BMW X5
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-26-2018, 07:23 PM   #1
LenO
New Member
14
Rep
13
Posts

Drives: 2016 X6 xDrive50i, 2014 650i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

X5 Cargo Area Dimensions Confusion

The dimensions for the cargo area for the 2019 X5 (G05) are:
Minimum - 22.8 Cubic feet and Maximum - 65.7 Cubic feet

The dimensions for the 2018 X5 (F15) are;
Minimum - 35.8 Cubic feet and Maximum - 76.7 Cubic feet

The 2019 X5 has 13 Cubic feet less behind the rear seats, and 11 Cubic feet less with the rear seats folded.

My X6, which is shorter and narrower and with the sloped rear tailgate, has cargo area dimensions of:
Minimum - 26.5 Cubic feet and Maximum - 59.7 Cubic feet.

The X6 has about 4 Cubic feet more capacity behind the rear seats than the 2019 X5. The X6 has always been criticized for having inadequate cargo carrying capacity.

So, what is going on? What happened to the 2109 X5 cargo area? Are these new numbers real, or is there something else we should know?
Appreciate 0
      08-26-2018, 08:27 PM   #2
nal13
Lieutenant
nal13's Avatar
No_Country
561
Rep
554
Posts

Drives: M3 xcomp/911 cab/RR LWB
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fairfield County

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
B  [0.00]
According to a previous post by Jason the trunk volume will be 31.7 cubic feet. Very strange that a longer, taller, and wider car will have a smaller boot. This could actually be a deal breaker for me.

The Range Rover Velar, which is 5 inches shorter has 34 cubic feet.

Could this be right?
__________________
2022 M3 xdrive IOMG/SS
2023 Porsche 992 4 GTS cab RubyStar Neo/Black/MT
2023 Range Rover P400 SE LWB Penguin
Appreciate 0
      08-26-2018, 08:52 PM   #3
drjoe66
Captain
drjoe66's Avatar
United_States
329
Rep
757
Posts

Drives: 2021 M5 & 2019 X3
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Carolinas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nal13 View Post
According to a previous post by Jason the trunk volume will be 31.7 cubic feet. Very strange that a longer, taller, and wider car will have a smaller boot. This could actually be a deal breaker for me.

The Range Rover Velar, which is 5 inches shorter has 34 cubic feet.

Could this be right?
The volume is kind of pointless. If I need to put three suitcases in, the length and width determine if they will fit
or not. So what are those numbers, I can measure my old X5, but i can't find the numbers for the new one.
__________________
2019 X3
2021 M5 Comp
On order: 2022 X3M40i
Appreciate 0
      08-26-2018, 10:36 PM   #4
ScottMZ3
Captain
United_States
439
Rep
790
Posts

Drives: 2018 Camaro ZL1, 2019 X5 40i
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Roseville, CA

iTrader: (0)

Something isn’t right with those posted dimensions. If you look at photos of the ‘18 X5 and ‘19 X5 cargo areas they certainly look almost identical in size. I don’t see how you would lop off 13 cubic feet from a car that grew in size. 13 cubic feet is the entire size of my wife’s 528i trunk! Even the X3 has more than 23 cubic feet with seats up. With 13 less there wouldn’t be enough room for a 3rd row.

A couple cubic feet difference maybe...then give more rear seat room perhaps.

Last edited by ScottMZ3; 08-26-2018 at 11:17 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-26-2018, 11:30 PM   #5
mbhammer
Hammer
United_States
203
Rep
202
Posts

Drives: 2014 Mercedes Benz E63 AMG
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Midwest USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottMZ3 View Post
I don’t see how you would lop off 13 cubic feet from a car that grew in size... With 13 less there wouldn’t be enough room for a 3rd row.
ScottMZ3 - I had the same question.... and drew the same conclusion.

LenO - Glad I'm not the only one scratching my head on this metric. Thanks for starting the thread... though in my case at least, my order's in and I'll get in October what I get.
__________________
2019 BMW X5 40i
2014 MB E63 AMG
Appreciate 0
      08-27-2018, 11:09 AM   #6
Influence
Lieutenant
United_States
398
Rep
525
Posts

Drives: 2020 X3M, 2016 X5 35i
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ

iTrader: (6)

Looks like it is time to get out the old tape measure and check the actual dimensions of the G05's trunk space. While I am hoping for a bit more rear leg room than my F15 (1.5-2 inches would be perfect), if they have to shrink the trunk to get it that is not good. Considering the wheelbase is up by 1.6 inches, overall length is up by 1.1 inches, height is up and width is 2.6 inches more, there is no reason cargo capacity should have dropped unless they added like 6 more inches of combined front and rear legroom, which I highly doubt.


Anyone going to a preview/training event anytime soon? I'm supposed to get an invite to a training session at my local dealership, but that won't be until sometime in October.
Appreciate 0
      08-27-2018, 12:00 PM   #7
mbhammer
Hammer
United_States
203
Rep
202
Posts

Drives: 2014 Mercedes Benz E63 AMG
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Midwest USA

iTrader: (0)

I have a theory. Could be total fiction. And I haven't bothered to do any math to test the theory. With those caveats, here goes:

The F15 did not accommodate third row seating. Only two cargo capacities made sense to report: with rear seats up, and with rear seats down.

The G05 accommodates third row seating. Are the lower cargo capacities about which we are commenting affected by this?

So for example, is there 13 ft3 behind the third row that is somehow getting lost in these calculations?

Dunno.

Don't know how else to explain the figures reported.

p.s. As many here probably already know, the refreshed 2018 X3 has luxury compact SUV class-leading cargo space, rivaling the capacities of many luxury mid-size SUVs. Would like to think that whatever magic BMW pulled off to achieve that in the X3 carried over into the new X5.
__________________
2019 BMW X5 40i
2014 MB E63 AMG
Appreciate 0
      08-27-2018, 01:22 PM   #8
LenO
New Member
14
Rep
13
Posts

Drives: 2016 X6 xDrive50i, 2014 650i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

I noticed something interesting while looking more closely at these numbers. The difference between the volume when the rear seats are up and when they are reclined for the 2019 X5 is 42.9 Cubic feet. The difference for the 2018 X5 is 40.9 Cubic feet. They are pretty close. This means that most of the lost space occurs behind the rear seats. I notice in the pictures and videos that I have seen, the car is equipped with the electric cargo cover option. It appears that the side walls are built into the cargo area to accommodate the cover and the control mechanism. Could this account for the lost space? I have no interest in the electric cargo cover. The manual cover is fine for me. The question is: Are the sidewalls built up the same even when going with the standard manual cover?
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2018, 10:31 AM   #9
JCF15X5
Private
39
Rep
51
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW X5 M SPORT
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

That would be a deal breaker if this is true.
I actually have my dog ride in the trunk of my x5.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2018, 11:24 AM   #10
ScottMZ3
Captain
United_States
439
Rep
790
Posts

Drives: 2018 Camaro ZL1, 2019 X5 40i
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Roseville, CA

iTrader: (0)

Here is the 2018 X5 cargo area:


Here is the 2019 X5 cargo area:


They certainly don't look to be THAT different. Main difference I see is that the side walls are more vertical than in the 2018, to accommodate that auto sliding cover. But other than that...I'm sure the cargo areas are near identical. There certainly isn't an entire 528i trunk worth of space missing.
__________________
- Scott
Current Cars: 2019 X5 xDrive40i M-Sport, 2018 Camaro ZL1
Past BMWs: '16 528i, '00 M-Coupe, '14 X1 sDrive28i, '00 740iL, '02 325i, '99 M-Coupe, '00 323Ci, '79 323i, '83 320i
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2018, 06:45 PM   #11
LenO
New Member
14
Rep
13
Posts

Drives: 2016 X6 xDrive50i, 2014 650i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Thank you ScottMZ3, for the photos. I have been studying them to try to find the missing 13 Cubic feet. I printed copies and adjusted the scale to match them side by side. Obviously, the sidewalls on the '19 are vertical, and may even protrude out a little bit more than the '18. Maybe the rear seats are back a little further to accommodate rear leg room. But no way can these minor differences account for a missing 13 Cubic feet.

The numbers I used in my first posting were all from BMW documents. I checked the European BMW brochure, converting liters to cubic feet, and found the same numbers. A number of auto review websites have commented on the reduced 13 Cubic feet, but have offered no explanation. They do say that BMW has put themselves at a significant disadvantage compared to their competition. I have seen nothing from BMW addressing this issue.

With the cargo volume behind the rear seats for the '18 at 35.8 Cubic feet and the value for the '19 at 22.8 Cubic feet, the missing 13 Cubic feet would represent a 36% reduction. Looking at the pictures, there is absolutely no way there is that less space. Pictures don't lie.

So what is going on? Has BMW redefined what they consider to be cargo volume? Maybe they only consider the area beneath the cargo cover to be usable. Whatever it is, the pictures show that whatever changes there are, they don't amount to much.
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2018, 08:31 AM   #12
maze446
Second Lieutenant
United_States
157
Rep
282
Posts

Drives: 2019 X5 50i
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Was just on the new US website and it has cargo capacity of 33.9 cu ft and 72.3 cu ft which is slightly down from the F15 but not as much as the early numbers suggested.
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2018, 09:18 AM   #13
JayPichardo
BMW Client Advisor
JayPichardo's Avatar
3449
Rep
2,504
Posts

Drives: 2020 M340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tulley BMW Nashua, NH

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2020 BMW M340i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maze446 View Post
Was just on the new US website and it has cargo capacity of 33.9 cu ft and 72.3 cu ft which is slightly down from the F15 but not as much as the early numbers suggested.


Good to know
__________________
Contact me for all your BMW needs in the New England area.
jpichardo@tulley.com


Top M Client Advisor in New England.
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2018, 09:22 AM   #14
ScottMZ3
Captain
United_States
439
Rep
790
Posts

Drives: 2018 Camaro ZL1, 2019 X5 40i
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Roseville, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by maze446 View Post
Was just on the new US website and it has cargo capacity of 33.9 cu ft and 72.3 cu ft which is slightly down from the F15 but not as much as the early numbers suggested.
Those numbers definitely sound right to me. With the more vertical sides to accommodate the sliding cover a couple less cubic feet is reasonable.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2018, 08:34 PM   #15
aus
Major General
United_States
890
Rep
9,031
Posts

Drives: Odysse
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seal Beach, CA

iTrader: (10)

Has anyone been able to confirmed the volume difference is slightly less than before? And not 13cu ft?
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2018, 11:56 PM   #16
maze446
Second Lieutenant
United_States
157
Rep
282
Posts

Drives: 2019 X5 50i
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aus View Post
Has anyone been able to confirmed the volume difference is slightly less than before? And not 13cu ft?
Yes. See my note above. Those numbers are from BMW's website.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2018, 01:56 AM   #17
upsidedownfunnel
Colonel
United_States
1996
Rep
2,499
Posts

Drives: 2014 335i
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2014 BMW 335i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhammer View Post
I have a theory. Could be total fiction. And I haven't bothered to do any math to test the theory. With those caveats, here goes:

The F15 did not accommodate third row seating. Only two cargo capacities made sense to report: with rear seats up, and with rear seats down.

The G05 accommodates third row seating. Are the lower cargo capacities about which we are commenting affected by this?

So for example, is there 13 ft3 behind the third row that is somehow getting lost in these calculations?

Dunno.

Don't know how else to explain the figures reported.

p.s. As many here probably already know, the refreshed 2018 X3 has luxury compact SUV class-leading cargo space, rivaling the capacities of many luxury mid-size SUVs. Would like to think that whatever magic BMW pulled off to achieve that in the X3 carried over into the new X5.
Third row seating is an option on the F15. The seats are pretty small, but they work for small adults and children.

Someone already provided a reference that the OP volumes might be incorrect, so it's probably just a typo.
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2018, 09:01 AM   #18
Nicky_do_it
Second Lieutenant
133
Rep
211
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 ZCP manual (previous)
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Philadelphia

iTrader: (0)

Is the difference related to whether the space below the cargo area is included?

I noticed some reports (eg us news&world report) states the 2015/16 X5 has 23 vs other reports at 35.8 cu ft and it doesnt seem to be a matter of a third row. Hard to believe that space would represent that much though.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:10 AM.




xbimmers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST