Hooniverse Asks: What's the Most Wasteful 4-Seater, and the Most Ludicrously Cramped 5-Seater?

Absolute truth in advertising is a subjective target, and one man’s cozy is another’s unbearably cramped. That is most evident in many of the back seats of the world’s cars, as no where else is the concept of “second thought” more clearly evident.
At one time your standard family sedan was a six passenger affair; three up front, and three in back. Of course way back then perches in cars were not always clearly defined by seat contouring nor belt number, making finding a place for your buns something of a conquest. Today it’s no longer a free-for-all and car makers are very clear about the number of passengers that their products can hold, and just exactly where they are supposed to hold them.
That has resulted both in cars that express the luxury of excess, featuring expanses of consoles where it’s plainly obvious another seat could be squeezed in, as well as five-seaters equally obviously designed with the two-dimensional beings from the planet Noass in mind. What we want to know today is which cars are the worst offenders in each category. What are the most wasteful 4-seaters, and the most objectionably cramped 5-seaters?
Image: zercustoms


          1. Hey, my RX-7 has those. It’s a nice place to eat lunch, actually. I’ve never tried putting breasts in them though. Good idea.

    1. Came here to post that about my sisters Toyota, except it has conventional style seats for the rear, making it even more cramped.

      The few times I’ve sat back there I think of it as a game: Human Origami, where leg A gets folded under knee B and there is no way in hell you are getting back out.

      1. Sounds like you’ve carved out a niche to live a life in the back of your sister’s Toyota. I sort of respect that.

        1. I thank you for your respect, although my niche isn’t long for this world, when you consider the rate at which that truck is rusting!

    1. I thought on the first generation, the spot was necessitated by the t-shaped battery.
      Perhaps on the second generation, the battery is still present, but they put a seat on top of it, while there was nothing that could be done about the foot room. Definitely hits a new low for bitch seating.

      1. I remember there being reasons for it, but it’s so typical of GM. Rather than re-package the car and re-design it to accommodate in a way that typical sedans do…
        “Our supplier is making a battery in a shape that doesn’t allow 5 seats in the sedan.”
        “Oh, well let’s just work around it then.”
        Then it doesn’t sell too well and they go, “People just don’t want a hybrid.”
        In the 90s you could change the language for all of the compromises they made on hatchbacks with the conclusion then being, “People just don’t want a hatchback.”

        1. Wouldn’t a supplier be able to shape the battery however they requested, since it’s not one solid battery but a bunch of little ones all series’d and paralleled together? It’s was probably made that shape so the car could have usable battery capacity and a usable trunk, because how often do you carry three across in the back seat unless you hate your friends?

          1. I’m being facetious on the conversation obviously, but GM is still a company that is willing to half-ass a design if it means they only have to design around it rather than fix three part designs.
            I do three across almost every day. 3 kids.

          2. I’m completely with you on GM’s half-assedness, I was just too tired to recognize the joke. Second job doesn’t let me sleep enough.
            I have three kids, all in car seats/boosters, and occasionally stuff them into the backseat of the W126, but I think we’re in the minority. Most folks go SUV/minivan when #kids>2.

          3. Yeah, my wife has the minivan, but I don’t always drive it if we go places. Sometimes it’s nice to be a stick-shift hatchback that will get over 30 mpg.
            Although the new-ish Town&Country does amazingly well on the HWY for mpg. 1400 mile round trip to MI from NJ (so not flat thanks to PA) we got 26.5 mpg. I did a hypermile-esque attempt (No exterior changes, just very deliberate use of throttle and brakes) with it on an over night trip when I would annoy less drivers and was able to do 31 mpg loaded with family and luggage.

          4. Yeah, and thanks for that. The only thing in Ohio that kept me awake was my radar detector.

  1. The BMW 6er has been a perennial favorite of mine as a hedonistic symbol of excess. It’s too big to be a two-door, but too small to be a four-door. It’s a giant middle finger to everyone not fortunate enough to own one. It’s perfect and I want one desperately.

    1. I can follow the too small to be a 4-door part, but can’t wrap my head around the idea of a car that’s too big to be a 2-door.

  2. The Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham Talisman. Over 19 feet long, 12 mpg, and only four seats. Here’s the back seat.

    1. Finally you can separate the kids enough that they can’t annoy each other with the I’m-not-touching-you game…

  3. Lamborghini LM002
    Although if you wanted to carry more friends around, you could get the optional (?) extra seats in the bed :
    And since i doubt there will ever be a “Hooniverse Asks: Which Pickup Have The Lowest Tailgate?”, i’m leaving this here :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here