carcounsel.com |HID|

Growing up, most boys like sports cars, the less practical and more phallic the better. Not me. I was into the AMG Hammer (and later the 500E), the E34 M5, the Saab 900s and 9000s and even the underpowered Merkur Scorpio but short of Porsche’s 944, Nissan’s Z or E30 M3 or 325is nothing less practical really set my heart aflame.

It wasn’t so much a matter of practicality but rather of point to point times – often the less racy a car looks and the higher it sits the more speed you can carry. Amazing how fast your average speed climbs when you’re less worried about potholes, blind spots, and law enforcement.

All else being equal I would always desire a 5 door hatch or wagon most, then the sedan, then the coupe, then the convertible.

But over time I’ve learned something that complicates things: that all else is never equal in the automotive world, whether the brochure says so or not.

I’ve talked before about where mass is located on a car and how torsional rigidity transforms the car’s ride and handling. Well the fact is that a ‘2 box’ hatch or wagon is rarely as rigid as the same car as a ‘3 box’ sedan, largely because of the size of the aperture of that rear hatch and the fact that the rear bulkhead is eliminated – also true of sedans with folding seats. (Eagle eyed car junkies equate small trunk openings with engineers obsessed with body stiffness). As an example, those who purchase a Subaru WRX sedan over a wagon get a far stiffer body. And in body stiffness, the E46 3 series sedan is stronger than the wagon, and both are stronger than the sedan with folding rear seats).

Which brings me to the next major difference between wagons and sedans – where the weight is located. The weight balance between front and rear is superior on a scale – wagons have a greater rear bias – but the weight does increase quite a bit and that weight gain is all focused on very high and far back in the chassis. As a result the center or gravity and polar moment goes up and the handling gets pretty lairy, comparatively speaking. Ask anyone who’s driven an Evo sedan and a Japanese Market Evo wagon and they’ll tell you how the wagon’s easier to rotate at low speeds but more a handful in quick transitions…

So that leaves the coupe, a body style I never saw the point of in cars like an Accord or 3 series – I mean if you have a rear seat better to have easy access to it, right?

Well yes and no. The thing is carmakers make changes to the suspension tuning, steering, body structure and driving position in the transformation from sedan to coupe and the result is often more pronounced than you’d think. Drive an Accord or Civic Coupe* and it feels like a Prelude (or TSX) in its suspension rates, while the more steeply raked windshield and more driver focused interior packaging lend a racy feel – if you’ve driven E36 3 series sedan and coupe you’ll know how much difference the rake of the windshield alone can make…

So where does that leave convertibles? Well if they’re based on a sedan I suggest you leave them on the dealer’s lot – I’ve never driven one that was worth having. But ‘ground-up’ designs like Boxster, MR2 spyder, SLK, etc. can be very enticing, particularly when you consider how low the mass is located when you have only a fabric structure above your head. (Folding steel roofs add too much weight and that weight is too high or nearly as high and too far back in my opinion – shame on Mazda for following the herd in its already compromised Miata). And the worst place to add weight is high up, which is why real driver’s cars – the Audi RS4 for example – have a sunroof delete option and Mitsubishi’s using aluminum roofs on the EVO and the Outlander, BMW’s used Carbon Fiber on the M6, etc.)

All that said, old habits die hard – I’ll still take a sedan so long as it’s the mechanical equivalent. The upcoming Civic Si sedan for example….

*
Two-door models of the 01-05 Civic get a unique set of body-structure reinforcements intended to provide the car with appropriate ride-and-handling characteristics, and that includes a mid-floor crossmember and floor gussets, center-pillar stiffeners, reinforced front-seat brackets, lower and upper A-pillar stiffeners, an instrument-panel beam, and a rear bulkhead. – Car and Driver

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 27th, 2006 at 11:31 am and is filed under errata, technical.