08-26-2018, 07:23 PM | #1 |
New Member
14
Rep 13
Posts |
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? |
08-26-2018, 08:27 PM | #2 |
Lieutenant
561
Rep 554
Posts |
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 | |
Captain
329
Rep 757
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
Captain
439
Rep 790
Posts |
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 | |
Hammer
203
Rep 202
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
Lieutenant
398
Rep 525
Posts |
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 |
Hammer
203
Rep 202
Posts |
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 |
New Member
14
Rep 13
Posts |
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, 11:24 AM | #10 |
Captain
439
Rep 790
Posts |
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 |
New Member
14
Rep 13
Posts |
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 |
Second Lieutenant
157
Rep 282
Posts |
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 | |
BMW Client Advisor
3449
Rep 2,504
Posts
Drives: 2020 M340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tulley BMW Nashua, NH
|
Quote:
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 |
Captain
439
Rep 790
Posts |
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 |
Major General
890
Rep 9,031
Posts |
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 |
Second Lieutenant
157
Rep 282
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2018, 01:56 AM | #17 | |
Colonel
1996
Rep 2,499
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
Second Lieutenant
133
Rep 211
Posts |
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 |
|
|