It’s fun – and sometimes, depressing – to recall things that were once pretty much included as standard with every new vehicle that are either extremely uncommon now or altogether lost to the passage of time (and the effects of government regulation).
The package shelf is one such.
When was the last time you saw a new car that had one? Probably not since circa 2011- which was the last year Ford sold the Crown Victoria sedan. It was a relic of much-longer-ago than that, dating back to the early ’90s – when most vehicles were still cars rather than crossovers, as they are now.
Package shelves were a feature of cars that have been effectively eliminated by the changeover to crossovers, which have rear liftgates instead. The package shelf was a flat area just behind the top of the back seats, underneath the rear windshield. People used to place packages on that shelf. Or maybe just a box of Kleenex. It was a fine place to mount a bobblehead figure, too – if that was your thing.
Of course, that is intolerable in the era of Safety First! – because an unsecured box of Kleenexes might fly forward during a panic stop and we can’t have that. Meaning, they won’t allow that. Things are such nowadays that one must buckle-up packages placed on the seat – because the air bag sensors embedded in the seat detect the weight and assume it’s an unbuckled person, even to the extent of it being an unbuckled foot-long from Subway. The “buckle up” buzzer goes berserk – until you buckle up the sandwich.
This is not an exaggeration. I have personally had exactly that happen to me several times. That’s how sensitive the sensors are. It is a measure of the extent of the absurdity we’re forced to deal with.
Back to the package shelf. They were not outlawed, in the literally made illegal sense. That is not how the government works. The government is far more sly than that. People often make the mistake of believing government bureaucrats are stupid. In fact most are very cunning and manipulative creatures. Government attracts that sort. The sort that has figured out that actually outlawing things is likely to generate immediate opposition, for all the obvious reasons. Most people dislike being told what they’re not allowed to buy – especially by some haughty government bureaucrat.
So the bureaucrats became more clever, more subtle.
What they do is hurl what are fairly describable as secular fatwas – i.e., an order decreed by secular mullahs, which is what government bureaucrats are in the sense that they are a kind of religious cadre sans the sectarian theology. Their religion is authority – as in do what we say. They regard themselves as being as unanswerable to any temporal authority as the pope.
So they hurl these fatwas styled regulations that must be complied with. They do not say you may not buy a car (and thereby, a package shelf). They say that every car manufactured must comply with the regulation-fatwas they hurl. The regulation-fatwa that led to the replacement of 90-plus percent of the cars that used to be available by crossovers is the one requiring every vehicle manufacturer’s fleet (i.e., the roster of models it sells) to average some arbitrarily decreed number of miles-per-gallon. This regulation-fatwa is called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and it has been gradually going up since the mid-1970s, when it was first hurled.
The effect of this regulation-fatwa was to gradually but surely push most cars – especially large American cars such as the Crown Vic – off the showroom floor because large American cars (especially those with V8 engines) could not realistically be made to average more than 30 miles-per-gallon. So, cars – American cars in particular – got smaller (and smaller engined). Rear-drive was done away with as the layout for most American cars, with the exception of a handful of small, sporty models such as the Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro and the recently out-regulated Dodge Challenger.
As cars got smaller, they became less practical. Their small trunks, especially, were a liability. The crossover was the solution to this problem created by the government. A small crossover had more usable space inside than a mid-sized (or even a full-sized) car. To make the point, one of the largest cars currently available is the Mercedes S-Class sedan. This “full-size” sedan has a 12.8 cubic foot trunk. A 2025 Honda CR-V crossover has 39.3 cubic feet of cargo capacity behind its back seats that can be expanded to 76.5 cubic feet. The Honda is two feet less-long than the Mercedes (and about one-fourth the MSRP). Its space-efficiency makes it practical, which even a six-figure “full-size” car such as the Mercedes S-Class is not.
Of course, the CR-V does not have a package shelf.
And now you know why.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
My 71 Charger came with only 1 speaker in the rear deck due to the “defogger” that takes up all the space where the other speaker would normally be placed.
Defogger still works after all these years.
Proof that we Goyim don’t hate our (((government))) nearly enough….
And certainly not nearly as much as our (((government))) hates us Goyims!!!
My brother and I would just about throw down regarding who got to lay down back there on the shelf during our travels. I also rode around in the hatch area of a C4 Corvette though.
A VW Beetle doesn’t typically have that back shelf; the area behind the rear seat, over the engine, is usually a little notch which my older sister and I, when we were little, termed the “back-back” on our folks’ 1960 Beetle. We practically went to blows over who got to ride in it, and on a cold day, even in Louisiana or Northern CA (our Dad, still going strong at 91, was in the Air Force at the time), it was nice to be over that warm engine!
Another feature not found in new cars. The gas cap under the back license plate. Didn’t matter what side you pulled up to the gas pumps, it could be either.
Worked great until The Commander backed the 71 Nova into my buddy’s Capri. Almost out of gas when I found I could not get the emissions gas cap off with the bumper slightly pushed up. Crowbarred it back into place, chrome intact.
Yes, nice not having to pick a side to fuel up.
Was it the shoe box 55 – 57 Chevys with the gas cap behind the LH tail light?
Morning, Sparkey!
My ’76 TA (like your TA) has the fuel filler in the rear, hidden behind the license plate. What an elegant and functionally superior design!
Just like the fuel tank filler on the ’66 Plymouth Fury II that I and my boy are still restoring. A labor of “love” (and LOTS of epithets).
I recall that, growing up, my folks back in ’67, after my Dad got his orders to go to Andrews AFB, in MD, near DC (he ran an altitude training facility there, and got to know many prominent politicians doing their “Guard” or “Reserve” training with Air Force, Navy, or Marines aviation duties, recalling especially working with Texas senator John Tower), they bought a brand-new Chevy Bel Air Wagon. This car had what turned out to be a factory “mistake” in that it had the 327 with a four barrel; typically, that engine, standard on the full-sized wagons except for the Caprice model (which got, I believe, the “Rat” motor, at the time, a 396), got a two-barrel, so this gave the wagon an extra 20 ponies which came in handy at freeway speeds! The fuel tank was at what turned out to be a rather VULNERABLE spot, as due to the placement of that rear-facing “third” seat that folded down so there’d be that cargo area, it had to be on the driver’s rear quarter panel. IDK what dictated that versus the passenger side; I believe it was where, on V8s, which side the fuel pump of the engine was typically located, which in turn influenced the routing of the fuel line(s) along the chassis. At least we didn’t have any problems figuring out where to give the “Family Truckster” a “drink”, which, like the Griswold’s “beast”, was needed FREQUENTLY in those days…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxTQT9LmzTY
All I remember from the time sedans were still around in large numbers, was young female drivers with a display of stuffed dolls on the rear window shelves. It’s not like rearward visibility was ever a concern for the products of the American driver education system, dumb self-centered asses as they mostly are.
As to the utility advantage of crossovers vs large sedans, yeah, maybe, if you carry one oversized box from Costco or Walmart, again, maybe, twice a year. Might as well order it delivered. Medium/Large sedans are far better in drivability AND comfort AND utility, 99% of the time.
Not only the back shelf, but on the dash too. Had to be something large though so it didn’t roll down into the defroster vent. We can’t put anything up there today because of the airbags, more useless space.
Before stereo was the “fader knob” to balance the sound output from the one rear speaker while listening to the AM only radio. Anyone remember 4 track car tape decks? Tech improved quickly and thus came the 8 track the automotive sound staple of the ‘60s.
Guffaw at the 8 track but it was instant sound uninterrupted till you removed it, no flipping a cassette or fumbling with CDs. Which allowed for uninterrupted shenanigans with your date, Bread’s ‘ Baby I’m-a Want You ‘ album did the trick for mood music.
Most aftermarket and some factory one slot cd players endlessly repeated. How the hell could anyone forget that annoyance?
“The regulation-fatwa that led to the replacement of 90-plus percent of the cars that used to be available by crossovers is the one requiring every vehicle manufacturer’s fleet (i.e., the roster of models it sells) to average some arbitrarily decreed number of miles-per-gallon.”
What utter BS
Blaming CAFE for shifting market preference of crossovers vs sedans? . . . Uh huh . . . Sure. Somehow I was under the mistaken impression that free market preference was desirable.
I hate CAFE. However, it isn’t why the market has evolved toward crossovers or SUVs before that.
Some background:
‘In 2011, NHTSA shifted from a single-standard CAFE model to a variable one based on vehicle footprint. Each footprint value is assigned a specific fuel economy target.
‘Under this system, a larger footprint results in a less stringent miles-per-gallon requirement. A vehicle’s footprint is the rectangular area calculated by multiplying wheelbase times track width.’ — AI overview
A typical 1970s sedan, with its absurdly long, protruding skirt-bustle trunk (to our 21st century eyes) is not optimized for footprint-based CAFE standards. Whereas, a crossover with less than a foot of overhang beyond the front and rear wheels stretches the wheelbase as far as possible within the confines of the vehicle’s envelope.
Certainly, shifting preferences are involved. Station wagons in their day were seen as boring, utilitarian family vehicles (and thus didn’t sell in large numbers), while today’s crossovers can pose as sports-oriented, with ski racks on the roof and so forth.
Eric is not wrong, though, in asserting that footprint-based CAFE regs played a role in shaping the envelope of today’s vehicles. If minimizing the use of hydrocarbon fuels truly were a priority, then the applicable CAFE standard would be a fixed value. Larger vehicles would pay a penalty, and thus be disincentivized.
“In 2011, NHTSA shifted from a single-standard CAFE model to a variable one based on vehicle footprint. Each footprint value is assigned a specific fuel economy target.”
Yet the shift to SUVs and CUVs was in full swing by 2000 if not even a few years earlier than that. Both the Honda CRV and Toyota RAV4 were introduced 1996/1997.
Again no fan of CAFE but let’s not pretend this caused the market to migrate to CUVs.
Hi BID,
How is it “utter BS”?
CAFE became (effectively) the law in the mid-1970s. Its immediate and intended effect was to cause the downsizing of passenger cars; in particular, American cars, which at that time (’70s) were generally rear-drive, with standard six cylinder or V8 engines. CAFE effectively forced American manufacturers to make European-and-Japanese-type smaller cars. This led to the general adoption of FWD platforms and the use of four cylinder engines by the early-mid 1980s. The K-Car is the perfect example of a CAFE compliance car.
These smaller cars were less practical because they were smaller. SUVs began to be seen as the alternative – for people who wanted a bigger vehicle with more room. They were also – at that time- subject to a less onerous CAFE standard, as you know. This “loophole” allowed the manufacturers to “get away” with mass marketing SUVs as an alternative to the downsized shitbox cars of the era.
But truck-based SUVs (the early ones) ride and handle more like trucks than cars.
Crossovers came along and offered more interior space and practicality in a vehicle with the same footprint as a small car – with good gas mileage, too – and without the “trucky” feel of an SUV. Crossovers were thus boosted into existence by CAFE, which pushed large, traditional American cars with six and V8 engines off the market as mass-market cars.
And yet in the 30s, 40s, and 50’s long before CAFE was even a thing, V8’s didn’t dominate the market. So can we agree that it wasn’t necessary to have a v8 to have a large comfortable car that consumers would purchase of their own free will?
The late 50s and 60s where an economic period where the US economy and the buying power of the US Dollar was at a zenith. The rise to prominence of the V8 during that period had everything to do with the economy.
The stagflation of the 70s and the reduced buying power of the dollar had at least as much to do with the diminishment of V8’s in the market as the new CAFE regulations. The desire for good fuel economy and the perceived high price of fuel (due to oil embargo and government induced fuel shortages) by consumers also pressed the market toward smaller cars as much or more than CAFE during the 70s. We were both alive during this time and should remember it well.
When wages are stagnant, and fuel prices were rising consumers didn’t want to drive huge lumbering land yachts with V8’s getting 8-10 msg. So to reiterate my point, it is disingenuous to pin the whole shift away big cars and V8’s on CAFE (which I hate as much as you, probably more).
Changing consumer demands for higher seating heights and “command of the road” visibility, and economics have as much or more to do with the creation of the CUV segment in the late 90s as CAFE.
I constantly hear supersized consumers complaining about how hard it is to get their lard ass into a typical sedan. I have a 98’ Camry and by listening to my neighbors and friends complain about getting into it, you would think that I was asking them to get into a Countach with its low ride hight and wide sills.
I could argue that the as Muricans’ got fatter and fatter is what led to the rise in the popularity of trucks, SUV’s, and lately CUVs.
My reason for using the “utter BS” language is because in reality, economics, and shifting consumer tastes have had as much or more to do with the creation of CUVs vs an overly simplified CAFE did it explanation. Life, and the automotive market just isn’t that simple.
If you aren’t going to provide that truth and nuance, who will?
Your biases (“Super-Sized” customers and their “lard asses”) show that you’re not someone to be taken seriously, nor that you seem to know automotive engineering and product history as well as you THINK you do. Me, I’m no “lightweight”, although still in a “normal” height/weight range, and I’d be tickled to find a 1998 Camry in the condition and with the mileage as the 2006 Corolla CE, super-clean, but VERY BASIC, with but 57K miles, I just picked up as a second vehicle. My 2020 Fusion is about the same size as your Camry, but, thanks to Federal mandates re: crash safety, like a late model Camry also, is considerably heavier, and its squeaky turbo four, though it have plenty of “oomph”, doesn’t render any better fuel economy than your now 28 y.o. vehicle. My primary reasons for acquiring the Corolla are likely the same as why you have the Camry, reliability, which Toyota vehicles once had, fuel economy, not unique to Toyotas but they did well, and, assuming you have that iron-solid 2.4 liter four-banger (the V6 you could then get wasn’t quite as durable, though no slouch), WRENCHABLE. Both our vehicles are in that “sweet spot” of advances in materials that made modern fuel injection systems reliable and suitable for mass production, something infamous tried in the late 1950s with the Chevy Corvette and its 283, and the Chrysler Imperial “J-car” in the early 1980s, with that “Fool Injection” on the otherwise trusty 318 that was great WHEN it worked, which wasn’t often, and a trouble Mopar replaced them, free of charge, with the same Carter Thermoquad, itself, among carbs, an innovation, but oh, that phenolic float bowl! For that matter, one of the things that almost sank Mopar in the 1970s was the “Lean Burn” system, one of the first computer control systems for engines, mandated by Chrysler not having the money to do an entire new line of engines (the loan from the Carter Administration served, among other things, to enable Chrysler to develop its own line of four-bangers which moved those “K” cars and minivans quite well, but it ALSO, due to making best use of production capacity and real estate (i.e., selling off what could be done without), shifted Slant Six production across the river to Windsor, Ontario, CANADA, which probably wasn’t what ol’ “President Peanut” had in mind when he green-lighted that infamous loan!). As much as I’m a Mopar fan, if Chrysler’s failure to manage and forecast the market would make it go the way of Packard and Studebaker, so be it; the American public still had a choice of makers and their products, right? That loan set a TERRIBLE precedence of Federal intrusion, which was already overbearing back in 1978, into the American automotive industry.
As for WHY V8s didn’t “dominate”, oh, they existed, as more a LUXURY vehicle’s engine, but obviously you’ve forgotten the (in)famous Ford Flathead V8, which was introduced in 1932, and STILL has a following! Most engines were indeed inline, but they included “Straight Eights” as well as “Sixes”, and there was a significant reason: most of them were ALSO Flatheads! Some OHV designs like the Buicks and Chevys were in use from the 1920s, but the Flathead configuration was persisted, at least in an “economy six”, well into the 1950s for most makes, as, while “dogs” on horsepower, they delivered what was REALLY desired, TORQUE. As “Uncle Tony” of the YT channel, “Uncle Tony’s Garage”, puts it, up to about 1960, Americans lived in a “fifty mph world”, where engine torque gave cars that “pullaway” ability from a stop light or sign, which a driver encountered a LOT. Engine smoothness and ability to “lug” did more than make for a more pleasant driving experience; it also lessened “jerkiness” and vibration which wore out clutches and throwout bearings, as until about 1960, the majority of American cars and trucks, and almost all European imports (this was before “Tojo’s revenge”) were “standard shift”. There’s still a debate as to when the final car with “three on the tree” was produced, some say 1978, others say 1979, and trucks, well, the Chevy C-10 in 1987, I believe, was the last. Even the early automatics, being somewhat sketchy “slush boxes”, benefitted from low-rpm, torquey motors.
It was CONSUMER DEMAND that caused American car makers, who’d lived off the pent-up post-WWII demand from 1946 through, arguably, 1948 or 1948, on what were essentially 1941 models with minor trim changes, but they could see that “supersized consumers” wanted to get their “lard asses” in something bigger, and badder, and wanted their personal “Konigstiger” to still go FASTER (FWIW, the real King Tiger, despite being 12 tons heavier, and with the same engine, would have won a drag race with its predecessor, having a more advanced gear box and simpler suspension, but those improvements that helped with road speed made the super-heavy tank impractical to operate in muddy terrain, as they often sank to their bellies in the “ooze”!). Going faster meant either a gear box with more forward speeds that’d deliver a lower gear ratio, as with the KT versus the Tiger I, OR, an engine design that could sustain higher revs. And there were a LOT of engine types prototyped, mainly for aircraft applications, some not ALWAYS successful (the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 being a most infamous example, which probably did more to spur American JET engine development than anything else), which carried over in the post-war years into civilian automotive production. The V8 configuration, already hugely successful in mass production and marketing with Ford, lent itself to an OHV design, and those engines didn’t have a flathead’s problem of overheating under load with higher revs. That was so successful for marketing power and bullet-proof reliability that it even lent a tagline and a brand name for vegetable juice, “I coulda had a V8!”.
It was the two “gas crises” of 1973 and 1979 that doomed the big ol’ American “sled”, weighing in at nearly 5,000 lbs GVW, with a 400 cube or more V8, sucking down gasoline through a four-barrel carb, and with an automatic gearbox STANDARD (Chrysler, AFAIK, was the lone holdout, still having a “three on the tree” on its C-body cars available through 1971). It wasn’t so much that they couldn’t AFFORD gasoline, which price increases to about 55 to 65 cents a gallon in ’73 and then over a DOLLAR seemed “Gawd-Awful” at the time, it was AVAILABILITY. No point in having that fine, big, beautiful ride that’s like driving a well-stuffed sofa about, if you can’t get any gas for it, and at 10-12 mph, even with a 25 gallon tank, you’re just not going all that far between fillups! There WERE domestic offerings of a much smaller and far more fuel-efficient nature, which had their own issues, like the Ford Pinto with its undeserved reputation for explosiveness, and the Chevy Vega, with its “innovative” aluminum engine that rarely lasted more than 40K miles and tendency to rust! Both vehicles revealed major management problems within the “Big Three”.
The last thing that doomed the large American sedan or coupe, and, most notably, the STATION WAGON, was a change of DEMOGRAPHICS. By the early 1970s, the “Baby Boomers” were themselves starting to graduate college or having done their military “hitch”, and, thanks to “Women’s Lib” in part, just weren’t cranking out babies like their parents and older siblings had. Also, many more families had TWO cars, so only one need have the room necessary to accomadate a now-lesser “tribe”.
However, don’t kid yourself that CAFE didn’t play a role THEN, as it did now, but it may have been also simply a PLOY to have the banks keep loaning the automakers money for retooling and marketing the smaller vehicles. While ultimately consumer choice still dictates, as no one puts a gun to a car buyer’s back and dictates his “choice”, there are undue government efforts to discourage alternate choices. I hope you’ve got the catalytic converter fitted with a protective kit, as both our “Yotas” had a vulnerability of them being STOLEN. Federal mandates that forbid a salvage yard from selling a perfectly usable “cat” to the consumer are what gives incentives to “cat” theft, even more than their salvage value for the precious metals therein; that’s why certain models are targeted.
According to the article the crossover is an obviously superior design for vast majority of drivers compared to the million mile badge display aka benz.
My sail phone resting on the passenger seat of our 2016 Jetta triggers the nanny tech regarding the seatbelts not being fastened.
I carry the smallest and lightest iPhone still actively supported by Apple and my employer’s security standards, a third generation SE.
Apple still supports my first generation SE, but my employer does not.
You’ve put up with that since 2016? Deprogram it. Ask around for someone with a VCDS and this can be done in about 5 minutes. You can also turn off those stupid Day Time Running Lights.
Eric, Those 6×9 speakers bring back memories of aftermarket stereos, that were popular back in the day. For old timers the 63 Avanti had an opening in the shelf to provide access to the trunk! Now that’s something.
Hi Rik.
Cars with split folding seats let you access the trunk from inside and if no passengers are in those seats you can usually fit 2″X10″x8′ with the trunk lid still closing or longer, but longer ones will stick out.
Hi Rik,
Yup! I’ve got a pair… on the package shelf of my ’76 TA!
I installed a pair of those on the package shelf of my ‘75 Dodge Dart back in the day, I believe they were made by Krako. Good memories.
Bad Company crankin Kracos in 74. The poor kids. . . .
Looking at the top picture and other than being right hand drive does any one know what make/ model it is?
“an unbuckled foot-long from Subway [makes] the buckle-up buzzer go berserk…I’ve had this happen several times.”
Eric, I think we’ve found the source of your recent weight gain. I’m just trying to help.
Usually means wifey or g/f (or both) are with child…called “sympathy gain”. Or he’s just following MY poor dietary habits. Eric ?