You could even get a Corona with a front bench seat and a column shifter.
You can say that again. I sat in one on the dealers lot; didn’t bother to take it for a test drive. he led me to believe it was basically an Avalon wagon. Oh goody, I won’t feel any bumps in the road on the way to early-bird dinner.
Funny thing is, what would have confused me is the brake lights. The car might look kinda like a Camero, but the brake lights look like they belong on a Mustang.
And this is the ‘not a car guy’ thing now. What tips me off that a car is a Mustang is that very specific pattern stamped into the doors. This picture didn’t have that. However, now that I’m looking, it appears that started right around the mid 70’s. Earlier Mustangs looked really similar to that picture.
1976 Celica
1970 Mustang
It was, because I had one.
And how often did people say “how do you like your prius”? I used that that question multiple times a day.
Given how few people knew what an Insight was and how popular the prius was, it just got easier to tell them I liked it and keep moving.
That we do have in common!