Debate: Hatchback or Wagon?

In this time of mangled automotive terminology, your definition is as good as any.

For me, it's as easy as taking a glance.

The A3 is clearly a wagon, if an all but useless one.

But then there are things like a Malibu max, what exactly would you call that?

And we all know that the Dodge Magnum was a wagon, but Chrysler didn't call it one.

I suppose I'd consider it more a 5dr hatch than a wagon..the 3rd window doesn't mean much--many 5dr hatchbacks have had a 3rd side window--see the '80s US Escort, Rover 3500, Sterling, etc. Sometimes a 5dr hatch has a steeper rake to the C-pillar, sometimes not. What makes the 5dr Golf a hatchback and the wagon version (badged a Jetta in the US) a wagon? Or the 1st gen Focus--it was available as a 5dr hatch and a wagon...with the Golf/Jetta and the Focus, the wagon clearly has more rear bodywork than the 5dr..longer cargo area, longer roof.

Come to think of it, "hatch" isn't much of a bodystyle classification to begin with - it's more like a feature of another bodystyle.

I've always gone by your latter definition, Drew, of a wagon being about the same length as a sedan of the same model and a hatchback being significantly shorter. At least for compacts. With European mid-size cars, the hatchback styles typically are the same length as sedan styles but have a sedan-like or fastback profile, so they remain very different from the wagons.

All of these are hatchbacks:

Subaru Justy

Suburban

Nova SS

Plymouth Duster

International Scout Traveller

Yugo

3rd and 4th gen F-bodies

Vega coupe and wagon

I think a suburban is a wagon

Honestly, I don't think there is a way to define it - automakers will call them whatever they think will sell better. I would venture to say there are 2 things that make something definitively a wagon though: cargo section longer than it is tall, or a 3rd row seat. Of course, either of those can come into question with "crossovers", but that comparison was thrown out in the first post.

if there was ever a poster child for such a discussion, the A3 is most definitely.

i would say the A3 is like 52% hatch.

if you look at a Focus or Astra wagon, there is so much more length behind the rear wheels than regular hatches. The A3 doesn't have too much overhang like the Focus or Astra, or Jetta wagon for that matter.

What I think is even as entertaining for discussion are those sedans that are blending into hatches...some the BMW and Audis, or cars like the Mazda6 and Opel Insignia hatches......

Malibu Maxx suffered in the market I feel because there was some confusion on the wagon vs. hatch bit....... the rear rake was not fast enough for a hatch and the rear did not hang over enough with an upright enough rear to be a wagon. If chevy had kept the short wheelbase on the Maxx and sloped the back glass more, we may have had a hatchback.....or citation, part duex..... or maybe even a five door cutlass salon....

Magnum to me was one of the most interesting evolutions of wagon design by the way, and that rear hatch and cargo area to me was one of the most useful and clever designs ever. Too bad the Magnum was a Chrysler....lol.....

one of the most awesome wagons ever......clearly of wagon proportions, overhang longer than tall, clearly a wagon

I'm going with hatch for both...

Malibu Maxx suffered in the market I feel because there was some confusion on the wagon vs. hatch bit....... the rear rake was not fast enough for a hatch and the rear did not hang over enough with an upright enough rear to be a wagon. If chevy had kept the short wheelbase on the Maxx and sloped the back glass more, we may have had a hatchback.....or citation, part duex..... or maybe even a five door cutlass salon....

IMHO it suffered in the market because people didn't see themselves in the market for a midsize hatch/wagon. Most people in the market for versatility at that price were shopping CR-Vs and Equinoxes.

Also, it wasn't very versatile at all. The cargo space is shallower than the sedan mostly because you can't get taller items in due to the raking of the rear roofline. Also, pushing the wheels to the corners made the cargo area significantly more narrow and less usable. I mean it's got the biggest back seat of any car its size and I think my parents recognized it wasn't the most versatile car, but bought it based on how roomy it was.

I think the Malibu Maxx suffered in the market because of the ugly face (a trait of the sedan as well) but as long as you didn't look at the front, the rest of the car was kind of bulldog attractive. The interior.... well, that was another story.

The Magnum was most certainly a wagon no matter what Dodge wants to call it. The 300C wagon was called an Estate in Europe. You don't get much more wagon than that without using the actual word.

Interestingly, both the Commonwealth of PA and Progressive Insurance list our CR-V as a "Honda CR-V Wagon" on the respective identification cards.

I took crossovers out of the debate because of the pollution of the name by Honda and BMW lately.

But here is another one to ponder:

Ford Flex - Wagon

Scion xB - Hatchback

yet they have a very similar shape.

Interestingly, both the Commonwealth of PA and Progressive Insurance list our CR-V as a "Honda CR-V Wagon" on the respective identification cards.

IIRC, in both the Colorado and Arizona registrations and on my State Farm insurance info my Grand Cherokee's bodystyle is listed as 'sta wag' or 'SW'. A typical 5dr CUV or SUV is basically a high riding tall wagon...

Maybe the genesis of this confusion can be traced to the 70s when some wagons lost the traditional tailgate for a liftgate or hatchback. Prior to that time wagons almost always had tailgates.

My Chevelle wagon is an example of this.

To me, if it has a liftgate, it is a hatchback, a tailgate is a wagon.

I don't buy that one as the 73 & up GM mid size were wagons absolutely.

Drew I'm with you on the cargo area being longer than tall.

Suburban and Flex are wagons also from someone who had more wagons than most people had cars in their first decade of driving.

Yep, I agree. A wagon/estate has the same length as its sedan/saloon equivalent, whereas a hatchback would have a shorter rear overhang.

An A3 sedan without a longer rear overhang would look awfully truncated.

Yep, I agree. A wagon/estate has the same length as its sedan/saloon equivalent, whereas a hatchback would have a shorter rear overhang.

An A3 sedan without a longer rear overhang would look awfully truncated.

well... it'd look like a Golf.

Here is the Golf/Jetta wagon....so the A3's rear overhang is between that of the 5dr Golf and this...closer to the Golf, so I'd categorize it as a hatchback. Not that it really means anything..

Yep, I agree. A wagon/estate has the same length as its sedan/saloon equivalent, whereas a hatchback would have a shorter rear overhang.

An A3 sedan without a longer rear overhang would look awfully truncated.

well... it'd look like a Golf.

Huh?

Yep, I agree. A wagon/estate has the same length as its sedan/saloon equivalent, whereas a hatchback would have a shorter rear overhang.

An A3 sedan without a longer rear overhang would look awfully truncated.

well... it'd look like a Golf.

Huh?

I think he meant 'hatchback' instead of 'sedan'.

Drew Dowdell - January 26, 2012 - CheersandGears.com

Yesterday on Facebook, Aaron Bragman a new friend I met at NAIAS, and I got into a friendly back and forth over whether the Audi A3 was a hatchback or a wagon. I insist that it was a wagon and Aaron insists it is a hatch. My original position is that the A3 is a wagon because of the third rear window. Aaron says no, it is an identical car to the Volkswagen GTI which couldn't be called anything but a hatch.

Now before I go on, I'm going to preempt some of the old timers here. For the sake of this argument, we are going to use body style definitions that apply to cars post.. oh... 1980 or so. That means a sedan is a 4-door and a coupe is a 2-door regardless of the existence of b-pillars or not.

Interesting discussion, but I have to ask; if we're going with the 'loosey-goosey' modern marketing terms, what's the diff?

I for one would prefer to drive a "wagon" than a "hatch".

Because the cars that fit old-timer definitions are entirely out of production now and have been since the early '80s

By far, the vast bulk of body styles here today is the same as it was in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970... with the exception of the near extinction of hardtops. 2-box, 3-box, hatch, wagon, all older than your cut-off, and all still here. Just sayin.

By far, the vast bulk of body styles here today is the same as it was in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970... with the exception of the near extinction of hardtops. 2-box, 3-box, hatch, wagon, all older than your cut-off, and all still here. Just sayin.

True, but the terms really don't matter anymore..the marketing gurus will define the products however they want to....the rental car companies define them randomly also (calling a Cruze a midsize, a Malibu a full-size, etc). None of it matters...it just is what it is...

The terms don't matter to some people... and they do to others.

Many of the users of these terms are not defining anything, they're just throwing words around indiscriminately.

The EPA, rental companies, marketers.... these are not 'definers'.

You know what; I could be on board with the shifting of some terms if all surviving examples of earlier versions were somehow (sadly) stricken from existence.

But when one looks at a 2010 Impala, points & says 'That there is a full-size car'... and a '96 Impala SS rolls by, it's all out the window for me.

IOW; I can call a minivan a "bus" until others copy me... does that change the definition somehow? If enough people are wrong about something, does it become 'right'? Look at what we call a GM 3.8L engine vs. a DOHC : "OHV".

The terms don't matter to some people... and they do to others.

Many of the users of these terms are not defining anything, they're just throwing words around indiscriminately.

The EPA, rental companies, marketers.... these are not 'definers'.

You know what; I could be on board with the shifting of some terms if all surviving examples of earlier versions were somehow (sadly) stricken from existence.

But when one looks at a 2010 Impala, points & says 'That there is a full-size car'... and a '96 Impala SS rolls by, it's all out the window for me.

Ok...by that rationale, one could argue the '76 Impala was but not ones after that ... Size categories like full size grow and shrink with the times they are in...consider something as small as a '49-52 Chevy, then a '55 Chevy, a '59 Chevy, a '76 Impala, an '85 Impala, a '10 Impala...all different sizes, but all were categorized as full size (or 'standard' as it was called in olden days). Or 'compact'--with Chevy, something as big as a mid '70s Nova or as small as a Cobalt would be considered compact depending on its point in time...

Ultimately, the public doesn't know and doesn't care in general..such terminology means nothing to them--all they care about is how much per month a car is and the gas mileage and what Consumer Reports says about it....

Categorization terminology today seems to exist for car geeks like us to argue about on the internet.

Peace out...

Well, in your example the '49-52, '55 & '59 are non sequiturs, as there was no other size.

But... point made.

In parting, we're not here as 'the public'- consumer reports' message board is for them types.

Here, I would hope we aspire to be a bit better edumakated.

The misapplication of names comes with the simple fact of time passing to a degree - but the notion of a 4-door "coupe" is just beyond the pale.

The misapplication of names comes with the simple fact of time passing to a degree - but the notion of a 4-door "coupe" is just beyond the pale.

Well, I understand the rationale, even if it is just marketing...'sedan' just seems so pedestrian a description for sleek 4drs, esp. those w/ frameless door glass like the CLS. Nothing to complain about, IMO.

It's 'everything' to complain about in mine.

Marketing wears down & dilutes almost everything, eventually.

It's 'everything' to complain about in mine.

Why? You can't change it, so what's the point? Expend the energy of complaining on something productive...

What like rolling over and accepting any and everything to the point that you even believe that you can't make a difference anymore. That sounds like a perfect plan for failure to me.

At one point it time, it was 'pointless' for mercedees to try & convince people a 4-dr could readily be called a coupe... yet look at you.

Call BS when you see/hear BS - and a 4-door coupe is pure BS.

I'm so sick of the bodystyle name game, that I'm just calling things whatever I feel like... 4 doors... appliance. Shorter than 180 inches... ****box. Unibody SUV... minivan. CUV... retarded wagon wannabe. ;-)

Well we've already progressed to the point that everything is just a generic CAR. Avalanche, Silhouette, CRV, 1500 Ram, all cars now a days.

Well, in your example the '49-52, '55 & '59 are non sequiturs, as there was no other size.

But... point made.

In parting, we're not here as 'the public'- consumer reports' message board is for them types.

Here, I would hope we aspire to be a bit better edumakated.

No other sizes?

No one calls an Impala a full-size because the Corvette co-exists. As a 2-seat sports car, those are in 2 separate categories straight down the line. Or is the Corvette a "compact"?

Cheap gadabouts (2-seat again for the Met) also fall outside the 'family car' category too, IMO... but duly noted, DD.

Really liking those 2-tone hues on the Met!

Ok, how about a Studebaker Champion? Surely that would be a family car. Willys Aero? Nash Rambler?