The only thing I can think of is astetics(sp). I think the only other thing I have seen about the Prius is that the back window is so small, maybe due to it being a hatchback. I personally like the look of a regular sedan with a trunk. Since I mainly use this car for commuting the size of the trunk is fine for me.

For me having a separate trunk is an added level of security. I think it's a little harder to break the lock on a trunk than the window of a hatchback. Also your belongings are safer in a trunk when you valet park your car. I try to avoid valets but what do you do if there's no alternative and your expensive tennis racquets and gym bag are stored in the back? Take them in the restaurant with you? I don't have that worry with a trunk--I can leave my junk in there forever.

I also happened to find the Prius' back window too small for my visibility comfort, but that was another issue.

I think I'd benefit from an engine block heater here in San Diego. My mileage for the first few miles each morning with temps in the 40s is much lower than average.

Fully agree. The neat thing with the '06 (sorry this is my first Civic so this may be a feature in older models also) is the truck release inside, near the driver, can be locked with the main key, but not unlocked with the Valet, just like the lock on the trunk itself, so even a valet has no access to your truck, if you choose.

Larry
'06 Magnetic Pearl HCH #7264

Styling, price. The obnoxious toyota dealer pissed me off!

For me, the biggest negative of a hatchback is the compromise to the structural rigidity of the body. In a rear end collision, the hatchback is not going to do as well as a sedan. Simple physics. The other shortcoming of the lack of rigidity is that the suspension of a hatchback must be tuned stiffer than a sedan to compensate for less rigidity. Therefore, the rear axle will tend to transmit more bumps into the structure giving a slightly harsher ride. Finally, I just didn't use the fold down seats when I had a hatchback to make more room for cargo; I just didn't use the flexibility.

MG

In the end, style, and not having to pay an extra 5 grand to have it fully loaded.

Is this supported in crash test results? Curious, I have never heard such a claim. I would love a hatchback. Having owned three VW rabbits and three subaru station wagons, the hatchback is what I'm used to. Though I do appreciate the trunk sometimes, like when I just leave my golf clubs in there - no worries about catching the eye of a thief.

It is simple physics as there isn't the bracing behind the rear seats as in a sedan. Modern engineering has more than overcome this however. I have never heard any complaints from auto journalists or others about a lack of structural rigidity in a modern day hatchback. My 99 Integra was rock solid. In addition most hatchbacks have covers over the rear storage area so your stuff isn't visible to would be thiefs.

I suspect that the reason that most americans avoid hatchbacks has nothing to do with structural rigidity or the valet key safety (how many of us use valet parking?). Maybe there is a stigma or something? I miss the utility of a hatchback, being able to take a trip to Lowes and get 8' lumber, stow the bike in the back, etc....

Again, is this safety issue statistically documented anywhere? While it might be simple physics if the engineers simply ignored the concern, I seriously doubt that they didn't compensate. It may be easy to assume they're less safe because of a percieved lack of rigidity, that's not necessarily the case. Convertables would have less rigidity than a roofed car, but they don't because the frame has extra reinforcement to make up for it (which is why, oddly enough, convertibles are sometimes heavier than their standard counterparts). In order to pass crash tests, if the hatchback is inherently less sturdy, they must make up for it somewhere. So, if crash tests support the theory then I might consider it an issue, but if not then I'd chalk it up to armchair science.