Sometimes it’s a little cathartic to admit that something dear to you is also maybe a little ridiculous. Doing so frees you from the burden of having to justify and defend your object of affection from any rational standpoint because you just come out and admit that rationality is not part of the deal. You can let yourself just like something, period, even if that thing really doesn’t make any sense. That’s where I think I’m at with one of my favorite car body styles, the two-door station wagon.
Yes, a two-door wagon! These are really pretty rare now, as in our modern era two-door cars in general are getting pretty rare. But a two-door wagon is even more so, as they really don’t make a hell of a lot of sense, objectively.
Now, I feel like I should clarify something here: I’m not talking about shooting brakes; those are two-door wagons, yes, but they’re two-door wagon sports cars, and as such they’re entirely freed of the burden of making any practical or rational sense. Shooting brakes are their own category, and not the same as just a two-door wagon. Remember this chart?
Shooting brakes are conceptually different than two-door wagons. A two-door wagon is something like the Chevy Nomad:
It’s just a station wagon, but only with two doors. This is sometimes done for styling reasons – maybe the Nomad rides the line of shooting brake, but I’m not sure. Sometimes, a two-door wagon is made because the small overall size of the car could make the addition of two extra doors difficult, or, more likely, just too expensive.
Take the Chevy Vega wagon, for example:
I always thought these Kammbacks were cool. Actually, maybe that one should count as a shooting brake? Look at those wheels, and that GT badge! Well, if so, then we have plenty of other examples, like the Opel Kadett Caravan:
That is just a two-door wagon. It looks like some back doors could have fit there, too. So, here we have a good example of why these make no sense. It’s a family car, designed to haul people and stuff, but you still have to squirm into that back seat like it was a coupé? It really is sorta silly. But I still love it.
The Germans seemed to like two-door wagons. Volkswagen had a few, including the Type 3 Squareback:
I never miss a chance to show a Type 3 cutaway, because I love the packaging so much:
VW also had a two-door wagon for their larger, more upscale Type 4, and this one really baffles me and drives home the madness of the two-door wagon. Because if we accept that VW didn’t make the Type 3 Squareback a four door for cost/size reasons, then how do we explain this:
The VW Type 4 wagon had only two doors, but there was a fastback version, built on the exact same platform, that had four doors, as you can see right above there. So… why didn’t the wagon have four doors? There’s definitely room, and of those two cars, the wagon is the more likely family car that would really need four doors, so what the hell was VW thinking? The wagon could have been the same as the fastback to the C-pillar, then had the wagon rear? Why didn’t they do that? I’m baffled.
I mean, Chevy pulled it off with the Corvair wagon, which wasn’t that much bigger, really:
I think one of the best examples of the two-door wagon madness may be this 1958 Dodge Regent, which had both two- and four-door wagon variants:
These were not small cars. And there was no difference in size between the two- and four-door wagons:
So… what was the point of the two-door wagon? It’s not really any sportier, the design overall is pretty much the same, it’s just a good bit less convenient, for no really good reason! It makes no sense!
And yet, I think it’s cool as hell, and of the two, I’d probably pick the one with half as many doors. Because I have brain problems, I suppose. I can’t think of any other reason to justify why.
I love two-door wagons. And they’re ridiculous. I’ve made my peace with that. I hope you can, too.
I read that 2 door wagons were referred to as estate wagons. The purpose of them was a lower cost for a vehicle that was used for work where items needed to be out of the elements. Don’t know for sure, but sounds like it makes sense.
I’m so radical that I would have a 2 door pickup truck!!!
I own a ’65 Suburban. It’s basically the cross of a 2-door wagon and a pickup. It freakin’ rocks.
I am also broken. For some reason, I wouldn’t want to drive around with the back seat laid flat in a four-door wagon, but doing so in a two-door wagon is perfectly fine. So in my addled brain, the two-door wagon has more usable cargo space.
I know, this makes no sense.
You’d probably be deeply upset at the thought of a five-door hatchback van, such as the Suzuki Alto. It even rubs me the wrong way. The linked photo is of the temporary rear seat in it’s most comfortable position.
https://picture1.goo-net.com/050/0506633/J/0506633A30230307W00116.jpg
Yeah two door wagons look cool, but you know what looks cooler? Four door pillarless hardtop wagons! They are the reason for electric windows, because you will want all the windows down at every opportunity.
The world needs two door wagons just like it need two door pickups.
Two door wagons are optimized for one row of seating, and cargo from there back, but adaptable to two or three row seating.
SAAB 95 for example with three rows, three cylinders, three doors, if you count the rear and you should because how else are passengers going to get to the third row.?
I love 2 door wagons too! You missed some, as the GM A-bodies got the 2 door treatment in wagon form in the 60s. Chevelle 2 door wagons are just like the Dodge Regent you speak of, giant boats of metal and glass, but only two doors. So dumb, but so great! This falls in line with the trend of the late 60s and into the 70s-80s, the personal luxury coupe, Giant beasts but only two doors.
A very odd entry into this is the 2004-2006 Pontiac GTO, which looks reasonable on the outside, it actually has a cavernous back seat. Problem is, the door and front seat dont really let you get into the back seat, as the door is not much bigger than it would have been on a car with 4 doors. I know as I owned one for a few years. Then you realize that when GM made the GTO, it was really just a Holden Commodore that they pulled the back doors off of, and it makes sense.
I love me some 2-door shaggin’ wagons. ‘Cause those wagons be sizzlin’ like fajita meat! And bring your partner and see where this 12-pack takes us……
Your avatar and this comment make much sense to me
As a car-guy favorite it makes sense, on an aesthetic level. The 2-door wagon carries the lines of the car all the way to the back with the fewest interruptions possible. On the other hand they were often compromised due to relatively low volume – the slim C pillar on the Dodge leaves the hump of the tailfins looking lost and random, and (to pick on DT’s fave) those awkward fake vents on 2-door XJ Cherokees hiding a thicker hatch pillar to make up for the lack of the second intermediate one.
On the other, other hand – when Opel did build a Kadett B four-door wagon it retained the sedans’ and coupes Coke-bottle effect that the 2-door wagon dispensed with, due to needing to share the back doors of the 4-door sedan. That was a case of 2-door cars having long been the norm in Germany and the 4-door wagon mainly being built for export into France which was quickly becoming accustomed to 5-door/one flexible loadspace cars as the norm with the Renault 4 and 16.
Functionally they were chosen mainly for child safety, in the pre-carseat era when door latches were sometimes untrustworthy on sharp turns. The price you paid functionally was it was harder to load bulky objects because there was no way to open a side door and pull them along from their front, or selectively pick something at the front of the loadspace.
I was amazed by the sheer size of the interior of the Dodge Regent – almost 40 square feet!! 😮 – until I re-read it and noticed that they measured it with the tailgate down. Boo.
According to the ad up there ^^^, with the seats and the tailgate down, the cargo area was just a skoche over 10 feet long and nearly 4 feet wide. If we assume the tailgate constitutes two of the 10 feet, even with it closed there should be about eight feet available. About 8′ by almost 4′ should still get us in the area of 30sqft. That’s a lot of space, door-count be damned, and it puts a lot of pickups to shame.
I think this sort of thing does make sense for certain use cases. It would be perfect for someone who is traveling solo and wants to carry a lot of stuff in a lockable and weather-proof way.
The ability to take a 4×8 sheet with the tailgate closed was the basic marker of adequate size for wagons back in the day.
Ford’s 1960 two-door Ranch Wagon is one of my favorite designs of all time…I’m right with you there, Jason.
Followed closely by the two-door Mercury wagons of ’59 and ’60 are also amazing.
The contradiction of many modern four-door cars – easy access to a rear seat that’s not suited for most adult passengers.
My favorite 2-door wagon is the ’63Thunderbird onto which someone grafted the top and sides of an Olds Vista Cruiser.
Had to look that up – looks gorgeous. A Ford counterpart to the 1954 Chevy Nomad concept which was a Corvette shooting brake unlike the production model.
Link for the curious. It is amazingly well-executed.
I too am fond of the 2 door wagons.
My differentiation between two door wagon and shooting brake is simpler.
Does it have rear seats?
Pretty sure the Volvo 1800 ES has rear seats (not necessarily fit for adult humans) and it is literally Torch’s poster-boy for a Shooting Brake.
I think the more consistent delineation between SB and 2DW is a c-pillar. The SBs essentially go from b-pillar to d-pillar while the 2DWs have at least a minimal c-pillar.
Nah, the difference is that a shooting brake is a station wagon derived from a coupé, while a two-door wagon is derived from a two-door sedan.
It’s just because every single style of vehicle looks better with 2 rather than 4 doors. That’s why it’s so tragic that impractical stuff is vanishing.
I love me some 2 door cars, but nah, some cars are better with 4 doors. I present to you, the Mitsubishi Evo, the Galant VR4, the Subaru Impreza WRX STI (even though the 2.5 RS 2 door looks cool too). My Ford LTD looked way cooler than a standard fox body mustang, but that was helped by it having a 5.3 turbo LS and 10.5in slicks on the back
Totally agree — depending on the design, having a big, blank expanse of sheet metal can be a bad thing. I think some cars benefit from “grass is greener” from their rarity, like how I see a 2.5RS about once a year and think the 2-door looks cool…but if I saw them every day, I’d probably change my mind.
Also, the GTI/Golf…IMHO, looks twice as good with 4 doors. Now when I see a two-door, it looks “off.” I’m also starting to feel that way about Wranglers and Broncos, but my rational brain sees more offroad function in the 2-door models, even if they look a little odd. That’s just because since the JK came out, 95% of models I’ve seen are 4d. With Bronco, it’s probably 75%.
Specific cars, maybe.
Coupes in general look better than sedans though, at least to me. There will always be some exceptions.
4 door hardtops look way cool, especially wagons. It’s not so much the doors as the pillars.
I think it’s about whether a car has a B pillar or not.
I disagree with your theory.
The 2nd generation Corvair could be had as a 2-door or a 4-door hardtop where neither had the B-pillar. While the 4-door looks fine, and it is cool that it lacks a B-pillar, the still 2-door looks better.
The ’65-’67 Plymouth Belvedere could be had in:
The hardtops had no B-pillar, the sedans and wagons did. By looks, I’d rank all 2-doors above all 4-doors (wagons excepting). It’d be:
That many configurations were pretty common in the day, and I think across most models that offered as many configurations, I’d generally feel the same.
The new Charger looks better as a 4-door.
4th gen Lincoln Continentals look equally good as 4-doors and 2-doors.
Like I said above, some specific cars may be exceptions to the rule, but I stand by my statement that specific *body styles* are better as two doors. So the Charger or Conti may look better as a sedan, but coupes in general are better looking than sedans.
I am in the opposing camp, I think four doors look more balanced (no rule without exceptions, of course) – but I still want two-doors to exist.
And, hidden door handles on rear doors should not be frowned upon. A door handle adding anything to the design rather than taking away is rare, the P1800 and P1800ES being exceptions.
I spent quite a few years climbing into the back of the Squareback in the 80s. Never bothered me much, and I think 2-door wagons are just fine. The only beef I have with 2-door cars is the doors are usually impractically large, especially in tight parking lots, and I’ve inevitably had issues with the heavy doors causing some sag after a while, especially if that jerk Kevin keeps getting drunk and leaning on the open door even after I keep telling him to stop.
In fact, it wasn’t until I was much older that I even realized the Squareback wasn’t a 4-door. It just never even registered with me, and never really bothered me to climb in the back. There were so many more 2-door cars in the era in general, it was just par for the course.
That jerk Kevin is your friend?
Thanks a lot, he puked into the folded top of my convertible out in the parking lot. You have no idea how hard it is to clean vomit off the headliner of a convertible.
Is Kevin the same guy who used the glove compartment opening in my 1987 Chevrolet Turbo Sprint as a beer opener? Screw that dude.
Personal favorite is the SAAB 95
As a fan of two door wagons, I’m here for this. I like wagons and I don’t like children, this is why I love the Nomad.
Compact hatchbacks like the Toyota Yaris are basically short wagons, and they can work as two-door cars. Get much longer and they become silly. But then, three-row CUVs are popular, and they aren’t any better than a two-row wagon with only two doors.
The untapped market here is for a three row SUV with doors for each row.
Conversion shops will build such beasts for you, but they cost a ridiculous amount of money.
Given the manufacturers now seem to loath building anything other than a four door, this will of course never happen from the factory. I’d love to see a concept version at a car show, though.
I’m waiting for the aftermarket four door conversion kit for the Slate – maybe they’ll make it so you could insert more than one while you’re at it.
Someone should design a three-row vehicle with large sliding doors on each side and increase the amount of clear opening available. They could even reduce the length of the hood and slide the passenger compartment forward to increase the amount of interior volume relative to the overall length. It would solve all the issues inherent in a 3-row SUV without the added expense of adding more doors!
Yep, you just invented the minivan.
Can the Volkswagen Polo II “coach” be consider as a little 2 door wagon ?
Or a waste of money that should’ve gone to a 5-door version of the regular slantback “coupe” hatchback?
practical vs cute… no hesitation !! 🙂
Germans still loved two-door vehicles at the time of the Polo II. Didn’t help them in the export markets, though.
My parents bought a two door Plymouth Sport Suburban for safety reasons – there were no back doors for us to open while under way. This was back when a child’s car seat was made out of canvas and strap steel, hooked over the seatback, and had a little steering wheel on it with a squeaky horn, and there were no seat belts in sight.
My parents had a Vega wagon briefly in the mid 70’s and I remember hearing that “safety feature”. Wouldn’t want the kids just jumping out. I do also remember a girl in the neighborhood that was a few years older falling out of the back door of her parent’s car. Then came the inevitable from other parents that you made sure the back doors were locked so your kids didn’t end up on the road like Jenny.
I feel like rear doors used to open a lot while under-way. Whether it was bad door latches, improperly closed doors or kids messing with the handles, kids sometimes just fell out on turns. My aunt fell out of my grandfather’s Suburban, which is probably why I spent a lot of time climbing into the rear seat of 2-door sedans growing up.
My parents had a two-door Hornet for the same reason.
Grew up riding around in a VW Type 3. It served our small family well in spite of being a two-door.
That 2-door Dodge says, “I’m a family man now, but I’m hanging onto my cool and carefree illusions by a strand as slender as that C-pillar, unburdened by the demands of a third and fourth door. Which are definitely not metaphors for my two children.”
Same feeling/argument as every SUV. I need 2” extra ground clearance and 4wd because I’m still Independent, I can do Anything I Want.
I have 2 favorites the Volvo P1800ES because it is awesome is so many ways, and the 1980s VW fox 2 door wagon because I really liked them in HS and college.
Well, you already replied my question about the Polo (I had a Polo Fox and I loved it)
Oh the VW Fox. That little car always gave me a chub. Lived the simplicity of that car.
A co-worker had a Fox back in the day; I was envious until I saw how much grief it caused her.
The one two-door wagon I seriously considered buying was a Fox at that time in my life in the mid ’90s. I was slightly put off by so many trim pieces unceremonioulsy shoved into the cargo area, add in the pedal box being too small for my size 12s (sneakers, and accustomed to small manual cars) and it didn’t make it past the test drive.
I don’t know why, but in the examples you showed still have the A, B, C, & D pillars just like their 4 door variants and seems to take a away a lot of the coolness of having fewer doors. Hardtop (pillarless) wagons were a thing, even if rare. From what I can tell, Mercury was the only one to do a 2 door, pillarless wagon and boy does it look awesome.
https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/a-look-at-the-hardtop-station-wagon/
The Vega wagon doesn’t have the intermediate pillar. Neither does the Nomad, structurally speaking – it’s a trim piece because the forward window section opens by sliding back, something Chevy really should’ve repeated for the Vega since it was too early for fixed windows in the ’70s. A/C take rates were low in small cars, nonexistent up north, and parents didn’t really smoke less in the ’70s than in the ’50s.
Take a look at the Dodge Crusader, the last pic in the article as well as at the bottom of the last ad in the article.
The pillar is still there, it just got much thinner.
Ok, so hardtop must strictly mean zero B pillar.
I’d give the Crusader an honorary hardtop degree though, because it has less pillar overall than any of the true hardtop wagons, and better conveys the “roof is floating on glass” feeling.