> I don’t understand how the practicality trade-off ever made sense.

I did over 100k kilometers in two/three door vehicles. Back seat never had any passengers in them. Meanwhile it was easier to get into my car, visibility was better and the car overall looked better. Less things to break. Less weight. In my specific vehicle the three door variant had pillarless windows.

No downsides for me.

▲

Grombobulous 4 days ago | parent [-]

I can understand your anecdote and even agree with it conceptually, but I don’t think the market agrees with you.

For ease of getting into the car, consumers clearly prefer the crossover SUV as the king of in/out ease.

For having less things to break and having a lighter car, I’m not sure those things are very common buyer sentiments as they relate to a four doors. I’ve never had anything related to my door break. The weight of my vehicle has never impacted me. I don’t even know how much my vehicle weighs.

As far as visibility, that’s just something where older cars always win out because of differences in crash and rollover safety standards.

	▲	retired 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’m talking about a vehicle that you can buy in either two or four door version. In that direct comparison the two door wins in ease to get in to, visibility, weight and less complexity. If you don’t use the rear seat the two door is a no-brainer. Vehicle weight in many countries is important for tax, registration, insurance, fuel economy.