Hatchback is more practical

>hatchback is more practical

This is often repeated among the automotive crowd, especially by car magazines, but as a blanket statement it just isn't true. I bought my first hatchback about a year ago (a Mazda 3) and I have found the practicality to be vastly overrated versus a sedan.

A hatchback has the capability of storing much more than the sedan. With the seats down the cargo area in my car is huge but I do not find that I use this feature very often. I do however often carry passengers in my car with their stuff and this is where the hatchback starts to look less practical.

With the seats up the Mazda 3 sedan is measured at 12.4 cubic feet while the hatchback is measured at 20 cubic feet. This seems like a big difference so where is the problem? First off, the way cargo volume is measured for a sedan's trunk is different from the method used for a hatchback. Supposedly this gives a typical error of about 10 - 15 percent in favor of the hatchback. That means the hatchback more accurately has about 17 - 18 cubic feet behind the rear seats. This is still bigger than the sedan but it also includes a space which is higher than the backs of the rear seats. This space is not all that useful for most cargo and the vertical orientation of the cargo area versus the trunk makes it less useful for many items. Take a look at Car and Driver's in depth review of the Mazda 3 for example. They were able to fit 6 pieces of luggage in the trunk of the sedan and only 5 in the hatchback with the seats up.

So the space advantage is very situational. Obviously if you regularly carry large pieces of cargo the hatchback is a good choice. If you regularly carry passengers and their things it might make more sense to go with the sedan. The sedan has a further advantage of being cheaper and more aerodynamic meaning it will cost less up front and cost less in fuel.

Thoughts?

You're a faggot. Hatchbacks are objectively better than sedans. Kill yourself.

I went from a hatchback to a saloon car, both similar sized cars, I can't fit fuck all in the saloon compared to what the hatch area would swallow.

Hatchbacks are far more practical. They just don't look as aesthetic.
Americans just don't like them because Americans have a size complex and think they're gay. MUH LIFTED TRUCKS.

t. European with a sedan and 0 regrets. I like the added separation between boot and rear seats, but I can't buy a plank of wood from the hardware store and get it home. Hatches are better for normies.

If you're frequently going to be carryinf over 2 passengers and their shit then you're better off with a station wagon over a hatch or a sedan.

If you're the only one who is in the car most of the time or have at most one passenger then without a doubt the hatch is the most practical

I agree that a wagon would be better but in the US the only compact wagon is the Golf and their is no way I'm buying a VW. A wagon also still has less fuel efficiency than a sedan.

with the seats down, yeah. did you actually read the op?

>I can't buy a plank of wood from the hardware store and get it home
I used to have a subcompact sedan that didn't even have folding rear seats and I could do that.

>Hatchbacks are just mini estates

Situational is fine, hatchback rear seats split, so you can have a rear passenger and have something poking through.

It depends on the car in question I suppose, but I couldn't get a 21" trinitron crt into the boot of my BMW 3 series, the space inside is pretty good but the opening just wasn't enough to get an old computer monitor in.