Something led me to the Lancia Appia page at Wikipedia, where this picture utterly captivated me. Look at how open and airy this little Appia Third Series (1959-1963) sedan is, and how accessible its front and rear seats are. All four door sedans should have been built like this.
Yes, I know suicide doors had/have certain iffy aspects, but they could have been mitigated, by special locks, or whatever. Possibly even by requiring the front door to be opened first. But there’s so much to be gained, especially in the smaller cars, where entry and exit from their short doors was not always idea. This just looks so…right.
because. death trap.
Really they aren’t. As shown by plenty of modern four door pickups, RX-8 and Saturn ION.
Buyers just hate change. All four door sedans and wagons should have sliding doors at the rear just like minivans. So much easier to load kids in and out of and no worries in parking lots about the door hitting another car.
There was this compact Peugeot 1007 with two sliding doors. Not very successful, thus not available anymore on current Peugeot models.
FWIW, the 1969 chrysler 70X concept car not only had sliding doors (front and rear), it also had a blind zone monitoring.
I would imagine that on sedans, it would be a challenge to locate the track for the sliding door. It has to be high enough to clear the tire, but still below the decklid, and the trunk has to be long enough to accommodate holding the door far enough back to let people get in and out.
I wonder how many manufacturers built. 4 door sedans without “b” pillars? Lancia, and…..? The “suicide” door arrangement, that’s been done by nearly every car company.
Without B pillars? Too many to list. Four-door hardtops with suicide doors — obviously fewer.
I think Howard was referring to the arrangement of the Lancia. Most hardtops, including the suicide door Lincoln Continental, had half a B pillar.
The Facel Vega Excellence had a similar latching system to the Lancia, at the bottom at least!
Actually, all the closed-car Lincoln Continentals were sedans, with a slim, but full B-pillar. They built a hardtop prototype but it never went into production. The 57-58 Eldorado Brougham did have a half B-pillar, angled and chrome-plated, no less.
That’s the only other one I could immediately think of, and that only because it’s one of my favorite 4-door cars of all time.
If you expand the criteria to vans, one must mention the Nissan Prarie/Multi/Stanza Wagon. No B-pillar whatsoever, conventional front doors and sliding rears.
Well, there are a lot of “cab-and-a-half” pickup trucks with suicide rear doors and no B-pillar. Does that count?
They don’t open independently of one another, which makes them inferior to conventional doors most of the time.
Ford B-Max. No suicide rear doors, no B-pillar. And no sedan, BTW.
Also comes with gigantic blind spots in lieu of fixed B pillars.
That’s just like the old Nissan Prairie.
Reminds me of the Chrysler ad when they first came out with sliders on both sides of the minivans…the dolphin diving through the van. My first wife called them “dolphin doors” for years.
I have to think a design like this would be difficult to engineer for side-impact safety.
The funeral home I worked for in the mid-80s had one funeral coach (’78ish Miller-Meteor) that had a side-loading table and suicide doors. That was the only coach we had with no divider too, but it had some sort of stub B-pillar so the doors had something to latch to. That thing rattled like crazy and the shoulder belts were just dangling out there in mid-air…not Miller -Meteor’s best effort.
Structural integrity.Chassis would have to be stiffened up, much like a convertible, while still carrying the weight penalty of a roof. And when you are dealing with a car that has as much power as today’s garden tractor’s, not an option.
This is part of the reason why Dodge switched their Quad Cab to rear-facing doors in 2002 (the other part was to trick buyers into thinking, “hey, Dodge has a crew cab again!”). Ford’s 3/4-door 97-03 SuperCab was infamously very weak against anything but a perfect side-on collision, though it was strengthened quite significantly for 2004. Toyota followed Dodge in 2007 with a rear-opening Double Cab replacing the old Access Cab Tundra, and GM in 2014. Ford seems to have remained committed to the old-style clamshell doors. For all the disadvantages of the clamshell doors, the biggest advantage is that there’s no B-pillar to get in the way. Putting a B-pillar on such a short door makes entrance and egress much harder on Ram, GM, or Toyota’s pickups. It remains to be seen if the next-gen Titan King Cab will follow Ford or the other three.
For a body on frame vehicle, it could be slightly easier to address while on a unibody vehicle it would be extremely challenging to ensure the integrity. Wouldn’t be a good idea to design something with a factory of safety at 1.04! ( which during senior project, someone did and called it good )
Most BOF cars after the late ’50s still really relied on the body shell for overall rigidity, begin with GM’s X-frame cars and continuing with the later perimeter frame/torque box arrangement.
Combination of crash safety and cost of design. Cars today are built with a specific design where the (usually) uni-body construction is designed to take the brunt of the impact. That means there has to be a place for the energy to go, which usually is the front sub-structure, A-pillars, and floors. The B-pillars in modern cars are there to keep horizontal (not vertical) structural rigidity once the car has been damaged, especially in the event of a rollover, since that means the A-pillars are incapable of supporting the weight of the roof and cause it not to collapse down on the car, but to accordion inwards. There are ways of engineering around this (I myself have designed a few in my spare time involving recessed door shelves and tube frames inside the doors), but they’re all relatively expensive because it means welding or bonding parts together rather than just using a press to make the frame of the car in one piece.
So it basically comes down to “they’re not allowed.”
What’s Ford’s trick then ? (serious question, see their current B-Max above).
The door recesses into the body and becomes a stressed member in the event of an impact. It’s the same example for a minivan, but doesn’t work so well on smaller cars. There was a particular Japanese kei-car with that sliding door type that crumpled like wet paper because the door was designed incorrectly. The reason the B-max works is because it’s recessed into the body when closed, but unlike a minivan where it’s a simple stamping the B-max door has two “ridges” on the inside that act like rebar in concrete and prevent the door from simply caving in. That means the B-max weighs a bit more, and the doors are thicker and intrude into the passenger space. This is all stuff the engineers usually don’t want.
OK, thanks for your reply !
As a mechanical engineering student near graduation, with lessons like vehicle dynamics, I have to say you nailed it.
Since we are on the No-B-Pillar topic, let me proudly present my new B-Max.
It is a replacement for the Berlingo, in the more civilian form – Not so much space, but much quieter, better road manners and I didn’t have to give up on sliding doors:-). And those doors are massive (both front and rear), so at least it feels like a relatively safe place to be, I hope I will never have to prove it. And it is quite heavy for the size, so it is not very fast, but on the plus side, ride is very composed, giving a feel of the bigger car.
BTW, it seems to be a sales flop – nobody seems to buy this car, Ford buyers usually choose Fiesta, Focus or C-Max. But I have habit to swim against the current, for better or worse…and I got a nice discount on the invoice.
Congratulations ! That seems to be the same light brown metallic color as the one I posted above. If you do an image search for the Ford B-Max, a lot of them are shown in that color.
As you say, despite its qualities you rarely see them on the road. Folks obviously prefer the crossover-looks of the Renault Captur in the B-segment.
So is the B-Max dimensionally similar to a Fiesta? Seems logical as the C-Max is similarly sized, other than height, to the Focus. B-Max is far more attractive than the somewhat odd-looking C-Max though.
Yes.
B-segment (sub compacts): Ford Fiesta and B-Max.
C-segment (compacts): Ford Focus and C-Max.
It’s worth adding that all of this is for modern vehicles, for which designers have access to very sophisticated structural load projection/analysis tools. In Ye Olden Days, there were fewer (or less challenging) safety regulations, but most of the structural computations were of the slide-rule-and-hope variety. So, unless a manufacturer was willing to invest a lot in prototype trial and error, you ended up having to overbuild everything just to make sure it wouldn’t feel flimsy. More expensive to do, more expensive to change, which were things Detroit definitely did not like!
Im with you 100%, Paul. Suicide rear doors just make so much sense. Not only are they more useful, but look at how much flexibility there is with styling: Lincoln Continental, ’67 T-Bird, FJ Cruiser, Honda Element, RX-8, Saturn Ion. Its not just ‘sedans’ that benefit from this design, but coupes and SUVs/CUVs.
One such concept that really fleshed this out nicely was the Pontiac Rageous. Kind of a mashup of quad coupe, muscle car, and CUV. The overall styling is ‘beaky’ in the way of the contemporary Firebird (this was 1997) but the idea is there. This is what I wish the Dodge Magnum and Charger would have been. Covers the coupe look, the sedan rear seat access, and the added utility of a wagon since this had a hatch, and clamshell tailgate. Imagine this baby with Dodge-ified styling, AWD, 6spd manual and a 392 Hemi!
Why weren’t all four door sedans able to convert into picnic tables w/seating like the Citroen 2CV?
The Lightburn Zeta could have the seats removed and mounted on the roof to act as a quasi-grandstand for watching sports events etc, but I can’t find a photo to show that.
The first Honda CRV addressed the other side of the equation – the table part
This is exactly how the ‘suicide’ four doors work on my Nissan Titan king cab. With the added appeal that the rear doors fold almost flat against the bed. This works well for loading groceries, etc. in tight spaces, you can open the front door just far enough to open the shorter rear door, then close the front door and with the rear door out of the way you can put the shopping cart between the truck and the car parked on either side. flip up the rear seats and load up the floor.
It looks very strong, the hinges are huge and thick steel, and there are catches at both the floor and the roof, plus the middle catch for the front door. The seat belts for the front outer positions are attached to the rear doors, so there is the need to unhook driver or front passenger (if occupied) belt before the rear door is opened. Normally this is not an issue, unless you have a rear seat passenger getting in or out while the front passenger remains in the truck. The doors have reinforcement in them as well. I think it’s well designed and safe.
Really improves access for back seat passengers as well. The rear doors can’t be opened unless the front doors are first opened.
This isn’t exactly how the doors of your pickup work, unless you can open the rear doors without having to open the front doors.
It’s really simple – when you’re parked close to a wall or another vehicle, if both the front and rear doors have to be open for rear passengers to exit, the rear passengers are trapped between the rear and front doors.
I had an RX-8, and it made getting out of the rear somewhat awkward.
Not in my truck. You only have to open the front door about a foot or so, then you open the short back door which folds almost flat against the side of the truck bed and close the front door with the rear door open. Open space front and rear. Works great in tight spaces.
But you still have to open the front doors for the back ones to open, and that’s why it’s impractical for a modern sedan.
Except on a sedan, the doors will be too long to open like that when parked next to something. Also, they wouldn’t open that far.
Ralph Nader would have a cow.
When did he ever raise any concerns about suicide doors?
But for that, he’d have to be full of bull.
One of my favorite small sedans. Lancia had 20 years experience making pillarless sedans by the time this Appia was introduced. Read an R&T test here (where they do mention a breeze coming in):
http://www.viva-lancia.com/appia/rtabs2.htm
Some were built like this.
…or like this.
49-51 Mercury sedans had the suicide door arrangement. Fords did not but I’m not sure about Lincoln. My grandfather had both a 49 Mercury 4 door and then a 51 after Uncle Dean rolled the 49. I rode in both many times. The door arrangement seemed to me kind of awkward at the time. Now I can see that it might be advantageous to rear seat access.
Didn’t the 1961-69 Lincoln Continental had the suicide door arrangement as well?
I’m not sure they went all the way to 69 but 61 to mid sixties at least did have the suicide doors.
Around the turn of the ‘70s I used to see an Appia (2nd series, IiRC) parked in a residential neighborhood in St. Louis.
A couple of years ago at a car meet I saw a ’50 Lancia Aurelia sedan, which had a similar arrangement. Apparently it came with a brace to hold the doors open.
And here’s a close-up of the door latches on the Aurelia.
I hope there were bolts that came up from the door tops on both these Lancias, otherwise you’re talking major flex and doors you wouldn’t want to lean into. Just got a comprehensive & out-of-print Lancia history, La Lancia, so I’ll do some digging.
ITT: Confusion over what is and is not a suicide door. If you can open the rear doors independently, they’re suicide doors. If the front doors must be opened first, like on extended cab pickups, RX-8s, or Saturn “quad coupes,” the proper term is clamshell doors.
An example of the clamshell door. Literally. It only has one. The other side is a conventional 2 door. Not replicated on its successor tho.
I hated that they didn’t mirror this on the other side. Just like the goofy arrangement on the Hyundai veloster.
Me too, especially as it’s allegedly a British car and the extra door was not on the (err) curbside. I know its biggest markets were in LHD countries, but come on! If you’re gonna plaster your cars with Union Jacks, have the decency to make cars that fit the branding.
The new 6 door (that’s what MINI call it) Clubman looks stunning in the medal., whereas the shorter 5 door does not
Totally agree, Roger. The 6 door is a stunner. I specified one on their website and spent an imaginary £32k on one, though! Pretty sure I could have “spent” a lot more, too.
Well, you’ve got this (granted, it’s no sedan and still retains the B pillar), the Opel/Vaxhaul Meriva:
I don’t remember the number, but years ago I read that the Appia actually is very stiff despite the lack of B pillars and the equal of much more modern cars.
Doubtful this B-pillarless construction could pass current side impact crash standards.
Why aren’t all four-door sedans like this? Because they’re not Lancias. I’d really love to have one of these little jewels. Just a charming little car all around.
Some years ago I was at a Vintage Vehicle Literature Swap Meet and stumbled across a 1956 Lancia Sedan like this ~ it was glorious , unrestored and achingly beautiful from any angle .
I wish it had been for sale .
My 1939 dodge Sedan had suicide doors , very nice for ingress and egress of rear seat passengers .
-Nate
There was also the Nissan Stanza wagon in the 80s. The rear doors were sliders instead of suicides, but the effect is the same (or better in narrow parking places). I always thought these were kinda cool.
For unknown reasons, the Stanza wagon was called Multi in Canada.
In the UK, it was called the Nissan Prairie, I haven’t seen one in ages.
I see one of these Stanza Wagons nearly every day. A fellow who works at the same site I do uses one as his DD. It’s in fantastic shape for a nearly 30 year old car too!
I thought the objection to sliding doors was that if the vehicle frame was twisted in a crash, sliding doors would jam. But since there are a lot of sliding doors around, presumably they’ve found a way to address that issue.
Everyone is noting safety and structural concerns, but I wonder if wind noise considerations don’t also play a part. It has to be much more difficult to maintain a good seal around the doors when both sides have to be able to slide into place (this was a problem with French door refrigerators for many years after they first became available in the 1960s, though there are now several good designs). Also, it seems possible that a rear passenger entering or leaving the car may swing their feet across the sill where the front door could hit it when closed by the driver or front seat passenger closing the door, something that can’t happen if there’s a B pillar.