I’ve only owned one convertible out of all of the cars I’ve had. Is that right? Have I only had one convertible? I think so: a 1982 Volkswagen Rabbit convertible. A white-on-white Wolfsburg Edition one, a five-speed with a 90 horsepower engine and what may be the nicest convertible top I’ve seen on a production car, even ones many times more expensive. That top was dense and thick and had a real glass rear window and never even came close to leaking. Of course, being in Los Angeles, we hardly ever put it up at all. It was a genuinely fun and enjoyable car, and remains the most reliable liquid-cooled VW I’ve had. And yet there’s one design decision made on that car that still bothers me to this day.
That decision? It has to do with how the rear side windows rolled down. Or, maybe more accurately, didn’t roll down. At least not all the way. Allow me to kvetch, if you don’t mind, but first, let’s talk about the car more generally.
The Rabbit convertible – later known just as the Cabriolet – came in to fill the convertible hole left when VW stopped making the Beetle convertible in 1979, though in America at least, you could still buy some into 1980, now in Super Beetle form (well, they had been since 1971).
Karmann had been building convertibles for Volkswagen since 1950, and when VW wanted to update their drop-top offering to their newer Golf platform, they went back to Karmann to do the job, in 1979. Really, production started in 1978, but they only made 95 that year, but by ’79 they were being made in quantity.
And, for the most part, Karmann did a fantastic job converting the Golf/Rabbit to a convertible, which was arguably a more difficult job than the Beetle, since the Golf was an actual unibody car, without a separate chassis like the Beetle. The Karmann-made Rabbit/Golf convertibles weren’t just a hatchback car with the top chopped off – this was a unique body based on the original Mark I Golf/Rabbit stampings but unique, and incorporated such radical-for-the-time design choices like that prominent roll bar to give the car rigidity without a top and to keep you from getting accordion’d in case you should roll one over. 
The car was rigid and solid, and kept the Rabbit’s distinctive hatchback silhouette with the top up. Trunk access wasn’t as good as the hatch, of course, but it wasn’t bad, and was definitely usable. The car was great in so many ways. Except one: the rear quarter windows, which only went down about halfway:
What the hell was this? It’s a convertible – the whole damn roof collapses away, leaving the car entirely open, like a big basket with a handle – but, somehow, the rear side windows still stay up like five inches or so? What the hell is going on here?
Why would VW be okay with this? It’s ridiculous. And this was new, too. The old Beetle convertible rear quarter windows rolled down just fine, even in a pleasing angled way, pivoting backwards from a fulcrum on their lower front corner and disappeared completely into the bodywork:
So why the hell couldn’t the vastly newer, much more advanced Rabbit/Golf pull off the same trick?
Back in the day, before the internet let us find out the truth (or at least the popular conspiracy theories) about anything at a moment’s notice, we just heard rumors, and the talk at the time was that there was a government safety regulation that rear quarter windows couldn’t roll down all the way.
This, of course, was bullshit, but it seemed plausible, because so many 1980s cars had compromised rear door windows. Hell, there were vast numbers of GM cars that didn’t let you roll down the rear door windows at all!
And, somehow the absurdity of this safety regulation still holding true in a convertible, where it really made no sense, just made it seem all the more probable. The entire roof is open but somehow you won’t jump out of the car because of 5″ of window glass in one tiny area? Checks out.
Of course, there was no such regulation. Could this be just another case of a carmaker not wanting to do the hard engineering work to make a window retract into an area that could be compromised by wheel arches or something like that? Maybe! Let’s look:
Okay, this was the best cutaway I could find of a Rabbit convertible, and it does show the window size and shape, the location of rear strut towers and wheelarches and whatever. So let’s see if there would have been room for that window to descend further:
Let’s zoom in here and see what we can do. I’ve shown how far the factory window descends, but also pushed a bit further to see how much more it could have gone without hitting anything – I think a good bit further! Sure, that rear corner is right on the edge of the wheelarch there, but a very slight re-sizing of that window could have solved that!
I’m not convinced that Karmann had no choice here. I think if the window was slightly smaller in width, it could have descended far enough so that just an inch or so was exposed, which would have been vastly better than what we actually got, which was, charitably, stupid.
I looked for other cutaways of the Cabriolet to see if there were any other reasons why that window couldn’t have dropped into the body more, and while this one shows the rear suspension a bit clearer, it also notably omits the windows entirely. It still looks like there would have been room in there!
Again, the old Beetle convertible was able to get them down, by angling the window. The New Beetle convertibles took a slightly different tactic, but still did a little angled jog:
I don’t think the Rabbit/Cabrio needed to do exactly that but I do think Karmann could have tried a little harder, there.
I’m just still amazed this was an acceptable solution. with everything open, those two not-so-little sails of glass absolutely got in the way. Half the fun of a convertible is jumping in the back, over the bodywork – those dumb windows prevented that!
When we had ours in LA, our three dogs loved that car, because of all of the vast sniffabilities afforded by the open top. But those dumb half-windows were always in the way, getting covered with dog noseprints and drool, and I can tell you from experience they did not keep dogs from jumping out of the car to chase a squirrel or something.
I think I’m so irritated by these windows still because otherwise, the Rabbit convertible/Cabriolet was really a fantastic little car. Four-seat convertibles just aren’t all that common, especially not affordably, but the Rabbit convertible was. It was fun to drive, good on gas, surprisingly reliable, roomy, relatively practical – a great package, just let down by one stupid design choice.
Honestly, I can think of worse uses for a time machine than going to Osnabrück in 1978 and bribing, guilting, or berating some Karmann body engineer to spend just a bit more time on those windows and get the damn things to go all the way down. So, any time machine owners who are sick of killing Baby Hitler or having lunch with Socrates or Jesus or a dinosaur, you know how to find me.
This Feature For Convertibles Existed In The 1950s And I Have No Idea Why It’s Not A Thing Today
The Toyota Crown Open Is The One-Off Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet Killer The World Deserves But Definitely Doesn’t Need
Let’s Talk About What’s Going On With The Weird Roof On The Triumph Stag
Issue solved on the New Beetle Cabrio, but at what cost… I had to change both (a classic failure on this car) and they are EXPENSIVE
“Is that right? Have I only had one convertible?”
No. It is certainly not right to only have owned one! and in California no less!
From 16yo till 50, I always had one in the mix. 71 Karmann Ghia I got for $450 needing a new top,exhaust system, and some structural repair, got it inspected just as I got my license. Last was a 1997 Saab 900 SE turbo. Couple Mustangs, MG midget in between. Life is for LIVING!
Throw it in the garbage.
Maybe they reused the glass from something else to save money
We are similar in this way. The only convertible I’ve ever owned was a VW. Bit newer though, Mk3 Cabrio, 1997, triple black, Highline. It was also dead reliable seeing as it was the mega simple 2.slow with a manual. At least the rear windows went all the way down.
I can hear the Germans yelling at the American marketers now .”Nien the window needs to be bigger we can’t roll it down all the way”
“sick of killing baby Hitler” made me laugh heartily.
Pete Holmes recently leaked that his upcoming special has a bit about how killing Hitler would be too brutal and problematic, he wanted to go back even further and just push Hitler’s dad off his mom at a…ahem…key moment.
It was a roughly 1/200 million chance that that spermatozoa would combine with that particular ovum. Just changing the temperature of the room or knocking on the door without entering might have done the trick. A different DNA combination and the baby might have been as different from A. Hitler as I am from my siblings.
As a child of the 1980’s I definitely remember the “windows not going down all the way” being explained as some kind of safety regulation. Either so you couldn’t climb out or to help keep you inside during an accident. I guess it was my parents, or maybe my know-it-all cousin.
Speaking of which, I was brought home from the hospital in a Cordoba, which was followed by an early Cavalier, and then a Nissan Stanza. My folks made some incredible automotive decisions.
Owned an 81 Rabbit Convertible bought from a new Miata owner in 1989. It’s really the only VW I wished I could’ve kept. More annoying than the rear windows were the front vent windows. They were attached to the pivot points with adhesive, and had given up holding on. I didn’t dare open them lest they drop out.
lots of those vent windows had the hinges and latches glued on using the same stuff that holds on rear view mirrors
My mother had an 82 Rabbit Convertible for a bit and I never really thought about the rear side windows. Perhaps because I don’t remember using the rear seat for people. On the other hand I appreciated the utility of the fold down rear seat and removable parcel shelf. For the record this car was metallic red with a black interior and top, and a 5 speed.
Ha! I just assumed every one I saw was broken in some way with those windows.
The rear windows on my Peugeot 205 cabriolet have exactly the same problem. But if you look inside, with the full mechanism needed to move the windows, there is definitely no space left to go lower. On your illustration with the cutaway, you forgot that the window and mechanism go much lower than that
This was fixed for the final gen, when it became the Cabrio. They went all the way down.
(I spent years wrenching on a girlfriend’s ’99, and enjoyed driving it too – and her dog absolutely loved it. If we could post pics, I have one with him in his motoring harness and reversible jacket, happily sitting in the back seat, ready for adventure).
Side thought here.
Because I am ignorant.
But.
Maybe the amount of wind buffeting the rear passengers could be an explanation for the windows. BTW I drove a lot of these in my VW years, but never rode in the back seat.
So WTF do I know? LOL.
Had one of these. It was a good car! Went from a Mustang with a 90HP 3.3L inline six to this USDM VW with a 1.8L four cylinder that made 90HP. Far more fun to drive fast than the Mustang. Owned it in Europe when I lived there. Often ran it hard on the autostrada at ~100 mph for 150+ miles.
Yes, should just have worked like the old Karmann built Beetle convertibles!
I guess they had a tighter budget in 1979 than in 1949, so they had to cut a few corners?
At least it was a glass window that somewhat rolled down and not a plastic curtain that had to be manually detached to fold the roof.
These things were commonly called “Erdbeerkörbchen” or “little strawberry basket” in German because of the roll bar and the similarity with the little baskets fresh strawberries used to be sold in.
Pretty universally known as “Bitch Baskets” in the US, as they were the car of many a Sorority Sister.
I almost bought one when I bought the Triumph Spitfire almost thirty years ago. I’d probably still have that too. My ’84 Jetta GLI with the same engine was one of the best cars I ever owned.
Yeah, a narrower window and slightly wider side panel on the top to close the space might’ve worked. Would’ve compromised some visibility with the top up, but probably not overly much.
I thought there was a law that automotive engineers in the late 70s and early 80s had to half-ass everything.
More like edict from the bean counters, but yeah. For the American producers, anyway.
Torch: in your cutaway there isn’t as much room as you think. You have to move the rear wheel up to full suspension compression, then add snow chains (I know, but you have to design it for the three people ever who’ll go skiing in it), then add dynamic clearance to the chains, and that’s your inner wheel arch. So it goes down about as far as it can already.
They could have made the C-pillar four inches thicker and the glass would have missed the wheel arch, but it’s already a horrific blind spot with the roof up.
I am not so sure so few people went skiing in it, or at least used it in winter. As Torch said, the top wasn’t all that flimsy, and didn’t leak, so my guess that quite a few people had this is their only car. It is not as common to have a “weekend fun car” and a “daily car” in Europe as it seems to be in the US.
Am in Europe, have had weekend fun cars for decades. It’s pretty common.
But then I’ve also daily driven an Elise on snow tyres all winter. It’s was amazing on snow, I’d have taken it skiing if I could ski.
I don’t think I personally know anyone who has a weekend fun car (that I know of). Maybe you and the people you know are richer?
The vast majority of my cars have cost less than 5 grand. Even my Elise.
I had three cars worth maybe two grand in total when I was in my 30’s and living in my aunts spare room. If you buy really cheap cars it pays to have a spare or two to increase your chances of one of them working.
It’s not a money thing.
These were both very popular and very much year-round cars in New England when I was a kid. Plenty of them at the slopes, and in fact in high school a friend’s dad had one that we went skiing in many times, as they had a ski chalet at Sugerloaf in Maine.
There also must be room for the lift mechanism and steel bar under the window. I’m guessing they did about as much as possible.
This is why all the ’80s cars had a small fixed pane in the rear window, there needed to be room to clear the wheel arch to lower the window. And still most only went down about 3/4. Fortunately dad insisted on A/C (and an FM radio).
Do people even put chains on the rear wheels of a front wheel drive car?
(I don’t live in snow country.)
They could, so you have to design clearance for them. I imagine it’d be quite oversteery having that much more grip on just the front axle.
We only get occasional snow, so instead of chains we use panic and stupidity.
Chains go on the rear wheels first if you only have a set of two, even for FWD cars.
Since snow & ice conditions can lead the tires’ coefficient of friction to go from “just fine” to zero in an instant, having chains on the rear wheels first will encourage understeer rather than immediate oversteer. The rear wheels with chains can still brake under understeer conditions. Conversely, oversteer with slippery rear wheels and chains at the front often will exceed the car’s steering angle too quickly for even a skilled driver to catch it. The extra front grip won’t help control the car at all if it’s already spinning out.
I think the snow chains’ packaging hypothesis here makes a lot of sense.
Agreed. Torch’s illustration puts the corner of a piece of glass about an inch away from rubber, with an uncompressed suspension. And I’m not sure whether he added extra glass below the visible DLO bottom line for a required overlap with the seals, or not.
I’m guessing also that the glass would not be allowed to ever touch a hard inside of a fender well or any structural bit, lest structural twisting and bending would either break the glass or damage the lift mechanism. Is that accurate?
Yeah, you design for a minimum 6mm clearance in the worst case tolerance stack. But this was designed pre-CAD so I guess you’d err on the side of caution.
Love the artist’s rendering of the Torchinsky doggos in the Cabriolet!
99% certain that was Torch himself.
In 30 years Torchinsky originals may be as valuable as a Bob Ross. Bob had better hair; sorry Torch.
Better get your membership now!
The dogs are adorable, tha car looks a bit like a Fridolin-convertible, though : )
“So, any time machine owners who are sick of killing Baby Hitler”
Oh that never gets old! I just punch him in his stupid baby face before using the pillow.
There’s a Stephen Fry novel “Making History” in which some guy uses a time machine to go back and use a contraceptive pill to prevent Hitler’s birth. No baby murder, so no blood on the hands of the book’s heroes.
It doesn’t go they way they planned.
It’s a fun book, but I recommend buying the version that doesn’t have a headless nazi playing basketball in the front cover.
My planning only goes as far as punching a baby in the face then smothering it with a pillow. After that history is on its own.
I always assume the baby had that trademark moustache too, just so time travelers don’t kill the wrong one.
Oh its not hard to find the right one. Just look for the looong line outside the door.
I would have bought that one if it were available. Had to settle for the blurry Hitler version.
I got it in the US hardcover edition – probably within the first few printings – but I don’t remember what the cover looked like. I should unbox all the books that I retrieved from my parents’ house after they had to go into assisted living, but that would also mean getting several of the boxes out of my mom’s Grand Marquis that’s sat in my backyard for the better part of two years. Which I also need to do, if only because it’s my only car right now.
Honestly, it would’ve made so much more sense to have started with a Jetta 2-door sedan. There’d have been a mostly flat-opening, no contortions needed, trunk access and room for the top stack to get significantly lower into the car without compromising said trunk space. Maybe even extend the sides of the top forward a couple inches so the rear quarter glass can be a little bit narrower and retract all the way without any complicated pivots.
Except the rest of the world is not such a fan of sedans and Europe especially prefers a hatchback.
Also, the first-generation Jetta only was released in August 1979, half a year after the Golf Cabriolet.
It has the same wheelbase, so it has the same limited amount of room for the window to slide down.
Would have had a LOT more useful trunk, but also been harder to park in the old countries. That extra half-meter of length made a big difference, the Jetta was NOT a big seller on the other side of the pond.
But I agree, would have made no difference to the windows rolling down. In fact, the rear windows on both generations of Jetta 2dr did not roll down at all. The first gen MIGHT have tilted open (I didn’t own one of those), but the MKII windows were very much fixed in place – my first VW was an ’85 Jetta 2DR.
Also not feeling the angst about them not rolling down all the way anyway. They are *glass*, you barely notice they are there.