LexusPia

Can this be right? Despite what Lexus tells the public about the new 330 being bigger in all directions (6" longer and 1" wider than the 300), the new RX actually has LESS cargo room than the current design unless of course the specs are wrong. The 330 spec says 38.3 cu ft vs 39.8 for the 300 (with rear seats up). Can someone tell me how a vehicle that's 6" longer than the old one can have a smaller "trunk"? Something doesn't make sense here. However, the specs do say that if the rear seats are folded down, the cargo room is indeed bigger on the 330 than the 300 (84.7 cu ft vs 75).

I would think the cargo room with the rear seats UP is a lot more critical than with the rear seats down for day to day shopping and errands.

sarkleshark

sounds like they made the front/back seat bigger, the cargo floor longer but may have sloped the back window more. of course this is only a guess since I havn't seen the vechicle. Maybe someone who has can comment.

Rexus300

iTrader: (1)

No Lexuspia,

You made a mistake or what you read was wrong. The Specs stated by couple of sources as well as Lexus stated the RX330 cargo room is 38.3 cubic feet compared to the RX300's 30.7 cargo room. This is a definite bigger cargo room than the outgoing model. Take a look at the latest pics of the cargo room on this website to get an idea. I just want to let you know.

Dave

LexusPia

Dave, my numbers came directly from the Lexus company website. Not sure where you got your numbers but here's the exact text and numbers as copied from their site:

2004 RX330
2003 RX300
Also, the current 2003 RX catalog which I have a copy confirms the same 39.8 cu ft number above.

Rexus300

iTrader: (1)

Funny thing, I was amazed by what you found. Thats weird. I will investigate into this matter asap to see which dimension is wrong.


Dave

xsfo

LexusPia Take a deep breath. Everything is going to be alright.

Yes, with the seats up the RX330 will have 1.5 cu. ft. less cargo than the RX300. Since you're wondering, much of the additional room in the RX330 has been allocated to increased passenger room. Also the new sloped rear hatch cuts into the rear cargo area a little. However, you're ignoring the fact that the RX330 maximum cargo capacity (with the rear seats folded) has increased 9.7 cu. ft. over the RX300. Now 9.7 cu. ft is worth talking about.

Compare this to the bigger and pricier GX470 which has 49.7 cu. ft. cargo space with the rear seats up but only 77.5 cu. ft. maximum cargo space (with the rear seats folded and third row seats removed). Which one would you rather have?

ruski

my rear seats are always up because my child seats are there. So I can only count on the regular trunk space when we go on trips.

salimshah

The rear seats have more leg room. So when they are folded, the cargo space is larger. With back seats in upright position and with the slant of the rear door, the cargo space is less.

The rear seats will have a longer travel (forward ... backward) so with the child seat in the rear, and with the seat fully pulled forward, one can increase the cargo room.



Salim

Hoosier

Without seeing and actually measuring the "trunk" depth and height with the seats upright, I'm guessing like xsfo mentioned above that the heavily "angled" roof in the 330 as compared to the current "square" design may indeed be the major reason why there's a decrease in cargo volume. I am however in agreement with ruski and LexusPia that the "rear seats up" cargo room (with the tonneau cover) is a lot more important than the total cargo room with the rear seats down. How often do any of you drive with the rear seats down? My wife has been driving an RX300 for the past several years and she has never folded the rear seats down except one time when she bought something bulky. She actually prefers the slightly deeper cargo room found on the Highlander.

LexusPia raises a good point though. With the new RX being 6 inches longer and since 2 inches are spoken for in the front leg room (no change in rear leg room), where's the other 4 inches? Is the trunk 4 inches deeper (with rear seats up)?

Chuckieb

Big surprise here, since I thought one of the apparent objectives of the RX330 was to address the perceived advantages of the MDX - one of those being SIGNIFICANTLY more storge space with rear seats up. And my initial reaction was the same - I read the capacity of the RX300 at 30. cu ft, not 39.8

ruski

And some people were dreaming about the third row

xsfo

I'm sorry, this cargo space thing has been such a non-issue from the beginning. That's why I've replied before. So now I have to say:

The luggage space in the RX300 and new RX330 are essentially the same. How's that you ask? Ok...

Can we agree that the reason the luggage space figure for the RX330 is lower is probably due to that sloped upper part of the rear hatch? And only 1.5 cu. ft. That's 2,592 cu. in., about 48" x 18" x 3" less space. You could get this space back if the rear hatch weren't so sloped. Make that hatch glass more vertical and you can make up that missing space no problem. (Note that this would make the RX330 more like an Aztek. But that's an entirely different issue.)

Now a lot of you, myself included, tend to use the RX's cargo space with the rear seats up and the tonneau cover closed. That makes sense right? You might need to use that second row. You don't want valuble stuff visible through the windows. And you don't want items blocking your view through the rear window. So that's most cargo hauling cases, alright?

Here's the secret. That 38.4 cu. ft. luggage space figure for the RX330 includes the space ABOVE the tonneau cover. (BTW all car manufacturers include the space above the tonneau cover, not just Toyota) And if the sloped rear hatch is what cuts down the luggage space, you won't even miss the cargo space because you don't use that upper area. I figure day-to-day you won't notice any difference between using a RX330 and RX300 because it's stowed under the tonneau cover.

Skeptical? Luggage space is 38.4 cu. ft. or about 66,355 cu. in. Ok, the floor area of the RX330 isn't rectangular and I'm too lazy to measure so let's approximate it 48" x 36". And the cargo space height... 38" maybe? Multiply that all together 48" x 36" x 38" and you get 65,664 cu. in. Of course I massaged the measurement approximations, but you can see that the RX cargo space figure has to include the space above the tonneau cover. The height under the tonneau cover is less than 38".

Lastly, ignoring all of this, 1.5 cu. ft? Big deal!

YWW

Not trying to stomp this topic to death but has anyone actually seen the trunk (w/ seats up) in the new RX? Is it the same as XSFO mentioned below or is it deeper (fore & aft)? I called the Lexus customer service and they were guessing the cargo room with seat up might be the same or slightly smaller than current. They didn't know about the trunk depth. My wife's main gripe with the current RX is the shallow trunk depth (with seat up) but she loves everything else. She said if the new RX has a deeper trunk like say the Highlander or MDX, she would definitely buy the new 330 with no hesitation.

jcg

On the subject of rear cargo area, it seem that everyone forgot that the rear seat slides forward. I believe the new model slides 6 inches forward. That increases the the area considerably while still allowing plenty of leg room in the rear seat.