Barely there back seats

[y_p_w]

Before yesterday I never actually had a close enough look at a Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S/Toyota 86 and came to the sudden realization that it actually has two rear seats. I couldn't get a test drive of one on a weekend without an appointment, but I did get a good look at a TRD 86. Odd thing is that it said Subaru all over under the hood.

Which makes me wonder what's the point of the rear seats. My 8 year old tried crawling in the right rear seat and with the front seat hiked forward to the point where knees weren't touching the back of the seat, it looked like even someone as small as my wife couldn't reasonably sit in the front up forward that much. I hear most people use rear seats like those as storage spaces or might even take them out in order to get more storage room.

I read some article years ago about California Highway Patrol officers and how they dealt with carpool lane violations. There's one corridor around here (I-80 from Rodeo to the Bay Bridge) where it's a 3+ as well as all toll bridges for the carpool discount. However, 2 passengers in a 2 seat car also qualify. The excuse they often got was there was a driver and one passenger in a car like a Porsche, with the driver pointing to the practically useless rear seats. But one officer was interviewed where he memorized the factory seating capacity of pretty much every car he would come across. I think some owners would even pull out seats, and he wouldn't give them a pass since it was still legally a 4 seater.

I had a 2+2 (1995 Integra GS-R 3-door) but the rear seat could reasonably be used by adults even though it might be a bit cramped. But I've tried placing my 8 year old in the back seat of some cars where even that was a tight fit. I wonder why even bother. Does that change insurance rates or something by avoiding being classified as a 2 seater?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Does that change insurance rates or something by avoiding being classified as a 2 seater?
That was my understanding.

 

[maxdustington]

It gives you options: You can still carry three passengers legally even if they are uncomfortable. Did it have anchoring points for a car seat? That can be a big selling point if you have infant/toddler kids who don't need the space but need a car seat.

It reminds me of the three seat back seat in some cars that have a foot or less space in the middle between the seat belt buckles for the third passenger. It's not there for regular use, just for sticky situations and to help sell the car.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by maxdustington
It gives you options: You can still carry three passengers legally even if they are uncomfortable. Did it have anchoring points for a car seat? That can be a big selling point if you have infant/toddler kids who don't need the space but need a car seat.

It reminds me of the three seat back seat in some cars that have a foot or less space in the middle between the seat belt buckles for the third passenger. It's not there for regular use, just for sticky situations and to help sell the car.

I sat in the back seat of a Porsche 944 once. I had to sit in the right rear seat and then shift my legs to the left side because there was no way I could sit straight ahead.

My WRX is technically a 5 seater. And I have had 5 in there, although my kid likes to bring down the armrest most of the time. It's actually not that bad. And when we've looked at a Honda Civic Type R my kid asks why there isn't a 3rd seat in the back. However, that's a 4 door with reasonable (if tight) rear legroom.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Does that change insurance rates or something by avoiding being classified as a 2 seater?

 

[PandaBear]

Insurance quote (2 seaters are indicator that owners are not "practical" and therefore more likely to be at fault in an accident), and you can use the seats in a pinch (you need to pickup someone once every 6 months).

People who use 3+ seats on a regular basis won't buy a 2 door vehicle.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Does that change insurance rates or something by avoiding being classified as a 2 seater?


That's what the salesguy said when I picked up my Mustang and I questioned Why? to the rear seats. I was in that once to clean the window and at 6'2", even with the front seat all the way up I had 0 leg room. And was hunched like the Hunchback of Notre Dame. When I drive there is 0 legroom behind me and I can barely get my laptop bag past the seat point. For all intents and purposes it's a 2 seater. The dog doesn't seem to mind it though.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
I did get a good look at a TRD 86. Odd thing is that it said Subaru all over under the hood.

The car was bankrolled and designed mainly by Toyota, but engineered mainly by Subaru. Pretty sure the whole powertrain except the fuel injection system is straight-up Subaru.


Originally Posted by y_p_w
Which makes me wonder what's the point of the rear seats. My 8 year old tried crawling in the right rear seat and with the front seat hiked forward to the point where knees weren't touching the back of the seat, it looked like even someone as small as my wife couldn't reasonably sit in the front up forward that much. I hear most people use rear seats like those as storage spaces or might even take them out in order to get more storage room.

I read some article years ago about California Highway Patrol officers and how they dealt with carpool lane violations. There's one corridor around here (I-80 from Rodeo to the Bay Bridge) where it's a 3+ as well as all toll bridges for the carpool discount. However, 2 passengers in a 2 seat car also qualify. The excuse they often got was there was a driver and one passenger in a car like a Porsche, with the driver pointing to the practically useless rear seats. But one officer was interviewed where he memorized the factory seating capacity of pretty much every car he would come across. I think some owners would even pull out seats, and he wouldn't give them a pass since it was still legally a 4 seater.

I had a 2+2 (1995 Integra GS-R 3-door) but the rear seat could reasonably be used by adults even though it might be a bit cramped. But I've tried placing my 8 year old in the back seat of some cars where even that was a tight fit. I wonder why even bother. Does that change insurance rates or something by avoiding being classified as a 2 seater?

I've also heard that it's very often for insurance purposes, as well as just being able to say the car "has back seats".

But either way, I suspect the real question isn't "why have those tiny back seats", but rather "why not?" If the design accommodates back seats, the manufacturer might as well throw them in. Even if they suck, they don't really make the car worse in any way that most people would care about.

You might be surprised by how useful some useless-seeming back seats are. Buddy of mine could put his newborn kid in the back of his 86 with an infant carrier and have just enough room for his wife in the passenger seat. My old car was a Mazda RX-8, which isn't much bigger in the back, but we had adults back there regularly and could have a rear-facing car seat behind my wife in the passenger seat as well. Neither combo was pleasant, but they worked. The RX-8 was useful enough -- by a razor-thin margin, but still enough -- to be our only car for at least the near future. I'd still be driving it if it were still in one piece (RIP).

Even the laughable back seats in cars like the Porsche 911 or Ferrari California can accommodate small people, as long as the people in front aren't sitting too far back. I've even seen adults in there. It's not a reason to buy one of those cars over a 2-seater, but it's better than nothing.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

When I first had money saved up to buy a new car, I decided I was going to go hog wild and get a Grand National.
Bad news was they were not being produced anymore, guy I worked with in Dallas knew of two new GNs on a lot somewhere in Oklahoma but I decided to just drop it.
After some shopping around, I swung way around towards economy and bought a Honda CRX...handled well but it had very little power.
Probably a good life choice as I probably would have crashed a GN and maybe died (and killed other people), but it was a pretty bad financial choice as I got totally destroyed on insurance rates as a young man (probably 21) with a true two seater. I checked with my agent and I would have paid substantially less with the much hotter and more dangerous GN (4 seater) than I was shelling out for the mild 2 seater.
Pretty stupid IMHO!!
Both the concept as well as me throwing away money like that.
I would have gone with a Mustang V8, but a friend of mine bought one and then traded it in less than a year later just prior to my shopping...he had nonstop trouble with it. A coworker also bought one around then and it was stolen and taken for a joyride within a couple of months...he got it back and they fixed it up fine, but that also spooked me even though he lived in an area with much higher crime than where I was living.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
But either way, I suspect the real question isn't "why have those tiny back seats", but rather "why not?" If the design accommodates back seats, the manufacturer might as well throw them in. Even if they suck, they don't really make the car worse in any way that most people would care about.

Real estate is at a premium in cars. The room for the rear seats could be much better utilized for accommodating tall drivers, increasing trunk space, a longer-range fuel tank, or just moving the car back for more room under the hood. But I agree that insurance is what drives design.

I once had a '66 Corvette convertible in college where we fit three people in it. One guy could fit in the cargo space behind the seats.

 

[CT8]

CHP needs to give out lots of tickets to fund their impressive retirement pensions

 

[y_p_w]

So I finally got to test drive a BRZ today with my kid in the back seat. More on that later (it was an adventure), but strangely enough my kid was OK with the sales lady (about the size of my wife) in the front passenger seat.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

The fact that insurance companies are actually fooled by this says a lot about the industry!

They should make a rule that the back seat has to be at least 32 cubic feet or something in order for it to count

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
The fact that insurance companies are actually fooled by this says a lot about the industry!

They should make a rule that the back seat has to be at least 32 cubic feet or something in order for it to count

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. . .

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
So I finally got to test drive a BRZ today with my kid in the back seat. More on that later (it was an adventure), but strangely enough my kid was OK with the sales lady (about the size of my wife) in the front passenger seat.

Yep and I take my 7 year old to school in my 911.

She and her booster fit just fine.

 

[Maritime Storm]

We have one, I often describe the back seat as small dog storage shelves. So far as the car goes, we absolutely love ours, it's fun to drive, good on gas & reliable.

 

[Garak]

Oddly enough, the G37's back seats aren't really that bad, particularly when one realizes the closely related 370Z is a two seater.