This is because they chose not to build a performance sedan, though GM famously did offer a Caprice with F41 suspension which tested well in the mags but they didn't do anything about the lame 305.bill25 wrote:In the times of the G-Body/F-Body vs the B-Body, there was an advantage to the coupe as they were smaller and lighter.
I will admit the G-body looked goofy as a sedan but then they never tried to make an actual performance/enthusiast version. So who knows. The B-body also came in coupes up until 1986 or so.
I could also pull together a list of weights because I don't think the sedan penalty was typically that much weight. These days it seems to be even less. Maybe because of crash standards (long doors means more structure required - no B-pillars - though this is speculation).
I believe that actually is not true. I guess we could dig for numbers but I don't think that was true of the Camry, either.If you are talking about the Accord, the Coupe was usually a V6, and the sedan was usually a 4 cyl. That wasn't written in stone, but that I believe is how it sold (mostly).
I think coupes looked better up to like the 80s or something. Not entirely sure why that is. I also think bigger cars tend to look better as sedans than smaller cars. And since I prefer bigger cars I guess that is where that comes from.Sure now a coupe Vs a sedan on the same platform have pretty close specs. I am arguing that the advantage the coupe offered was style, not as much performance. I think coupes generally looked better. Call it sportier or whatever. If you don't value that than yeah, they don't offer anything.