Why are some 4x4 SUV boot sizes so small?

[silver1011]

I'm not sure why there is an expectation that 4x4 cars must have large boots.

 

There are big 4x4 cars and small ones, with big boots and little boots.

 

The Juke is a jacked-up Nissan Micra. Given the body shape of the Juke I'd expect it to have a smaller boot than the Micra.

 

The Mazda CX5 is a jacked up Mazda 3, the CX3 a higher 2 etc.

 

If you want a 4x4 with a big boot you need to buy a big 4x4.

 

Also not all manufacturers prioritise boot space. Comfier seats are bigger, more sound insulation for a quieter ride reduces interior space etc.

[JohnMcL7]

I'm not sure why there is an expectation that 4x4 cars must have large boots.

 

There are big 4x4 cars and small ones, with big boots and little boots.

 

The Juke is a jacked-up Nissan Micra. Given the body shape of the Juke I'd expect it to have a smaller boot than the Micra.

 

The Mazda CX5 is a jacked up Mazda 3, the CX3 a higher 2 etc.

 

If you want a 4x4 with a big boot you need to buy a big 4x4.

 

Also not all manufacturers prioritise boot space. Comfier seats are bigger, more sound insulation for a quieter ride reduces interior space etc.

 

None of that was the issue though - the Outlander is similar size to the Mazda and had a slightly larger boot yet with the seats down somehow the Mazda was 70% larger which made no sense and I think the post above is correct that they're measuring them differently, there's no way they could be that different unless the Outlander had an almost non-existent passenger area which isn't the case.

 

What caught my eye about the 4x4's was a discussion on a bike forum about how people carried their bikes and there were a few 4x4's (not UK forums so not UK models) where they'd used the height to be able to mount the bikes standing up whereas in the estate, the bikes have to lie on their side and I can just stack them two high without dismantling them.  A bit more ground clearance at times would be handy as it's primarily off road riding I do and space is very tight at some of the big races which has been a bit of a challenge with the Mazda but not enough on its own to justify a change.

 

Not that I'm planning on changing the car at the moment as it's running fine but probably one of the windowed small vans would be ideal as they've masses of load space although it's a little hard to swallow how expensive they are for little spec.  I found a Caddy Maxi Life the same age as my Mazda6 but it was a few thousand pounds more despite having spec similar to my 99 Octavia GLX (even the same buttons and controls) while the Mazda has a pretty decent spec.  Just the way it is with vans I realise.

 

John

[Ootohere]

JohnMcL7,  just thrown bike in the car and ready to head up your way. 

Taking the Fabia Hatch instead of an estate since on my own & the estate is clean, but there is such a difference in how little space the hatch has. Same wheel base as the estate but 9 3/4" longer.

Going to look for a cheap Diesel Roomster i think & strip the rear out..

[Nepomuk]

The question might also be, why are some estate car boots so small? Before I bought my Octy II estate I considered a MB C-class -- the car drove very nicely but the boot was a joke. Put the two cars side by side and most people would judge the Merc to have the bigger boot.

 

The reason is just the same, though -- RWD takes up a lot of space.

[JohnMcL7]

The question might also be, why are some estate car boots so small? Before I bought my Octy II estate I considered a MB C-class -- the car drove very nicely but the boot was a joke. Put the two cars side by side and most people would judge the Merc to have the bigger boot.

 

The reason is just the same, though -- RWD takes up a lot of space.

 

No, this isn't the point I was making at all - the Outlander has a larger boot than the Mazda (I'm really wondering how many more times I need to repeat this?  Four times so far and still needing to do so again apparently) and that's where most of the rear wheel drive parts are, what I couldn't understand is when the Mazda and Oultander have similar sized passenger areas how the Mazda could gain so much more space than the Outlander when the seats were folded down.  I think the correct answer is the one above that either the reviewer is using the wrong measurements or the measurements used aren't comparable between the estate and 4x4. 

 

John

Edited 22 July, 2016 by JohnMcL7

[Nepomuk]

and the Octavia II estate has a bigger boot than either (595li) but that wasn't the point either.

 

If you want  a Mitsubishi Outlandish, go ahead!

[JohnMcL7]

and the Octavia II estate has a bigger boot than either (595li) but that wasn't the point either.

 

If you want  a Mitsubishi Outlandish, go ahead!

 

Correct, that wasn't the point and nor am I wanting to buy an Outlander so you're three for three on missing the point.

 

I fully understand that RWD components take up space in a car and I'm well aware that RWD vehicles lose space for those components, the point was why vehicles with similar sized boots and capacities why one would gain so much more space with the seats down and one wouldn't.  The answer is nothing to do with RWD components, Octavias or C-class estates but that the reviewers are using the wrong figure or non-representative figure - the Outlander in reality has around the same capacity as the Mazda6 estate which makes sense.

 

John

[Ootohere]

Simples, no motor manufacturers or car reviews commonality of measuring carrying capacity. Like those that include the tyre well if no spare wheel is a standard fitment, and side pockets etc get included.

[silver1011]

This thread was answered in the first couple of posts, the OP has his answer. The rest has been a general discussion on boot/interior space so I'm not sure why there is a need for the recent negativity.

 

As George (and perhaps others) have suggested, and as has been discussed on here several times over the years, different manufacturers measure their cars and publish their data in many different ways.