The 80sBoxyCompact model has a few bugs attached to it.
The 3-door fastback/liftback as well as the 4-door sedan, with the rear and the rear bumper pulled in as far as possible, has part of the frame sticking out.
(On a side note, the way that pulling the roof backwards makes the C-pillar and window in the rear curve is REALLY ugly. Is this really how it’s meant to be?)
Pulling in the rear end of the 2-door notchback coupe and then switching to the 4-door sedan exacerbates this issue.
This seems to be in part because the sedan and fastback/liftback have the rear part of the frame extend much further out than the other bodytypes.
Maybe all of them should have the same frame as the 3-and-5-door hatchbacks and panel van, as they have the shortest rear frame extension.
This seems to be a general minor exploitability in this car family that is hard to explain otherwise; sculpting dimensions to an extremity on one bodytype and switching to another can result in stretching or compressing the car more than the final bodytype normally allows. For instance, bringing in the rear and the rear roof on the 3-door hatchback and then switching to the 5-door version results in a very strange roofline, jagged and all.
Also, flaring out the wheel arches does not consistently allow wider wheels to be used. I have never gotten the front wheels wider than 205mm, and flaring arches did not do anything to help. However, only in very rare occasions has wheel arch flaring affected the rear wheels and let me go up to 245mm, but usually I remain stuck at 215mm or 205mm max. I do not have the slightest idea as to what affects this strangely defined limit; seemingly tire and rim diameter don’t even affect it. I find this frustrating, especially because most other cars from all ages, 1940s to 2010s, can approach or exceed 300mm with flared wheel arches. This leaves my intended performance-luxury car on very skinny tires that also force me to minimize weight to an extreme (and often downforce) with no possibility of 20 inch rims.