Advertised Cargo Volume

A

AIMWO4

Member
:
Mazda5 Sport 5-Speed
I'm not sure how the "powers that be" are measuring this, but something's not right. I have about as much cargo area in my M5 as I had in my Saab 9-5 wagon. The Saab 9-5 is advertised as having 73 cu ft, and the M5 with 44.

A conservative estimate (some quick measurements I took) reveals I can get about 33 cubic feet behind the 2nd row seats (stacked above the seats), when they are all the way back. I'd venture this is the area that is advertised at 44 cu ft.

I calculate over 60 cu ft of cargo area if you fold the 2nd row down. If you fill up all the nooks and crannies, you could probably get 70-ish.

Has anyone crunched the numbers?
 

Attachments

  • Volume.webp
    Volume.webp
    56.8 KB · Views: 254
Last edited:
AIMWO4 said:
I'm not sure how the "powers that be" are measuring this, but something's not right. I have about as much cargo area in my M5 as I had in my Saab 9-5 wagon. The Saab 9-5 is advertised as having 73 cu ft, and the M5 with 44.

A conservative estimate (some quick measurements I took) reveals I can get about 33 cubic feet behind the 2nd row seats (stacked above the seats), when they are all the way back. I'd venture this is the area that is advertised at 44 cu ft.

I calculate over 60 cu ft of cargo area if you fold the 2nd row down. If you fill up all the nooks and crannies, you could probably get 70-ish.

Has anyone crunched the numbers?
Click to expand...

Huh? Here are the results of my last "number crunching" (see links):

attachment.php

attachment.php


Now, being serious, to me the numbers are trivial if the cargo area is not a real box with a full opening on top. Ive seen a lot cars advertising tons of cargo space, but the problem is, How in the heck you get the stuff in there? :D
 
I've seen your pics before. Nice job! I guess I should carry a camera with me at all times. I had a Home Depot load a few weeks ago that would have made a good shot.

I just think our Mazda5 is getting short-changed in the cargo capacity reports.
 
Consumer Reports got 39 cu ft, similar to coolmazda5's method but using an expandable metal frame and then measuring the volume of the frame.

I'm not sure what the VDA method (volume displacement analysis?) is, but these are the numbers via VDA on both the Mazda UK and HK sites:
behind 1st row: 857 liters = 30.24 cu ft
behind 2nd row: 426 liters = 15 cu ft
behind 3rd row: 112 liters = 3.96 cu ft
 
this is my regular cargo load and main reason for buying the 5
 

Attachments

  • DSCN1735 post.webp
    DSCN1735 post.webp
    97 KB · Views: 330
  • DSCN173 post7.webp
    DSCN173 post7.webp
    136.1 KB · Views: 327
Cubic footage (like interior volume) measurements are done a specific way and are not the same as you'd get by filling the interior with water or just measuring and calculating things. Could there be much difference with the middle seats all the way back vs. all the way forward? I don't know the measurement protocol so I don't know.
 
monsta said:
(lol)(lol)(lol)(lol) That guy (the one in the link...nigel or something) is a fuggin idiot! I wonder why he has so many different and stupid car comparos!? (uhm) If he's serious then he deserves this --> (wedge)
Click to expand...

That's comparing apples and melons. Might as well compare Tacoma with Hino 268.

Even pic for E-150 is wrong. Current generation E-150 is only available in short box.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

L
Cargo Volume Specification
Replies
6
Views
2K
theweev
T

New Posts

Back