The Hatchback that doesn't look like a Hatchback is a unique cultural preference in certain markets, it would not sell well in the US and add to the cost and complexity of manufacturing and stocking a vehicle that is starting to see slow growth anyway.
If I recall, Chrysler did fairly well with the Dodge Lancers/Chrysler LeBaron GTSes and later Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance.
Kia is planning to make a production model of their GT concept as well.
It wouldn't cost much to add a few bits here and there to make it comply with US regs.
...re: this and some other "Why don't they...?" posts lately
a lot of what FoMoCo doesN'T do is
-- cuz they don't HAVE to...'Murcans will buy what they're TOLD to
-- cuz they can force us to spend more on a Cuv
Any manufacturer that thinks they can sell me a CUV instead of a much sleeker and more stylish car has another thing coming.
I play in a band and have gear to haul to shows. I sure that makes me the perfect CUV customer in the eyes of more bean-counting auto execs, but I'm also a very 'visual' type of person...if it doesn't look good or at least unique and interesting, I don't care.
I was so disappointed when the Jaguar XE kept its fastback bodystyle but lost its hatch utility when it went into production, resulting in a mail-slot of a trunk opening...
No, the sooner the CUV fad ends the better, because every dollar that goes into the development/production of those kinds of vehicles is money lost for making more interesting cars.