Pity the poor 70′s Stepford wives. Their husbands run off in cute little MGBs while they’re stuck lugging the kids and groceries in gigantic Detroit wagons. Where’s Fresh Direct when we need it?

I sat behind one of these Honda Crossturds this weekend and was just mystified at the design decisions made in the construction of this abomination. How can you see out of a rear window that is practically parallel to the ground? How are you supposed to be able to get a stack of boxes from Ikea under that sloped roof?

Jalopnik has a couple posts exploring the etymology behind the term “station wagon” (hint: what would you need to take a stack of boxy luggage to the local train depot?) and clarify the difference between “wagon” and “hatchback”.

LINK: Why is it called a “Station Wagon”?
LINK: What makes a Wagon a Wagon?

A slew of pics of these lil’ boxes.

Click to view the gorgeous, full-size scan of this Kodachrome of a 1960 Chevy Packwood, just back from vacation.

via Shorpy

Barris Kustoms, maker of the original Batmobile, Munster coach and Green Hornet’s Black Beauty created this multi-personality beast for Ford as a concept car. I’m gonna guess that if this went into production it would have leaked like a cheap diaper.

Model Car Science has more Magic Cruiser photos from a 1966 auto show, as well as the creation of a custom scale model.

BONUS: Kargoyle!

Nice drawings of cars by Flaf, German architect Florian Afflerbach.

See more in his flickr set.

“Look Out World! Here comes Ford!”

I can’t tell if the metaphor is for NASA ships or nasty sex:

Built to carry a full crew in comfort
while moving big payloads
propelled by the thrust
of Ford’s new v6 engine option
designed to be used
over and over again.

So Ford biggest selling point is that the car will start? More than once? SOLD!

Long live NASA Space Shuttle.

Does this red reflection on the floor make me look Photoshopped?

Ferrari debuted their FF model this week in Geneva. Top Speed has tons of pics, as well as video of this 4-seat, 4WD, 651 bhp beast. Finally, I can buy a car that seats my family and stows our luggage for trips to South Hampton without embarrassing my wife and kids. Now I guess I just need to get a job.

His description of the wagons of the 1960s seems to place all of the problems with American cars on the shoulders of station wagons:

American buyers first turned away from station wagons during the 1973 oil crisis. Their extreme length, emphasized by long rear overhangs to accommodate a third seat, made them natural targets.

Sorry, but almost all American cars were lengthy and heavy boats back then, not just wagons. There is nothing intrinsic to the wagon platform that says it needs to be the length of an aircraft carrier. That’s just what Detroit was making at the time.

He then speaks of the rise of the SUV as if it was a rational change for American buyers, while completely overlooking the fact that they have the same problems of poor fuel economy and extreme length that the cars of the 60′s did. He claims that they are “far more utilitarian” than wagons and offered “a lot more cargo space.”

There are many, often irrational, reasons Americans moved to SUVs, but the idea that wagons have less utility is ridiculous. I’ve got more space in the back of my brick than my buddy has in his Nissan Pathfinder. Yes, SUVs have 4-wheel drive, but that only contributes to their poor gas mileage and most drivers don’t need it anyway. AWD anyone?

As for Volvo, he sees their reputation for reliability as a problem, rather than a benefit:

Volvo probably did itself a disservice by running testimonials from owners who drove their Volvos for years and years. When you put a million miles or more on a car, it limits the opportunity for repeat business.

Yes, automakers shouldn’t tout longevity as an asset. They should just make cars that fall apart in 6 years so they can sell a new one. That’s what Detroit did, right? We can see how well that did for them.