Cargo area smaller than previous gen?
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
2016 RX cargo space vs. 2015 cargo space
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.
#2
Lead Lap
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.
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
#3
Instructor
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.
#4
Lead Lap
I do not believe the cover is standard with all trim levels as well
#5
Instructor
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.
This will clear up any confusion.
#7
Lead Lap
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.
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.
Trending Topics
#8
For example for G2 specs are 15.5 cu. ft.
15.5 to 40. to 18.4 doesn't make much sense.
#10
#11
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.
the cargo space at the back lost the height, not sure how floor space compares.
#12
doesn't make sense.
But compare to the old Lincoln MKX, the cargo floor area is bigger, but the slanted rear window cuts down a significant amount of cargo volume.
#13
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)
2005 is 1080L (using google converter = 38.14 cu. ft)
2015 is 1132L (using google converter = 39.98 cu ft)
#15
Lexus Champion
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.