but it would make it sooo easy to use.

 

Easier to get stuff in and out yes, but bulkier hatch and a larger hole in the body that needs added support to compensate. kinda a double edge sword...

 

but i've heard the compaint that the "well" is too difficult to bend over and get stuff out of it and that would solve that.


i'm sure GM could find a solution for the chassis rigidity and not add a buch of weight either.

 

Im really hoping there wont be a "well" How could they not add a bunch of weight to compensate for a huge hatch? The rear quarter windows add 200lbs in added support. What would a hatch as big or bigger than the 4th gens add? Trunks are light small and if lined up properly you can close them with your fingertips.

 

but all you would be doing is taking metal from one side to the other.

 

Then why are convertables heavier than their hard top counterparts?

 

because the biggest thing that adds rigidity is gone.

 

And its compensated by adding even more weight in terms of structural support to stiffen the body than was removed from the top. Same thing isnt it?.

 

No, because the top bar would still be there.

There is minimal, if any, structural support provided by the section of body located between the tail lights.

What's your concern with the actual size of the hatch, anyway? Is it just this perceived structural issue, or do you actually object to the size itself?

 

Honestly, Personally What I object to most is the look. I perfer the look of a trunk with this particular car. I dont like the gaps that run up the side of the rear glass nor that they fill with leaves somehow... I like to pop open a trunk throw some bags in there with out opening the whole thing close it with little effort and go.

Also use and strength of the actual trunk itself. I think a trunk would be stronger and sturdier at the hinges not having that bulk as well as much easier to open and close not having the bulk of a full hatch on the hinges. A trunk lighter or at least less bulky than the hatch counterpart is easier to use I think. I do object to the actual size of the hatch not perceived because I have used it on my 98 Camaro. Speaking particularly about that 98 car, Had the size of that hatch increased more than it was it would have been unacceptable. I think it is cumbersome, and as I mentioned when the guy loaded my Flowmasters into the trunk he tried to push it closed and misaligned the hatch. Although he did force it closed, At the same time had the car been a trunk I dont think this would have happened, or at least not to the same degree. Speaking about the concept, its hard for me to tell how big it would be if it simply included the glass. Hatches work for the Vette but theyre seem smaller and fit that style. Ive never used a Vette hatch but Id imagine it would be similar to my 82 Rx7?