Why are there no affordable Shooting Brakes?

>>17355528
There are, you're just poor.

like 80% of people don't want a 2 door wagon. Most people in the US don't even want a normal wagon

its like the ugliest body style ever so most dont want them so no one makes them

File: toyota_celica_1994_images_5.jpg (177KB, 1200x570px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x570px

Moreso why have liftbacks died as well? The BRZ could've easily been a liftback, so could the new Mustang and Camaro, instead they all have useless grocery holes.

>>17355548
>Most people in the US don't even want a normal wagon
No, the way CAFE standards work just shits on them to the point of driving them from the market.

Because they are fucking hideous.

>>17356055
This. Muh SUVs get classed like pickup trucks and therefore receive tons of breaks in fuel efficiency, emissions and safety so that Detroit can continue churning out shitbarges. Offering wagons would be just as futile as offering utes when trucks and SUVs get to play in a class of their own.

>>17355617
Liftbacks create """unnecessary weight""" since they need to be reinforced so you don't get floppy noodle status. I honestly don't see it but that's the excuse most people use.

The death of these is a fucking shame. I want to go fast sometimes, and carry gun cases at other times, why does nothing fit?

>>17356082
I fucking hate SUVs. They are boring soulless appliances that will be driven until they break down and get scrapped and forgotten. They will never be considered a classic nor special in any way besides being an eyesore no matter the make. What a horrible blight upon the automotive community.

>>17355547
Fuck your rear vier mirror!

Honestly shooting brakes look pretty but there's no way they'd sell except to an extremely niche market. you're trying to make a sports car jump through hoops and carry a lot of luggage and that just doesn't really work - it's more room, but still not enough to fit the shit that people who buy wagons are looking for. RS2s, AMG wagons, and CTS-V wagons have already got the "gottagofast with shit in the back" market cornered because they're still fast while being much more usable than a shooting brake.

Shooting brakes are the stupidest fucking thing ever.

There's a time and place for everything, hatchbacks with little to no rear visibility isn't one of them.

>>17357297
That's true of probably 95% of new cars though. Nobodies gonna give a shit about some 2017 CVT boredom mobile like a Corolla or a Sentra. With all the bullshit electronics and ultra-integrated "infotainment" systems they cram into new cars nothing's going to stand the test of time like cars made 10 or 20 years ago. For example when the head unit breaks down or becomes hopelessly obsolete (note that I said "when" not "if") you'll be stuck with it because it's integrated into the climate system, traction control, back up camera, etc. Maybe one of the 9000+ sensors and modules will break and be really expensive to fix IF there's even replacements available. Cars now are more disposable than ever, much like phones are now with sealed in batteries and adhesive construction ensuring you will have to throw it away after one or two years and buy a new one. All of this of course being driven by "consumer demand" except the average consumer is uninformed and doesn't care so is easily swayed by whomever spends the most money on marketing.

File: 1495373949526.png (121KB, 250x418px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 250x418px

>>17355538
>there are affordable shooting brakes, you just can't afford them
What did he mean by this?

>Why are there no affordable Shooting Brakes?
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/cto/6148921282.html

File: k5.jpg (85KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 736x552px

>>17357297
What?