When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
What's up with midsize SUV's compromising cargo space with their raked back glass.
Porsche macan, and other midsizers. Even the RX.
There's less utility when the back glass is raked. Whatever happened to a more upright back glass that actually allowed you to haul cargo.
Midsize suv's are small enough as it is.
Seems only large suv's keep a more upright back glass.
excuse my photoshop hackjob, but look at the xc60 with various degrees of back glass. I could put more dead bodies in the back.
More utility. Isn't that something people want?
It's because these vehicles are no longer predominately about utility. People are buying them instead of sedans in droves, and they want them to look good.
Do you think somebody who buys a Porsche Macan cares about how much mulch he can get in the back?
It's because these vehicles are no longer predominately about utility. People are buying them instead of sedans in droves, and they want them to look good.
Do you think somebody who buys a Porsche Macan cares about how much mulch he can get in the back?
True, BMW has been very active over the years calling their SUV's, Sports Activity Vehicles (SAV's).
Fuel economy, people by smaller suv's with the idea they can get decent gas mileage. How the air comes off the vehicle, makes a huge difference in aero . The reason wheels are set back into the wheel wells, is for aero . CAFE requirements also create the need to gain fuel economy. Designers have a tuff job.
It's because these vehicles are no longer predominately about utility. People are buying them instead of sedans in droves, and they want them to look good.
Then there's people like you and me, who believe that SUVs should look the part. Isn't that one of the things you said attracted you to the current Range Rover...a classic, roomy, traditional 2-Box SUV style?
Do you think somebody who buys a Porsche Macan cares about how much he can GET in the back?
I think a better term would be "How much can one FIT or LOAD in the back". "Getting" in the back sometimes does not refer to cargo LOL.
Yeah that's what I like about the Range Rover, but it also has a pretty raked rear end, But I also appreciate the styling of vehicles like the F Pace. It's all about intended purpose.
Lets just put it this way, I'm not worried about what I can fit in the cargo area of the Range Rover.
And my, is that Mike making a risqué joke? You need to do that more often LOL
I think it's splitting between people that want style with some level of utility, and then those that want pure utility. For max utility, I think most people know that would require a minivan, other sort of van, truck etc.
At some point it becomes ridiculous though. Take the Lexus NX for example, its about an inch shorter, an inch wider, and an inch less in height than the Rav4 its based on. Almost the same size, but not nearly the same shape. That lower roof line, that tapers towards the rear, then with that slanted glass on the NX, it gives you only 18 cubic feet of storage with the rear seat up, 55 cubic feet with the rear seat down. The Rav4, 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seat up, 73 cubic feet with the rear seat down. Not to mention I've sat in both of these cars, the rear seat is bigger/nicer in the Rav4, despite the almost identical dimensions mentioned on the Lexus/Toyota websites.
At some point it becomes ridiculous though. Take the Lexus NX for example, its about an inch shorter, an inch wider, and an inch less in height than the Rav4 its based on. Almost the same size, but not nearly the same shape. That lower roof line, that tapers towards the rear, then with that slanted glass on the NX, it gives you only 18 cubic feet of storage with the rear seat up, 55 cubic feet with the rear seat down. The Rav4, 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seat up, 73 cubic feet with the rear seat down. Not to mention I've sat in both of these cars, the rear seat is bigger/nicer in the Rav4, despite the almost identical dimensions mentioned on the Lexus/Toyota websites.
The NX doesn't need to be the same as the Rav4, they share a few parts but the NX is supposed to be more chić and dynamic which is usually at the expense of utility. Simply a case of form over function, happens all the time in the industry.
I don't know if they are compromising space with racked back glass, but I can tell you that there is WAY more usable cargo space in the modern SUVs vs old SUVs. The way the spare tire is hidden (or lack of spare tire when runflats are equipped) and the way rear seats fold flat in most of them creates a lot of space, even in small SUVs. I can tell you that there is WAY more space in the current RX vs original RX300.
At some point it becomes ridiculous though. Take the Lexus NX for example, its about an inch shorter, an inch wider, and an inch less in height than the Rav4 its based on. Almost the same size, but not nearly the same shape. That lower roof line, that tapers towards the rear, then with that slanted glass on the NX, it gives you only 18 cubic feet of storage with the rear seat up, 55 cubic feet with the rear seat down. The Rav4, 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seat up, 73 cubic feet with the rear seat down. Not to mention I've sat in both of these cars, the rear seat is bigger/nicer in the Rav4, despite the almost identical dimensions mentioned on the Lexus/Toyota websites.
But that makes perfect sense though. For someone who wants a vehicle that puts utility over style and luxury, they have the RAV4. For the buyer that wants style and luxury over utility, they have the Lexus NX.
At some point it becomes ridiculous though. Take the Lexus NX for example, its about an inch shorter, an inch wider, and an inch less in height than the Rav4 its based on. Almost the same size, but not nearly the same shape. That lower roof line, that tapers towards the rear, then with that slanted glass on the NX, it gives you only 18 cubic feet of storage with the rear seat up, 55 cubic feet with the rear seat down. The Rav4, 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seat up, 73 cubic feet with the rear seat down. Not to mention I've sat in both of these cars, the rear seat is bigger/nicer in the Rav4, despite the almost identical dimensions mentioned on the Lexus/Toyota websites.
The NX also has a much higher rear load floor than the RAV4, probably to give a flatter load floor when the rear seat backs are folded down. That is going to cut down on the rear cargo area.
The RX also has an almost ridiculously-high rear load floor.
At some point it becomes ridiculous though. Take the Lexus NX for example, its about an inch shorter, an inch wider, and an inch less in height than the Rav4 its based on. Almost the same size, but not nearly the same shape. That lower roof line, that tapers towards the rear, then with that slanted glass on the NX, it gives you only 18 cubic feet of storage with the rear seat up, 55 cubic feet with the rear seat down. The Rav4, 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seat up, 73 cubic feet with the rear seat down. Not to mention I've sat in both of these cars, the rear seat is bigger/nicer in the Rav4, despite the almost identical dimensions mentioned on the Lexus/Toyota websites.
I think one of the big differences in those two is the methodology of measurement. I believe in the NX, they only record the space under the rigid cargo panel (which aids in noise suppression), and not up to the ceiling as the RAV4 does.
It's because these vehicles are no longer predominately about utility. People are buying them instead of sedans in droves, and they want them to look good.
Do you think somebody who buys a Porsche Macan cares about how much mulch he can get in the back?
Hey, I haul bags of mulch in the back of my Macan.
04-05-17, 04:43 PM
What's up with midsize SUV's compromising cargo space with their raked back glass.
