DBXL

I may have missed a prior thread about this, but can someone please explain how the stated cargo space in the 2016 RX's shows about 56.3 cubic feet while the 2015 RX's show almost 80 cubic feet! That's a lot of cubes Please explain the true difference and why the specs appear to show such a large difference. Thank you.

coolsaber

So this was an issue on the NX side as well. What has happened is Lexus has implemented a new cargo dimensional measurement in which cargo space is calculated with the Tonneau/Cargo cover in place.

In essence, if you were to take a tape measure and go at it, you`d find the cargo size to be much bigger and in line with competitors.

Dont know what triggered this new protocol, but eh

AL13NV8D3R

This new kind of measurment does makes sense...I mean who in their right mind would carry something bigger than the height of the tonau cover? It obstructs the rearward view and space under the cover is huge anyways.

coolsaber

I think the measurement is a more daily use type of measurement, but it would be nice if they included one without the cover, since carrying big items in the back is a popular purpose of buying a CUV. Plus competitors like to highlight the small #s lexus has posted

I do not believe the cover is standard with all trim levels as well

AL13NV8D3R

Can someone with a ruler and good mathamatic ability go out to the 2016 RX and do a measurement and calculate the cubic foot space from floor to roof and tailgate to back of rear seat? Id do it but still waiting on my special order to arrive.

This will clear up any confusion.

Marqevans

Is it me or does the cargo area seem a lot smaller than on the third generation?

Kansas

From the "product information" documents on Lexus.com:

2017: Cargo Volume - Cargo area 18.4 cu. ft. - Rear seats folded down 56.3 cu. ft.
2015: Cargo Volume - Rear seats up and rearmost 40.0 cu. ft. - Rear seats folded down 80.3 cu. ft.

Oldfart

I wonder if thee was a different methodology for measuring Gen3 volume. I owed G2, G3 and now G4 I didn't notice much difference moving from one to another.

For example for G2 specs are 15.5 cu. ft.

15.5 to 40. to 18.4 doesn't make much sense.

Marqevans

Oldfart

Why Cargo Specs Can Stretch the Truth

https://www.cars.com/articles/2014/0...tch-the-truth/

JSracer

could be because the 16+ rear is smooshed in at the top, where the pre 16 was a more bubbly body.
the cargo space at the back lost the height, not sure how floor space compares.

Elation

Oldfart

I stabled upon an European measurements and
2005 is 1080L (using google converter = 38.14 cu. ft)
2015 is 1132L (using google converter = 39.98 cu ft)

Marqevans

To me it seems the distance from the back of the cargo area to the back seat is shorter on the 2017 than the 2015.

JDR76

On the new model they measure the cargo space from the window line down. Previously it was measured to the roof. The change in how this is done makes it very hard to compare.