[MystroX5]

Numbers are a mute point if you have actually got in the vehicle itself.
It’s simple. X5=‘s 2rows. X7=‘s 3 rows. Everything else is equal so how many people you need to move is what determines the choices. I am sure there are those that are dissatisfied with the room in their Bentayga but nit picking about cubic inches takes first world problems to a new level.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Mark609

Based on the following author that's exactly what BMW's engineering/marketing tricks suggests.

https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-ne...-ar181422.html

".....It’s hard to tell why and Bimmer’s probably the only one who can answer that question. Is this a simple mistake, or is it part of a bigger plan by BMW to create a clear distinction between the X5 and the X7? ...."

"....It’s easy to look at the numbers and say that BMW messed up. But read between the lines, and you’ll realize that this could have been an intentional move on the German automaker’s part because of the presence of the BMW X7. Had the X5 actually increased its cargo space as the expectation goes, it could have done so at the expense of the bigger X7, which, by the way, is the model that the company is touting as its flagship SUV unit...."


With the exception of the cargo space the X5 and X7 are quite identical in many ways especially regarding the interior design.

When something doesn't add up, there is usually a reason in my experience. Like you, I couldn't understand where the space went. Could the Top Speed possibly be right given the extra 1" or so in total length of the G05? So, I decided to check a couple of other sources for the actual G05 dimensions and, as it turns out, the Top Speed article's dimensions that were used to establish their dramatic design trickery conspiracy theory were incorrect! The actual cargo space is 48% bigger than they reported with 3rd row seats up and 10% larger than they reported with the 3rd row seats down.

So, at least part of this mysterious space loss has been found. I'm wondering if author Kirby will be writing an update to his dramatic BMW trickery article? I'm guessing the answer is no. We will see.

[sygazelle]

It turns out the Top Speed article had incorrect cargo space figures. Here is a comparison of the X15 to the GO5 with accurate information. Bottom line: The total leg room is a tad bigger in G05. The cargo area is 4 cu ft. smaller, but not the whopping 11 cu ft difference reported by Top Speed.

First # is bogus Top Speed volume. Second # is accurate. Spacegate solved!

Cargo Volume to Seat 2 (ft³) 22.8 33.9
Cargo Volume to Seat 1 (ft³) 65.7 72.3

[Doc5513]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

It turns out the Top Speed article had incorrect cargo space figures. Here is a comparison of the X15 to the GO5 with accurate information. Bottom line: The total leg room is a tad bigger in G05. The cargo area is 4 cu ft. smaller, but not the whopping 11 cu ft difference reported by Top Speed.

Boom!!👍🏻

[Bimar]

The issue is rear space is smaller than other competitors like Cayenne. I was disappointed all the length made it no where as spacious as the Cayenne cabin. X3 has the same problem too, almost dead last in its class.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by X4guy

The issue is rear space is smaller than other competitors like Cayenne. I was disappointed all the length made it no where as spacious as the Cayenne cabin. X3 has the same problem too, almost dead last in its class.

I just checked the Cayenne's interior dimensions to the X5. The only info I could find was cargo space and the 2019 X5 kicked its butt in that category. There were no legroom dimensions for the Cayenne that I could find for 2019, or the 2018 for that matter. Porsche seems to be stingy with that information.

Since you have good source for cabin dimension information on the Cayenne, would you please share this info with us all. I'd like to know just how much more roomy the cabin space is in the Cayenne vs. the G05, in terms of cargo space, legroom front and back, sholder room, headroom. Thanks.

[Mark609]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

I just checked the Cayenne's interior dimensions to the X5. The only info I could find was cargo space and the 2019 X5 kicked its butt in that category.

Yep - "Cargo

The Cayenne provides 27.1 cubic feet of cargo space with the rear seats up and 60.3 cubic feet with them folded. Those numbers drop slightly in Cayenne Turbo models (to 26.3 and 59.3 cubic feet). This Porsche doesn't have the smallest cargo hold in the class, but most other luxury midsize SUVs have higher capacities. A power liftgate comes standard."


No info on legroom. What does that suggest?

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Mark609

Yep - "Cargo

The Cayenne provides 27.1 cubic feet of cargo space with the rear seats up and 60.3 cubic feet with them folded. Those numbers drop slightly in Cayenne Turbo models (to 26.3 and 59.3 cubic feet). This Porsche doesn't have the smallest cargo hold in the class, but most other luxury midsize SUVs have higher capacities. A power liftgate comes standard."


No info on legroom. What does that suggest?

That suggests that we really need X4guy to share the Cayenne cabin space numbers that led him to call it more spaceous. One thing we know for sure is the cargo space sucks by comparison.

[iconoclast]

Originally Posted by MystroX5

Extra space went shoehorning this in. Not a factor for Lexus.

also keeping it closer to the cabin for proper weight distribution which isn't a concern of Lexus either.

[Bimar]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

That suggests that we really need X4guy to share the Cayenne cabin space numbers that led him to call it more spaceous. One thing we know for sure is the cargo space sucks by comparison.

Cargo space is smaller plus it’s slightly smaller than the X5, however The Cayenne seats move forwards and backwards so you technically can increase trunk space. Seat in one in the rear, am 6’3 and don’t Need a tape measure to confirm between the two. Also various online video reviews like carwow, Autogefuhl show the rear leg room for The Cayenne, the X5 is tight for six footers!

Still a nice car though.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by X4guy

Cargo space is smaller plus it’s slightly smaller than the X5, however The Cayenne seats move forwards and backwards so you technically can increase trunk space. Seat in one in the rear, am 6’3 and don’t Need a tape measure to confirm between the two. Also various online video reviews like carwow, Autogefuhl show the rear leg room for The Cayenne, the X5 is tight for six footers!

Still a nice car though.

If I were 6'3", my perspective about cabin roominess would be different too. However, at 5'11" the cabin space in both the X5 and, as you describe it, "almost dead last in class"? X3 are plenty find for me.

[Bimar]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

If I were 6'3", my perspective about cabin roominess would be different too. However, at 5'11" the cabin space in both the X5 and, as you describe it, "almost dead last in class"? X3 are plenty find for me.

Very true haven’t measured the X3 and X5 previous versions wont be surprised if space reduced,

I personally am waiting for the X7 for the different looks and presence which allows me to overlook its tight rear space.

[Mark609]

Originally Posted by X4guy

I personally am waiting for the X7 for the different looks and presence which allows me to overlook its tight rear space.

Both are almost identical in every respect. You couldn't tell the difference regarding the interior if you sat in both at the same time. Only difference is the X7 gets more cargo space and it costs more. Check the specs.

[Bimar]

Originally Posted by Mark609

Both are almost identical in every respect. You couldn't tell the difference regarding the interior if you sat in both at the same time. Only difference is the X7 gets more cargo space and it costs more. Check the specs.

Had checked the specs space is the same so will be as tight as he X5, but willing to overlook that as mentioned. Space is not everything, Hope it drives well.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by X4guy

Very true haven’t measured the X3 and X5 previous versions wont be surprised if space reduced,

I personally am waiting for the X7 for the different looks and presence which allows me to overlook its tight rear space.

Sorry, my post was not written clearly. What I meant to say is I'm 5'11" and both the X5 and the X3 in both the outgoing models and the incoming models are fine for me in the front and the back seat. Since you are 6'3" you are obviously going to have a different perspective. I don't think BMW or any other car manufacture is going to build their small and medium size SUVs with a 6'3" customer's comfort as one of their primary design criteria.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around you calling the X3 almost dead last. If you are going to make claims like that, why not entertain us with a fact or two showing how you arrived at that conclusion.

I guess that is par for the course with this thread since the OP called the space lame and cited a Top Speed article as his source when it turned out the Top Speed article was way off in the cargo specs.

Look, the X5 and the X3 aren't going to be for everybody. They were designed for a certain market in mind. If space is an issue, there are plenty of other excellent choices. Its a great time to be a car buyer.

[Bimar]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

Sorry, my post was not written clearly. What I meant to say is I'm 5'11" and both the X5 and the X3 in both the outgoing models and the incoming models are fine for me in the front and the back seat. Since you are 6'3" you are obviously going to have a different perspective. I don't think BMW or any other car manufacture is going to build their small and medium size SUVs with a 6'3" customer's comfort as one of their primary design criteria.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around you calling the X3 almost dead last. If you are going to make claims like that, why not entertain us with a fact or two showing how you arrived at that conclusion.

I guess that is par for the course with this thread since the OP called the space lame and cited a Top Speed article as his source when it turned out the Top Speed article was way off in the cargo specs.

Look, the X5 and the X3 aren't going to be for everybody. They were designed for a certain market in mind. If space is an issue, there are plenty of other excellent choices. Its a great time to be a car buyer.

Happy to oblige, maybe the OP of this thread is onto something.

Here is a snippet of the X3 forum, dead last in its class for rear legroom.

https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=63

For the X5 Autogefuhl also complained on rear legroom of X5, less than Cayennes and new GLE, see their YouTube videos.

In conclusion having sat and researched I suspect from BMW marketing research of their customers they decided to prioritize trunk space for the car over rear legroom for the X5/3.

I am not knocking BMW, it’s just surprising given the size increases from last gen. Front legroom adequate for 6 footers which matters most!

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by X4guy

Happy to oblige, maybe the OP of this thread is onto something.

Here is a snippet of the X3 forum, dead last in its class for rear legroom.

https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=63

For the X5 Autogefuhl also complained on rear legroom of X5, less than Cayennes and new GLE, see their YouTube videos.

In conclusion having sat and researched I suspect from BMW marketing research of their customers they decided to prioritize trunk space for the car over rear legroom for the X5/3.

I am not knocking BMW, it’s just surprising given the size increases from last gen. Front legroom adequate for 6 footers which matters most!

Great points all. Thanks for sharing some actual numbers. It really helps keep this all in perspective. I did a quick search on the X3 and its competition numbers you shared in the link you provided. My observations:
1) It does seem like BMW is going for cargo space at the expense of legroom.
2) The X3's poor legroom performance is possibly and partly due to the fact that its engine is mounted longitudeinal as opposed to transverse direction. The QX50, NX, and XC60 engines sit sidways allowing their dashboards to be more forward, allowing for more legroom I suppose (not an engineer). The X3 is still lowest in legroom even among the longitudeinal models (GLC and Q5), but in both of those cases, the X3 beats them in cargo space.

So, articles may be written any number of ways based on the author's focus. If the focus had been cargo space, the X3 would have shown more positively in the article.

As to the OP that started all of this space talk, the numbers in in the referenced Top Speed article were just plain in error. I suppose doing another analysis (engine mount direction, cargo space, legroom) for the X5 and its competitors would yield similar results. More cargo space, less legroom. Tranverse engine mount gains a bit of space.

I cannot believe, as the Top Speed article claims, that BMW is purposely being inefficient or hiding space somehow to make the X7 look more appealing.

[Mark609]

Thanks for the chart. Kinda wish you had included the X5 specs. Combined legroom is 77.2, only 1/2" more than the X3. Pretty pathetic but since we only have rear passengers maybe 6 times a year we'll just have to deal with it.

[Mark609]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

If space is an issue, there are plenty of other excellent choices. Its a great time to be a car buyer.

Except for the poor maintenance track record we'd love to be in a Volvo XC90 but reliability is a biggie for me, reason why we drive a Tundra and Lexus. I read Consumer Reports like a hawk.

Acura MDX is very roomy.

BMW screwed up somehow. Lengthened the car and the legroom is pathetic? This is where a pretty face is more important than functionality.

We got a great deal since you mentioned it.

[Doc5513]

Originally Posted by Mark609

Except for the poor maintenance track record we'd love to be in a Volvo XC90 but reliability is a biggie for me, reason why we drive a Tundra and Lexus. I read Consumer Reports like a hawk.

Acura MDX is very roomy.

BMW screwed up somehow. Lengthened the car and the legroom is pathetic? This is where a pretty face is more important than functionality.

We got a great deal since you mentioned it.

So for all this "pathetic" talk about the legroom, keep in mind this is not a change from the F15. The data do not bear out a reduction in passenger space.

[AndroidRobot]

Originally Posted by Mark609

Thanks for the chart. Kinda wish you had included the X5 specs. Combined legroom is 77.2, only 1/2" more than the X3. Pretty pathetic but since we only have rear passengers maybe 6 times a year we'll just have to deal with it.

The X5 is only 8.5" longer than the X3 so I don't know why people think this magically translates into rear legroom. 4.5" isn't a lot and the space is good either way. I've sat in the back of my X3 and it's not tiny, the same goes for the X5. If there's ample space why does it matter if one car is 2" bigger back there? Maybe if they offered an executive rear seat option I'd care more like in the 7 Series.

for comparison these are the vehicle lengths and wheelbases

X5 (G05) Length 194" Wheelbase 117.1"
Q7 200"/ 117.9"
GLE 194.3"/ 117.9"
XC90 195"/117.5"
Cayenne 194"/114"

The X5 is the same length as a 2019 Cayenne with a slightly longer wheelbase. Audi's Q7 is by far the longest of the bunch as noted.

edit: corrected a typo

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Mark609

Thanks for the chart. Kinda wish you had included the X5 specs. Combined legroom is 77.2, only 1/2" more than the X3. Pretty pathetic but since we only have rear passengers maybe 6 times a year we'll just have to deal with it.

Here's the chart.