What makes it a Station Wagon debate?

I am almost 53 years old and a gearhead to the max. At one point in time I felt like I wanted to work for GM or Ford or Chrysler designing cars. Even took a tour of the Automotive Institute of Design in San Diego or L.A.... wherever. I was just a Junior in Highschool then and my Grandparents lived in L.A. (Building shaped like a bridge, weird)

Anyway, I grew up went to College locally and got a more logical degree in Graphic design instead. Still like to keep my pencil sharp designing hot rods and the like feeling that I wanted to spread my interests into other things besides just the automotive market.

So, I understand the one-box, two-box and three-box concept of vehicular design and now after 100 years of automobiles on the road we have seen a lot of strange motor vehicles brought and sold to fit a need or market niche.

Mark Ervin, whom I respect for his great artistic talent, posted in another thread some contradictory basis for what he believes to be parameters for what is and what is not a Stationwagon. Those being a full frame, but he allows and accepts the Ford Taurus which was NEVER set on a full frame any time since it's inception in 1984.
The other parameter being that the SUV is set on a truck-frame making it a "Truck" and not a Stationwagon. Well... when Ford introduced the first pickup truck it was setting on a passenger car frame until 1935! The Ford pickup frame was designated a "Commercial" vehicle yet it was almost indistinguishable from a passenger car frame but for the thickness of the material. Likewise the Stationwagon until after the war was listed and categorized as a commercial vehicle though it sat on a passenger car frame.

So, going another direction, the Ford Escape is not on a truck frame and it has a nice long roof similar to many wagons does it not?
Rear wheel drive only? Honda, Chevrolet X-bodied and Taurus wagons are out then.
My basic premise is that Station Wagons are alive and well in the SUV and the Mini-van after 100 years of automotive evolution!
(Incidentally, the mini-van is not a true "Van", which started out as a commercial vehicle in the beginning, but became an outgrowth of the "Stationwagon" during the 80's.)
The wagon was introduced in the 1910's as a people mover pure and simple. So... Marks assertion of 3 rows of seats makes the most sense to me. But using that parameter alone... forces the inclusion of the SUV along with the Volkswagon bus!
It can be very confusing...

If I were one to make the pure rules, a true "Stationwagon" would only be made from wood! Because thats what they were originally constructed with during the first half of the 1900s! All else constructed since... are nothing more than modified sedans.
(Now there is a good basis, i.e.: A stationwagon has to be based on a sedan of the same make!)

My point is that things change and there are really no set parameters other than what arbitrary rules we decide to use. We have no "Rosette stone" or God given "10 commandments" with which to use as a basis for our standards. It is all arbitrary.

All I know is I love my '58, even if the butt is not pretty, the economy is not great and it's missing the 3rd row seat. (never had one)
But it's a machine this gearhead enjoys working on and I cannot wait for the next road trip!

 

I disagree and refuse to be the first one to comment on this thread.

Just kidding.

My point about the full frame is a bit weak as it doesn't account for the entire Chrysler, unibody family, nor those of AMC (and their ancestors)
or any other of that type for that matter.

In terms of history definitions, more appropriate to this thread, I'd say you covered the bases. In fact, as part of the illustrated history I will put in a book I hope to create, I plan to go one step further back and will begin by giving credit to Studebaker for the Conestoga wagon.

It is a broad subject with a vast possibility of defining terms and varied platforms and body styles but, for the sake of my own, theory on the subject, I think the car based, ye sedan based description is the strongest argument for what I consider to be a 'true' Stationwagon.

 

I tend to take the approach that if it 'looks like' a station wagon and can do the job of a station wagon, then that's what it is. I don't particularly care what the manufacturer calls it, or what anybody else calls it - those are just my parameters, for my own personal categorization. Admittedly, even some people are undecided about my HHR being a wagon.

Jairus- when I was in high school, I also wanted to be an automobile designer. Got brochures from the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. Unfortunately, the word 'art' never clicked in my head while I was in high school, and the guidance / career counselors knew less than I knew about the field. As a result, I took a lot of math and drafting classes instead of math, metal and ART classes. Eh - I didn't have the money for the Art Center, anyway.

 

Going with the law of first use.. thats from about 1940's
IF the said wagon was also made as a 4 door sedan AND or a 2 door HT/sedan then the wagon is offspring of those cars. ( Ford LTD.. 2 dr HT & 2 dr sedan & 4 dr sedan and wagon)..
Now you have the length width height deminsion: 63 Jeep wagoneer( truck frame).. 4 door, same tailgate arrangment... looks like a wagon has the deminsions as a full size wagon ( just 4wd) so in it's day it was THEIR wagon. ( met the LWH or; offspring effect)
Then fast forward to the 'Flex' LxWxH are within the above, but it has a lift-gate & only made one version. oh, but then the clamshell is odd too! :confused:
But this SUV thing/crossover is just over, a rear side window 12 inches long and now its a wagon?
When I see a wagon on the road or at a show,, it meets the above standard or it must not be a wagon .
There are few exceptions and I consider them when I find them.

 

Seems as though many of us young whipper snappers dreamed of becoming car designers. But, need for food, kids, family, and life seemed to interfere with our dreams.
Like Krash K, I feel if it looks like a wagon, it's a wagon! Many vehicles were called wagons just because of insurance and other reasons.
Then again, many were no longer called wagons because young people didn't want to be looked at as "old folks".
Just realized my old 1955 Chevy doesn't have a third seat. So maybe I should call it a hatchback!
Keep thinkin Jairus and Mark. You're keeping this forum active. Even though I disagree with everything you both write.

 

Bingo! I was with'ya till you started down the road of dimensions, seat count, third window size, etc, etc. At that point I can find plenty of examples that fit but are not considered a wagon.
Jeep might have been calling the "Wagoneer" a wagon, but they were absorbed by AMC early on and other AMC products, i.e. Rambler, Ambassador, Eagle all filled the niche better and were indeed based on a sedan/coupe platform. While the Jeep was based on a pick-up (Hondo?) platform and fits the SUV parameter better.

 

I find myself at odds with CatModelT but for no particular reason related to the subject, it's likely just a quirk, however,
Jairus, though much younger, and I have a lot in common...
I visited the Pasadena Art Center in 1989 and toured the design center with eyes wide open. They were creating Nissan themed vehicles and components and the emphasis was on "ergonomic designs" Translated, everything looked like an egg. With air dams and rear spoilers of course but , bottom line, eggs. The Merc Smart Car may have been conceived there at that time but I'm not sure which came first.
I not only come from a big family but most of them are graphic artists' and, as a kid, that was where I thought I'd end up; following in dad's footsteps. I studied at Community College for 2 years and did well but something in my thinker was missing, my love of cars and an eye for cartooning as well as thinking and creating dimensional art (animation is drawing in 3D on a 2D plain) kept that field from challenging me creatively (*At the time.) Then, however, I stumbled across a school for animation and saw how it could help me create the kind of art my brain kept cooped up. That meant cartooning and CAR tooning. My wife knew she was doomed to an LA life style and history was written.
The reality of this whole excursion, however, was that they, at Art Center,were no longer (pun intended) designing station wagons so I walked away, determined to enter the automotive art and design industry through another door.

 

I loved animation, cartoons and CAR toons. One of the first things I looked for in the early hotrod type books were the cartoons. Much like yours Mark.

Somehow I ended up with my own office as a moblie cartoon myself. Became a truck driver lookin at the world through the windshield and joking on CB's!
:icon_drive:

 

The only thing I can relate between over the road trucking and cartooning is the bouncing in the seat thing. Squash and stretch are animation terms related to weight and action, like that of a bouncing ball. In trucking, squash is something that happens to the compact at the bottom of the hill when your breaks fail (also has turned a wagon or two into a compact as previously mentioned) Stretch, in trucking, is the length of the trailer(s) that aid in the weight distribution upon such an impact...

 

Stretching is also a term when moving the rear tandoms forward or back to adjust the weight of the trailer load.
Sqaushing also happens when you are going down Wolf Creek Pass with a full load of chickens doing 90MPH and the brakes feel like stepping on a plum, as the song goes.
As far as cartoon caracters go, you haven't looked closely at some of those guys hauling frieght down those highways as you look up from the front seat of your nine passenger station wagon! On topic!

 

Oh, that,... well, yea, there is a lot of that....
I took that pass on my way home from our honeymoon in a gold '74 Dart sedan. Big snow up there in October. In a twist of the ironic, Bill Freeze, who wrote and sang that song, worked as a copy writer at the same company as my farther. They were friends and my dad storyboarded and art directed several of the "Old Home Bread" ads that thoseC.W. McCall albums were, er, bred from...
and so the OT circle is completed in full... or is it??

 

Jarius: The jeep PU (honcho) was based on 119 wb other models 131. they had a diff axle & rear end width wise than the Wagoneer its on 108 wb.
The frames are diff to accept the pu bed. The doghouse was used from 1963 to 1991. When we say based on thats a broad area.
The only thing usable in a swap is engine and trans/t-case.
In finding what detemines if its a wagon I use several avenues all at the same time and see how many fit then I make a decision on those .
( a Pinto wagon fits diffination without being on a full frame or short the 3rd seat)
forgot: whats one of those that fit, but are not considered a wagon?

 

I think that the term wagon has a very funny border for me.

Body on frame RWD jobs for sure are wagons.

The Jeep Wagoneer is a 'straggler' being that it has wagon qualities, but is an SUV.

Crossovers are not wagons.

The AMC Eagle wagon IS a wagon, despite its 4x4 platform.

Taurus wagons and the like are wagons, they clearly have a station wagon 'look to them.'

These are a few of my guidelines. As far as I'm concerned, nothing the big three has produced in the past few years is a wagon, besides the Magnum.

 

Such a subjective topic...what makes a wagon. Consensus will be very hard to build,
as it is subject to so many variants. Is it a 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-door, tailgate, liftgate or doorgate,
2-, 3-seat, even 1-seat (!), RWD, FWD, truck-based, car-based, full-frame, sub-frame, ad infinitum...

Growing up in '60's in what was arguably the wagon's heyday, I'm driven by personal interpretation,
as likely we all are. So, what makes it a wagon is subject to me! If it has a long roof added to
an existing model, bench or bucket front seats, and room in back for parcels, luggage,
or a couple of trolls (seated or not), it's a wagon.

If the back opens to a tailgate, a door, a liftgate, or a Magic DoorGate yippee, it's a wagon...






1973 Volvo 1800 ES

If it looks like a truck, rides like truck, and quacks like a truck, it can be a wagon...


The magnificent 1963 Jeep Wagoneer 2-door. This rule also applies to IHC's Travelall and pre-'72 Suburbans...


1960 International Travelall. Why no pre-'72 Suburbans? 'Cause I don't like them,
they look like a truck.

If it's a Crossover that looks like a truck with a wagon's long roof but based on a car platform, it's a wagon...


2010 Ford Flex EcoBoost (one I'd really like to have!).

Conversely, if it's marketed as a truck and based on an existing wagon, it's not a wagon
(no seats for trolls, not so much as a shelf for them).


Larger

Larger, the Chevy Task Force Panel fleet for '55.

To be continued...

 

There are no gray areas in my World of Wagons; witness the '62 Ford Falcon Club Wagon DeLuxe (if we must)...


Larger



Foisted on an unsuspecting public by Ford's Merry Marketeers, dare I say the only one
who should be clubbed is Iacocca! You decide whether it's a wagon
(they do look pretty cool all dolled up in DeLuxe trim!), or not.
Hey, at least it's not the bargain basement Station Bus.

This is going to be a really fun thread!

TG