Important Car Design Conundrum: Has The Z-Shaped D-Pillar Ever Worked?

Zpillar Top
ADVERTISEMENT

I feel like in automotive designs, there’s a number of design elements that seem like they get tried numerous times before they actually work. Like the full-width light bar look for headlights and taillights; Cars like the Mercury Sable tried it, but it’s only fairly recently that such elements are becoming successful and even commonplace. There’s one example of a design element that I actually like, but I’m not sure if it’s ever actually, really worked on anything: the Z-shaped D-pillar.

The design itself I think is conceptually compelling: On a wagon-like vehicle, the D-pillar, right behind the second-row side window, is angled rearwards to such a degree that a traditional, visible and upright D-pillar is rendered unnecessary. Instead, the back window wraps around to the side, creating something that looks rakish and sleek. Or, at least it should, but the problem is that I’m not sure I’ve ever really seen it executed just right.

In fact, I think the car that uses this in the most obvious way might just also happen to be the most unanimously-agreed ugly-ass car ever: the SsangYong Rodius:

Rodius

I’ve highlighted the Z-pillar section in red, but really I should probably have made the whole background of this page vivid, angry red as a warning that I’d be posting pictures of a Rodius on it. Maybe it’s better from the back?

Rodius2

(Spit take entire mason jar of You-Hoo and gin) Oh god, no, it isn’t. Damn. I should have warned you. And me.

Luckily, there’s another very textbook example of this that’s better, and it’s actually the car that got me thinking about all of this, which I saw on a Copenhagen street:

Mbaclassw168

That’s a Mercedes-Benz A-Class (W168) and while I know this design was extremely polarizing, I like how the Z-Pillar rear is handled here.

Aclas2

Even here, though, the design is quite unusual, which is why I’m still not sure this counts as being really successful, because I think I’d need to see it working well on a more mainstream-style and proportioned car. The Chrysler Pacifica minivan flirts with the Z-Pillar, as does the Chevy Equinox, with a forward rake to the diagonal bar, like the Rodius:

Pacifica Equinox

I’m just not sure if either of these really lean into the design enough to qualify, or, even if we say they count, are they doing enough with it? Or is it diluted here to the point where it no longer matters?

There’s other cars with diagonal C- or even D-pillars, like the Range Rover Freelander (but does the fact that the rear is a removable roof make it not count? And it has a D-pillar, even if it’s blacked out) or the Nissan Pathfinder or Pulsar NX Sportbak, but neither of them had the wraparound rear glass that’s needed to be a true Z-Pillar.

So my questions remain: has any car ever truly done a Z-Pillar the right way, and if not, is such a thing even possible?

For whatever reason, I think it has to be. There’s something fun and dramatic about the look, and I feel like, with enough concerted effort from the automotive design community, it could be done justice. I mean, it can hardly get any worse, right?

 

About the Author

Mercedes Streeter

View All My Posts

66 thoughts on “Important Car Design Conundrum: Has The Z-Shaped D-Pillar Ever Worked?”

  1. So, after reading this, I’m convinced that any flirtation with the Z should count – if it is about design, and not structure, I think if it evokes the Z on you, it is enough. Less is more! Anything as egregious as what we see on the SsangYong is just too over the top – like two inch thick eyebrows, or puffy, silicon filled duck lips!
    With that in mind, I decided to look at my car’s butt – an Opel Zafira, the same model I use as a banner on my profile. And lo and behold, it kind of has a Z in there! Actually looks more like a 5, and the most interesting element is that the tail light is part of the composition. I can’t post pictures, but I’ll put a link in a reply to this comment.
    Of course, being this MY car – that I chose myself, among four other options, because I like the design – I’m partial to it. But I think it pulls it off, very well. It still has a big fat C pillar, but the rear glass is bulbous enough to (in my opinion) sell the illusion of a Z (or 5) – all this without screaming on my face about it (and bonus points for being stealthy and using the tail lights to achieve the effect). The very fact that I had to look for it, in my opinion, qualifies as a good design.

  2. It seems to work better when it is sweeping up, like on the Merc, not down, like on the Ssangyong. One reason for this might be that a D pillar that sweeps down looks like someone took a hatchback car and tried to make it into a station wagon on the cheep by simply keeping the old, down-sweeping D pillar and just tack on a bit of luggage space.

  3. I would think that the biggest practical problem here is: how are you going to frame the rear hatch glass? It seems to me that having a blacked out pillar and hatch is what makes most of the cited Z pillars not work because you can see though their ruse. You’re looking for a true wrap around rear glass, but you get an additional extra fat blacked out pillar instead.

    I think to do it honestly, you either need to split the hatch opening right along the raked pillar, so a big clear clamshell of glass lifts up. Or you need a frameless hatch. This might be doable with a drop down tailgate?

  4. The Genesis GV70 does a kinda-Z pillar, although the top of the Z flaccidly droops down to the belt line. I can’t say I love the look, but it does work.

  6. I think both the SsangYong and the Merc are abominations and want to burn them with fire. Fire! But honestly, I find the Equinox strangely inoffensive. I think they pulled it off.

  7. I can’t comment on Z pillars, but I did want to address the side remark about the full-length front and rear lights, and the provided example of the Mercury Sable. I would say that the Sable (and to an extent the Tracer), more so than just attempting full-width lights, actually was very successful with the look.

  11. Peugeot 407 SW:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Peugeot_407_SW_%28Facelift%29_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht%2C_3._Mai_2012%2C_W%C3%BClfrath.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Peugeot_407_SW_%28Facelift%29_%E2%80%93_Heckansicht%2C_3._Mai_2012%2C_W%C3%BClfrath.jpg

    Peugeot 308 SW (first gen):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/2010_Peugeot_308_%28T7%29_XSE_HDi_Touring_station_wagon_%282016-01-04%29_02.jpg

    The 2nd and 3rd gen 308 SW have normal rear ends.

  14. Just no! I hate it. It’s also on a Peugeot 400-something station wagon, we have over here, and it’s just as hideous as on the A-Class and the Sssssang-Young!

  15. Now here’s one that will speak directly to the author – do you need wrap-around glass if the glass is interrupted by a full-height taillight? I think the only example of this is the first-gen Kia C’eed SW, but it is a totally unique look.

  19. As someone who has an utterly irrational love for the W168 – and the W414 Vaneo derived from it – I love this prompt!

    If we’re counting C-pillars and not requiring wraparound rear windows/a rear hatch… I’d say the 105E Ford Anglia saloon looks pretty snazzy. Other than that, all I can think of are Peugeots, namely the 1007 (Sliding doors! On a city car!) and the 207/407 SW (I think the design works well, even though the 206 and 406 are both absolutely timeless and tough acts to follow).

    The ED Kia Cee’d, the BK Ford EcoSport and the XM10 Toyota Ipsum all try to pull off a similar look with uh… lesser degrees of success. Note that in most of the cases listed above, the rearmost pillar isn’t *actually* raked – it’s just the cosmetic bits on the outside, and the actual pillar is either blacked out or covered by taillights to give the illusion of a wraparound rear window.

    As I was about to hit Post: How could I have forgotten the Ami 6? Absolute masterpiece.

    As I was about to hit Post for a second time: I figured I’d do some aggressive Googling to see if I could come up with a master list – that led me to the JA4/JA5 Honda Today and the WiLL Vi… the motif really does look the best on small cars, doesn’t it?

    1. Oh, and credit where credit is due: Kudos to Mark Hamilton in the comments of a DrivenToWrite article on fake reverse-rake C-pillars, written by Richard Herriott, for those last two examples!

  21. As soon as I read the headline, I said the original A-Class. It works in smaller applications, but once you start to size it up things get out of hand.

  22. I think there’s a sub-classification missing here…whether the Z is a forward or rearward rake. The Merc has a rearward rake, and I think that ties it more to the A pillar visually. Looking at the Rodius and Equinox, with the forward rake, it makes it look like the hatch was tacked-on to a 3-box sedan body (which would be why it doesn’t work as well IMO).

    1. For that matter, the Equinox doesn’t really count – it has a sloping C pillar that’s not “extra” in any way, it forms the rearward edge of the rear door opening in the normal way, and then gives way to a Rules of Wagondom-compliant rear quarter window.

      It just does so in a very “sedan-with-a-backpack” (to quote a Saturn SW designer who may well have gone on to have a hand in it) way for being an entirely purpose-designed CUV bodyshell.

Leave a Reply