By on July 17, 2017

06___2018_honda_accord_touring

It won’t have escaped your attention that Honda hauled the wraps off its 10th-generation Accord on Friday. Some good things were added: trunk space, a ten-speed automatic, and turbocharged engines. However, as Soiricho gives, Soiricho also taketh away: the V6 disappeared, as did the coupe.

The move wasn’t surprising, as coupes (and non-crossovers in general) are currently enjoying the popularity of fish-flavored toothpaste. With their numbers dwindling, what car currently on sale today would you like to see as a coupe?

In 2005, I bought a three-year-old Accord Coupe, finished in silver with black leather seats and powered by the four-cylinder engine of the day. Back then, the Accord Coupe looked significantly different from its sedan brother, at least once one got aft of amidships. Designing a completely different (and, in my mind, wonderful) set of taillights for a low-volume Accord variation couldn’t have been cheap. This means I held the keys to a brace of silver two-door cars at one time: the Accord and the Mark VII. I’ve never fully considered that choice until this very moment.

The current Ford Fusion is a fetching looking thing, one which I think would be made even prettier if it shed two of its doors. The thought of the current aggro-Camry in coupe form would surely make Steph Willems weep, just as a twin-doored Malibu would arouse some of the Bowtie fans amongst us. A two-door Chevy SS would’ve been cool, but there’s an argument to be made that one is available in the form of a Corvette.

Of course, none of these dreams will ever come to fruition. The market has voted with their wallets and, with one notable exception, most buyers in search of a midsized car want them with doors that are four. How about you? If given the chance to coupe-ify a current model, what would it be? Or would you even bother?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

96 Comments on “QOTD: Are You Missing the Coupe Yet?...”


  • avatar
    arach

    1. The only reason coupes were worthwhile is they were significantly cheaper than the sedans. However, as that price gap shrunk, why buy a coupe? If I REALLY don’t need the rear seat, I’ll buy something like a Camaro, and if I really NEED the rear seat I’ll buy a Sedan.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      Sure the coupes LOOKED good, but they didn’t sell in enough volume to make sense for the OEMs. They really serve no modern benefit, and the “4 door coupes” persay have a lot of the aesthetics. As a market such as this shrinks, it makes sense to offer less of the “niche” products, and the coupe is a niche product.

      2. The V6s. Look, I was “one of them” the turbo 4 onslaught to me was like giving up your manlihood. Then I went to buy a new car and my tone changed… The modern turbo 4s are simply better than the outgoing V6s. The drive better, have more torque where you need them, and are more fuel efficient. I don’t know why the hate for them. They drive amazingly well… and if your looking for a “Real performance beast” then your probably buying a V8 anyway… The benefits of a V6 over a turbo 4 are non-existant in daily driving situations for 99% of americans, and therefore I think the move to the turbo 4 is logical. I think anyone who appreciates the V6 for DD duty will appreciate the turbo 4 more, as long as they can get their head out of the mud with their 90’s mentality of engine design… I don’t mean that cruelly, but most people I’ve met who are really upset about the loss of the V6s have never even driven a turbo 4. Heck, even the camaro and the mustang with the turbo 4s are better drivers around town than their V6 counterparts.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Some of us have functioning hearing and like accelerating over 3000 RPM. I’m driving a sports sedan not towing a Jayco.

        And, if naturally-aspirated 6-cylinders don’t have enough torque for you there are plenty of forced induction 6-cylinders to choose from.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          The war against NVH means that 99% of the sound and vibration differences between a V6 and a boosted 4 are kept out of the passenger cabin.

        • 0 avatar
          arach

          “sports sedan”? Its an ACCORD. A mid-budget automobile for getting from point A to point B.

          A turbo 4 typically out torques a V6 until about 4500-5000 RPMs, a level that a modern automatic won’t see unless its complete pedal to the floor, which happens once in a blue moon in Daily Driving situations.

          Now don’t get me wrong here. I drove a BMW M-Sport, a Cadillac ST Performance… I was a “sports sedan” buyer, but with the degradation of the market, there’s too few in the “accord” world that are true “sports Sedan” buyers, and most will gladly go to the Civic or step up to a BMW or Cadillac. The Accord niche is tiny.

          Looking at the Accord V6 torque curves, the new Turbo 4 should output more Power and Torque below 5250 RPM. Your telling me you spend more than 50% of your time about 5250 RPM? I spend less than 1% of my time there and I drive like an idiot….

          If you want a sports sedan, go buy a sports sedan. 99% – I will admit there’s a small percentage that are an exception – Will get more enjoyment out of a turbo 4 than a NA V6.

          However, there is a REASON companies like Honda and others are shifting torque curves down to 1400/1500 RPM and sacrificing peak HP figures that look great in marketing pitches, and that’s because most drivers appreciate it more.

          Once again, I’m not taking away from you maybe being the fraction of a percent that tracks the car and puts it through the paces- heck I share track time with the Accord race team and can appreciate the honda owners that put their cars through the paces- but for most people, the Turbo 4 gives them better performance for what they buy the car for- a daily Driver that “feels sporty” enough that they don’t feel like they sold their soul to practicality.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            With the “sports sedan” reference I was writing to why I would want a 6-cylinder in general. For example, I wouldn’t buy an F-Sport Lexus just to spend all my time torque-surf commuting just above idle.

            FWIW, I don’t consider the Accord to be a “sports sedan”. I expect that I would still prefer a V6 in one though. I like my noise and revs.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            I don’t ever plan to take my G37 to the track, but I still prefer its power band to a turbo 4. Let’s get off the dyno sheet and into the real world. The J35 in the Accord was hardly lacking in low end torque, and while those 2.0Ts deliver great torque on a dyno in a lab, in real life they don’t quite deliver on their promises. There is lag; lag which is felt more and more in lower gears. So that peak torque at 1500 RPM will only happen in top gear- conditions most people will never see, and which manufacturers recommend against (Google LSPI).

            Every time I wind my G out to 7.5 I smile. It could make more low end torque but it really doesn’t need it.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Modern turbo-4s are fantastic. The only down-side is the sound versus a good 6 or 8, but this sound disadvantage disappears in modern cars because they are typically well insulated, have 8-10 speed gearboxes that reduce RPMs and associated noise, and because most of us drive with the windows up and A/C on. If you can’t hear the motor, then the superior economy and great driving characteristics of a turbo-4 will be considered superior by most car buyers.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “If you can’t hear the motor”

            Hearing the motor is why I bought the car.

      • 0 avatar
        caltemus

        “The V6s. Look, I was “one of them” the turbo 4 onslaught to me was like giving up your manlihood. Then I went to buy a new car and my tone changed… The modern turbo 4s are simply better than the outgoing V6s. The drive better, have more torque where you need them, and are more fuel efficient. I don’t know why the hate for them.”

        Maintainance. I would much rather own and maintain a normally aspirated v6, over a more complicated 4-cyl that has many more components, some of them moving. The v6 would be less stressed in daily use. I’m sure that the turbo 4 is a better engine empirically, but nobody has had one outside of a warranty period yet. Gimme a larger, less stressed engine any day.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          ” I’m sure that the turbo 4 is a better engine empirically, but nobody has had one outside of a warranty period yet. Gimme a larger, less stressed engine any day.”

          Yes, of course. I’m sure all of those 2012 Ecoboost Explorers, Edges, and 2013 Fusions and Escapes are all still under warranty.

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            As the owner of an EB, I too have some trepidations ..I still have 3 years of Power Train warranty .

            Rest assured ,I will keep the B&B informed of any issues.

          • 0 avatar
            pragmatic

            My XR4Ti ran its turbo 4 cylinder reliably until I sold it with 280K miles on it.

        • 0 avatar
          slap

          “Maintainance. I would much rather own and maintain a normally aspirated v6, over a more complicated 4-cyl that has many more components, some of them moving.”

          The downside of some V6 engines is that when transversely mounted, the aft set of cylinders are difficult to reach, and things between the engine and firewall (like coils) may require alot more effort to reach.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            besides, some of you people act as though turbochargers were invented just 5 years ago or something.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          No replacement for displacement!

          As I said in the other Accord article on here, cut longevity in half and add 25k miles, if you’re lucky!

          And that intercooler sitting in open space behind the radar unit for the various safety/ACC bits will co$t an easy $3k if a large enough rock makes a direct hit under the “bumper!”

          That said, this is probably what will grace my garage in a couple years, but unfortunately, I’ll probably be dropping some serious coin on an extended warranty, which was never a consideration on my four previous Hondas, between the unknown reliability factor AND possible replacement of vulnerably-placed expensive components! (Welllll..insurance will HOPEFULLY cover the latter! I’m sure insurance will be higher anyway due to the apparent lack of a front bumper! Bump your lawnmower or snowblower in your garage, bye-bye $2,000, to say nothing if the only thing in front of the car is the garage wall!!)

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Is a manual transmission a requirement? Because you’ve gone from “I’m seriously disappointed Honda dropped the V6, so it looks like a V6 Camry is my next car” to “I’ll buy the Honda anyway despite worrying about longevity and spending lots on a warranty”

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            Nope. I can start out from a stop with a stick, but can’t coordinate my left foot and right hand in traffic.

            Guilty as charged on the flip-flop!

            Despite the turbo, and the few questionable styling elements (hood cut), this is still going to be the choice in the segment. And the Camry is down on features I have now, like memory seats, which I don’t want to give up.

            And I’ve driven Hondas for 23+ years, and I generally hate change.

            However, if this Accord turns out to be subpar, IMHO, I’ll grudgingly move on, or, more likely, drive my current car until the wheels fall off, by which time the Google-pods will have likely taken over.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I bought a Camaro when I did because it was just about the only 2-door model left on the market. Every single vehicle I purchased before that was a purpose-built coupe, from the 85 Toronado, the 86 Buick T-type, the Dodge Aspen, two different Oldsmobile Cutlasses… Even my most recent car purchase (as compared to SUV/CUV) was a 2-door Fiat 500. All of my pickups have been 2-doors… The only four-door CARS I’ve ever owned were either bought for me or given to me as hand-me-downs. The first one I beat to death (almost literally.) The second one became such an ongoing lemon that I actually SAVED money by taking on an auto loan on the Buick.

  • avatar
    MartyToo

    My hope is for a Prelude that isn’t as low to the ground as the pictures make it appear. If I can lift myself out of one it might be my choice when I eventually trade in my V6 coupe. I have less than 30,000 miles on mine and my only significant complaint is the paint.

    • 0 avatar
      Spartan

      I wouldn’t wait on it. We’ll never get another Prelude. I had two 88 Si Preludes and I miss them dearly. The closest modern day version of it was essentially the Accord Coupe and now it’s dead.

  • avatar
    Ermel

    If coupés need to look like the one in the picture, I for one am not going to miss them at all. *shudder*

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      I respectfully disagree: that ‘chop would be a fine Accord Coupe! (Take the same engine as the Type-R without compromising on the internal bits, but tune it down towards the refinement we hope to see with the Accord, but say around 285hp/300lb-ft on premium, and you have an instant Prelude!)

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Coupes were once popular for 2 main reasons. First, in the days before car seats for children a coupe was safer because the kids were effectively locked in the back seat and couldn’t “accidently” open a door to fall out while moving. Second, coupes were sportier looking and sometimes a bit lighter or more aero so a tiny bit faster than sedans in a time when most cars were very slow and not sporty driving at all. Reason 1 disappeared with the advent of car seat laws, which makes a coupes a royal pain in the back. Reason number 2 has largely disappeared because virtually all cars today are sporty. Remember a typical Impala in the 1960s did 0-60 in about 13 seconds with a top speed of about 100-110, while a 1960s Beetle could barely do 60. Things stayed slow in the 1970s and 1980s due to emission controls and CAFE, but today we have minivans that do 0-60 in 6-7 seconds and top out at 130 mph, which was faster than all but the big-block Corvettes in the 1960s. No wonder the sports car market is dying.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      Very Good Points.

      I think the Sports Car Market is also dying because budget cars today outperform yesterdays sports cars.

      My dream car growing up was a 70s camaro. I bought a 2nd gen z28, and after many years stopped driving it. It still pulled nostalgic dreams, but driving it sucked. A $15k budget sedan of today outperforms it in every front- cornering, accelleration…

      Today I don’t get frustrated driving up a hill in a budget sedan because “THERES NO POWER”. I have enough power with most vehicles. Sure I love my SPORTS CARs, but I don’t feel frustrated by the daily drivers of today like I did with cars from the 70s and 80s.

      I think your spot on with your points.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      @Stingray65 has nailed it. The coupe was an answer to a problem that no longer exists. Modern sedans look as good or better, perform about as well and offer for more functionality for modern needs.

      Having only 2 doors was indeed a ‘safety device’ prior to seat belt and child seat laws. Moving a child and a child seat into and out of a coupe is not a pleasant task.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        The loss of the couple has created a problem that didn’t use to exist; style to go with the performance. Why don’t I like sedans? Because they are staid family vehicles… the businessman’s luxury car; they are not sporty-looking or fun-looking. They’re drab and ugly on average BECAUSE they’re average.

        Why did I buy a Renegade when there are so many other CUV/SUVs out there–even in the Jeep lineup? Because it’s different. It looks like “fun” and not “family hauler.” Even my old Ranger has been mildly dressed up, a ‘sporty’ stripe over the rear wheel arches (enhancing that curve) to help make it look less boring.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Not to mention, by the time that kid is old enough to want his/her own door, the coupe you bought 5 years ago was ready for the junkyard. Cars last so much longer now, people want something that’s more flexible when it comes to accommodating various life changes.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    Yes, I miss the coupe already. For reasons that are personal to me, that consist of entirely “because I like it and that’s what I want in a car”, I will always prefer a car with two doors.

    My ideal car layout is a 2 door, 4 seat coupe with adequate back seat room. I did indeed consider the 9th generation Accord coupe, but for various reasons I decided to go with a Mustang instead. When it comes time to shop again (and I hope that isn’t until 2030!), I will probably have a much shorter list but I am hoping that someone will still offer that body style.

    • 0 avatar
      Bercilak

      I’m with you. That’s why I have a Challenger. I studiously avoided sedans for all of my driving life because, well, they’re sedans. No more, no less. I do have a sedan now as a daily driver because it’s not available as a coupe, which is something I’d like to see. It’s a Chrysler 300C.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    “A two-door Chevy SS would’ve been cool, but there’s an argument to be made that one is available in the form of a Corvette.”

    Right, except the Corvette has no back seats. A successor to the Pontiac GTO would have been welcome. These days if you want a GM coupe with usable rear seats you have to go with a Cadillac ATS. Which is reasonable. You want an oddball body style? Pay extra for an oddball body style.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Maybe a stretch to call this a coupe but I’ve always wished the 2 door Tahoe would return.

  • avatar
    Dan

    The first draw of a coupe to me isn’t sportiness, either real or perceived, it’s that a door big enough for marginal rear seat access is also big enough to keep the B pillar out of my peripheral vision and to accommodate a full length arm rest.

    That horrendous looking Hyundai shoe box from a few years back wherein the driver got one big door while the passenger got two little ones was actually on to something.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      I loved the door situation on the RX8 and the Hyundai Veloster…

      Thats the only thing I have good to say about either one.

    • 0 avatar
      dividebytube

      *ding* – with my height, I have to push the seat all the way back on most cars. With sedans that means I often get to look at the pillar when I flick my eyes out toward side windows. No such problem in a 2-door – even in something as small as a Mini Cooper which has good visibility in all directions.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “That horrendous looking Hyundai shoe box from a few years back…” is still available.

  • avatar
    spookiness

    I’m a hatchback fan and have owned 3 and 5 door HATCHBACKS. Trunk openings are getting so tiny that a lot of sedans would make better sense as liftbacks. Accord, Fusion, Civic are candidates that come to mind. Lincoln MKZ? I’d drive a 2 door liftback, but I realize my tastes are weird and no company would survive by building a car around my preferences.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    How many times do I have to scream it at the top of my lungs….

    Sedans are the new coupes!!!!

  • avatar
    sutherland555

    As has been talked about over and over, the market trend is massively shifting towards SUVs and CUVs. Sedans (while the market won’t die out anytime soon) is fast becoming a large niche market. Coupes make a tiny percentage of sedan/coupe so why would bother even making them.

    Personally I won’t miss them. They’re not very practical. In most cases, they look sporty but really don’t drive all the different from their sedan counterpart. In the past, they were a status statement of sorts a la executive coupe but that is certainly no longer the case.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I just plain like the looks of a Coupe…When I went shopping for vehicle, I knew that I better buy something I like. Not something I “should” buy because I’m an old guy. ..I wanted something that made me feel good..

    I have owned 2 Camaro’s, a Firebird, and two Mustangs. I love the way they drive, and I love the way they look. We always had a second, more practical vehicle. The last time around was different…

    I looked at all the Coupes…Yes, I even drove 40 miles to check out an Accord Coupe.

    At the end of it all, The EB Mustang checked all the boxes for me. Yeah, the front end is a little ugly.The side, and rear view is gorgeous .(.IMHO)..Fuel economy can give new meaning to YMMV. Around town its a blast to drive..If I need to do a long highway haul ? The EB works a lot sweeter with 93 octane.

    I understand why the Coupe is vanishing. I also know why the SUV’s are so popular…The needs, and wants of the bulk of the market drive the manufacturers decisions.

    I will miss the Coupe.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    Nope. “too many doors” is the kind of thing my dad would b!tch about. back in his day a 4-door sedan was what your parents drove.

    I on the other hand don’t give a s**t. I couldn’t have cared less that my SRT-4 had 4 instead of 2 doors.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      @JimZ….I think exactly the same as your Dad : )

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      For me, four full doors or even the impression of four full doors (like you see on GM’s and Ram’s full-sized extended-cab pickups) is two too many doors. I don’t like ’em and I won’t buy ’em, even if I like their overall appearance otherwise. I’m currently limited in truck choices to either Ford’s full-size, GM or Toyota’s mid-size… or nothing.

      As far as cars, my choices are almost as limited, though the Fiat 124 is EXTREMELY tempting (as compared to the Miata.) My ideal choice would be the extended-cab Fiat Strada/Ram 700 for fun and sufficient load-carrying for the vast majority of my needs.

  • avatar
    zip89123

    Coupe or 2-door pickup, don’t miss either one.

  • avatar
    hpycamper

    A Mazda3 coupe might be nice.

    So 4 door sedans are more practical? I call Bulls***. Since I started hearing and reading this, for the past several years I’ve been casually observing the number of occupants in vehicles, and any time of day or night in all different situations, it is rare to see more than 2 people in a vehicle.
    A 4 door sedan might be practical if you only have one vehicle and you have children, but then a minivan would be the more practical choice. A 4 door sedan is no more practical for most of us than a pickup. That back seat might get less use than the pickup bed.
    4 door sedans are as much a style choice as some are suggesting coupes are.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Of course a mini-van is the ultimate practical choice. A sedan is and always was a compromise of some kind for instance instead of a wagon.

      However having lived through the reign of the PLC, and even having owned some ‘shooting brakes’ I can confirm the much improved functionality of the 4-door.

      Having to help passengers/clients/in-laws etc into and out of the back seat of various Cordobas, Grand Prixs, Gran Torino Elites, Thunderbirds and Mark IV’s was rarely if ever ‘dignified’. After switching to an Accord sedan, I ‘saw the light’.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        “Of course a mini-van is the ultimate practical choice”..No argument here.

        However when you take “practicality ” out of the equation , the Coupe is my choice.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I have always believed in owning a Personal vehicle and a Practical vehicle; they don’t necessarily need to be the same vehicle. I’ve had bosses that wanted me to use my personal vehicle like a truck and in nearly every case I’ve counted with, “If you need me to use a truck, provide me a truck.” They usually have. If they’re too cheap for that, then I’m usually gone.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      I just don’t like the extra door length in tight parking spaces. Also easier to get to stuff in the back seat, even besides people!

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Then go with the half-doors for the back, like the Saturn Ion did for a few years and most extended-cab pickups (Except Ram and GM full sized today.) Lets you keep the shorter doors but you don’t get that ugly four-door look that detracts from the lines of the car.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Yes. Sedans the size of coupes with coupe like interior and passenger room are f**king stupider than the fake SUVs your wives/gfs get wet for;

    I feel like I’m channeling Tres… I can feel the powerful anger…

    • 0 avatar
      WheelMcCoy

      Tres (Darth Vader): Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me.
      DW (Supreme Chancellor): I can feel your anger. It gives you focus… makes you stronger.

      The Force Awakens The Last Jedi 28-Cars-Later. :)

  • avatar
    mikey

    @ 28…I was kinda hoping that “Tres, or DW would express their views on that very point.

    Channel away : )

  • avatar
    cicero1

    Jaguar XE.

  • avatar
    TTCat

    Nope – just bought one…

  • avatar
    JuniperBug

    Who’s Soiricho? Does he hang out with Sanjeev?

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Honda’s founder has been gone almost a couple decades, I think!

      With all this following-of-the-lemmings to turbos, and with misses like the CrossTurd, ZDX, and the 2012 Civic, he is rolling over in his grave so vigorously that his remains could be used to drill to the center of the Earth by now!

  • avatar
    carguy

    In a word: No

    Taking a mid-size sedan and turning it into a coupe is a pointless exercise as it subtracts significant passenger capacity while providing no dynamic advantages.

    Who wants a car that has all the drawbacks of owning a sport car while delivering the driving dynamics of a mid size FWD family sedan?

    As it turns out, not many.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    There was a time when most cars—American cars in particular—could be had in sedan, coupe, wagon and possibly liftback or hatchback body styles. Not anymore. I don’t lament the loss of that.

    I did think big personal luxury coupes were cool…the Eldorado / ETC, Toronado, Riviera, Mark Series, Thunderbird and Cougar.

    • 0 avatar
      zoomzoomfan

      I think my car (Mazda6) would look nice as a coupe, but that’s all it would do. Look nice. Otherwise, there’d be no point.

      Now, the wagon form of it, which is sold overseas, is downright awesome and is exactly what I’d have bought if Americans had good taste and it made business sense for Mazda to sell a wagon here. Alas, crossovers have taken over and if you want a “wagon” from Mazda, they’ll happily sell you a CX-3, CX-5, or a CX-9. An argument could be made for the Mazda3 hatch, which is what I had before I got my 6. I have to say, I miss the practicality of a hatchback/wagon bodystyle. There seemed to be no limit to the amount of cargo I could fit in that seemingly tiny car.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        We have wagons! Except they’re on stilts!

        Why that took flight is anyone’s guess! And why I’m not in marketing!

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          I used to call my Saturn Vue a, “jacked-up station wagon on steroids” because outside of the fact that you sat so tall in it, the vehicle was almost pure station wagon with huge cargo capacity for its size. In fact, you’d have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s and look at the old panel trucks (sometimes called Panel Wagons) as many were simply station wagons without the back seats (and doors) and had nothing but a long load floor. The early CUVs like my Vue had the seats and used the lower portion in the back for spare tire and hidden storage while the seats themselves folded flat (not tilted, the way new CUVs lay their seats.) They also had more room behind the seats than fits a single (maybe two if you’re lucky, side-by-side) large hard-shell suitcases.

          In some ways I regret selling that old Vue, the fuel mileage and performance was great… but GM had already shut the brand down years before I sold and already had it up to 130K miles.

          Today’s CUVs on average don’t have enough room to even drop a single, three-ball bowling bag behind the back seat.

    • 0 avatar
      hpycamper

      Kyree: I lament those losses, and the loss of convertibles, Rancheros, 2 door wagons, hard tops (no window posts for those of you too young to remember). Think of a modern Mazda6 Nomad style, bitchin’.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus

    I’m single and likely will be for a long time. Even if I get married, I don’t see kids coming along anytime soon.

    I drive a sedan now. I don’t like it because its a sedan, I like it in spite of the fact that its a sedan.

    The rear doors are only opened when I put groceries in or when I go to clean it. My friends grand daughter rides in my car, but its a once every few months type thing. I carry so few passengers in the rear seat, its not like having a coupe would hurt me in anyway.

    Not everyone buys a car because it’s practical. Some buy it because they like it. Coupes look better (usually), and as others have mentioned, its easier to see out of since the B pillar is further back. I also find them easier to get in and out of, even though I’m not exactly a big guy.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    To answer the QOTD: ” what car currently on sale today would you like to see as a coupe?”

    —- Every single brand and model that currently comes out as a sedan. A wagon version would be nice, too.

    Kill the four-door cars; they’re irrelevant when considering all the crossovers. Let the coupes be the personal fun/luxury cars and get rid of the extra, mostly un-used doors.

  • avatar
    statikboy

    Not the coupe, but I miss the 3-door hatch and the wagon.

  • avatar
    Chan

    1. Normal cars of all body styles now offer as much performance as most people will ever need. A “cheap coupe” offers nothing over its sedan counterpart.

    2. Child seat laws have made coupes impractical for most families.

    3. Cost competition and production streamlining have marginalised the business case for cheap coupes.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Simple way around that–don’t sell a coupe to a young family. The people who want a coupe are NOT going to have a family; they’ll either be empty-nesters or singles with few thoughts of marriage and family.

      Again, the crossovers have taken over as the “family car.” Anything else is a toy, one way or another.

  • avatar
    daviel

    Coupe is the only kind of car I want to drive. I have a KIA Forte Koup SX (turbo) that is great to drive.

  • avatar

    4 doors, 4 seats – SS
    2 doors, 4 seats – Camaro
    2 doors, 2 seats – Corvette

  • avatar
    don1967

    Why waste 30 grand on a “sporty” coupe when you can throw on a chest wig and hang around the local Goodlife Fitness gym for free?

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    Yeah, the whole car business is in transit from large engine to low torque turbo 4 cyl. And later on 10+ years to battery and 20+ to self driven cars. I get it now! The battery cars now are just the beginning – Tesla Model 3 and Chevrolet Bolt of the world. It the beginning of the technology like the 1st iPhone was in 2007!

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      I’ve already said that we’re likely at the beginning of another Malaise Era. Just like 1969-1970, we’ve got CAFE/emissions/save-the-planet at one end, but unlike what happened at the other end back then, the 1973 oil crisis, we’ve got autonomous Google-pods being pushed on the sheep!

      It took, I’d argue, until the late 1990s or even into the early 2000s to recover from the last one!

      There’s no recovery from the one about to begin!

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      “low torque turbo 4 cyl”

      WTF are you talking about? Modern boosted 4 cylinders may have some faults, but low torque is not one of them.

      For example, a Fusion 2.0T makes 20 more peak ft*lb than a Camy V6.

      The Fusion also makes peak torque at 3,000 RPM vs 4,700 for the Camry.

      They may not get the rated fuel economy, they may all blow up at 80k miles, and they may be impossible to fix when they do.

      But none of that changes the fact that the current crop of turbo 4 cylinders do a fine job of providing downright pornographic levels of torque.

  • avatar
    George B

    What I like most about Coupes is the position of the B pillar further back. The forward position of the B pillar is a major annoyance if you have long legs. However, a relatively long wheelbase 4 door sedan achieves this result with the added utility of 2 additional doors for rear seat passengers.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “However, a relatively long wheelbase 4 door sedan achieves this result with the added utility of 2 additional doors for rear seat passengers.”

      Which for most of the people wanting coupes simply will never be used as seats, but rather repositories of trash and junk if they’re even left upright at all.

  • avatar
    Pete Zaitcev

    My daily driver is not only a coupe, but it’s also a convertible and RWD! (from certain point of view, as Obi-Wan Kenobi used to say). Take that, Honda!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mchan1: It’s not surprising that the top 3 are foreign CUVs from the likes of Nissan, Honda and Toyota. The...
  • mchan1: Where the vehicle is built as in assembled? Not really. Business is now conducted internationally so you have...
  • JimZ: yes, and?
  • JimZ: no, he insulted an entire nation of people because of how they act.
  • slavuta: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c om/2015/08/qotd-are-all-these- turbocharged-cars-going-to-las t/

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff