You can spot an overloaded hatchback a mile away. Load it with boxes of ceramic tile and the rear suspension will groan. The bumper drops. The nose lifts. It’s a physical law you can feel in your bones. Even a pickup truck or SUV will sag if you pile on enough weight. They’re built for it, sure, but physics is still physics.
Then there are the big rigs. Massive recreational vehicles. Load them with tile and nothing happens. The chassis doesn’t complain. The ride height stays constant. Why? Because these machines are designed to haul heavy loads.
But here’s the problem. How do you know when you’ve crossed the line? You’re carrying furniture, appliances, televisions, and maybe ten people. The weight adds up fast. It’s not like loading groceries. If you guess wrong, you risk suspension failure, brake issues, or a catastrophic accident.
The answer lies in one specific number. It’s called the cargo carrying capacity.
This isn’t a suggestion. It’s a hard limit set by the manufacturer. Exceed it and you’re playing Russian roulette with your safety. You need to know the CCC of your rig. Here is the exact math to find it.
The CCC Formula Explained
You don’t need a degree in engineering. You just need a calculator and your owner’s manual. The formula is straightforward subtraction.
Start with the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). This is the maximum total weight the vehicle is designed to handle. Think of it as the ceiling. Everything inside or on the vehicle must stay below this number.
Next, you subtract the things that are already there.
First, subtract the Unloaded Vehicle Weight (UVW). This is the curb weight plus fluids. It includes the chassis, body, engine, and a full tank of fuel, oil, and coolant. It’s the weight of the empty RV, ready to roll.
Then, subtract the Sleeping Capacity Weight Rating (SCWR). Manufacturers use a standard multiplier here. They assume every sleeper weighs 154 pounds. Multiply that by the number of sleeping positions in the RV. That’s your passenger weight allowance.
After that, account for the liquids. Water is heavy. Propane is heavy.
Fresh water weighs about 8.3 pounds per gallon. Propane weighs roughly 4.2 pounds per gallon. If you have a full fresh tank and full LP bottles, you need to subtract their weight too.
The number left over? That’s your Cargo Carrying Capacity (CCC).
A Real-World Example
Let’s run the numbers on a hypothetical Class C motorhome.
- GVWR: 20,000 lbs. (The absolute max).
- Minus UVW: 14,500 lbs. (The empty vehicle weight with full fluids).
- Minus SCWR: 924 lbs. (6 bunks/beds x 154 lbs).
- Minus LP Gas: 50.4 lbs. (12 gallons x 4.2 lbs).
- Minus Fresh Water: 207.5 lbs. (25 gallons x 8.3 lbs).
Result: 4,318.1 lbs.
That is your hard limit for cargo. Clothes, food, tools, bikes, extra propane tanks, and any passengers over the base SCWR assumption. Do not exceed 4,318.1 lbs.
“For safety’s sake, the RV CCC should never be exceeded.”
If you go over, you aren’t just violating a warranty. You’re risking structural integrity. You’re stressing axles that weren’t meant to bear that load. You’re making your brakes less effective because they’re stopping more mass than they were calibrated for.
Where to Find Your Vehicle’s CCC
If you don’t have your manual handy, check the manufacturer’s website. Most brands publish this data online. It’s part of the specification sheet. Look for the GVWR and UVW, then run the calculation yourself.
Some manufacturers also provide a chart. You can browse by make to find specific models. However, be careful. Not all CCC charts are created equal. Some list volume in cubic feet. Others list weight capacity. Confusing the two is a common mistake. Cubic feet tells you how much space you have. Weight tells you how much stuff you can legally carry.
Volume is misleading. A box of feathers fills up a trunk faster than a block of lead, but the lead weighs more. You’re limited by weight, not volume. Always trust the CCC number.
Acura Cargo Carrying Capacity
Acura models from 2006 to 2009 show varying cargo volumes. The MDX, for instance, offers 81.5 cubic feet in 2006, growing to 83.5 cubic feet by 2007. The RL remains static at 13.1 cubic feet throughout this period. The RSX starts at 25.3 cubic feet but shifts to 60.6 cubic feet in later model years, likely due to seat folding configurations. The TL sits at 12.5 cubic feet, while the TSX hovers around 13 cubic feet.
| Year | Model | Cargo Capacity (ft³) |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | MDX | 81.5 |
| 2006 | RL | 13.1 |
| 2006 | RSX | 25.3 |
| 2006 | TL | 12.5 |
| 2006 | TSX | 13.2 |
| 2007 | MDX | 83.5 |
| 2007 | RL | 13.1 |
| 2007 | RDX | 60.6 |
| 2007 | TL | 12.5 |
| 2007 | TSX | 13.2 |
| 2008 | MDX | 83.5 |
| 2008 | RL | 13.1 |
| 2008 | RSX | 60.6 |
| 2008 | TL | 12.5 |
| 2008 | TSX | 13.2 |
| 2009 | MDX | 83.5 |
| 2009 | RL | 13.1 |
| 2009 | RSX | 60.6 |
| 2009 | TSX | 12.6 |
More Acura Specs: GVWR, GAWR, GCWR, Curb Weight, Payload, Towing Capacity
Audi Cargo Carrying Capacity
Audi’s lineup spans from compact cars to the massive Q7 SUV. The A3 offers 54.6 cubic feet of space, consistent across 2006-2009. The A4 drops from 13.4 to 10.2 cubic feet in later models. The A6 and A8 remain steady around 15-16 cubic feet. The RS models, like the RS4 and RS6, generally offer less volume due to performance-oriented packaging. The Q7 stands out with 88.7 cubic feet, reflecting its large SUV footprint. The R8, being a supercar with limited storage, offers a mere 3.5 cubic feet.
| Year | Model | Cargo Capacity (ft³) |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | A3 | 54.6 |
| 2006 | A4 | 13.4 |
| 2006 | A6 | 15.9 |
| 2006 | A8 | 14.6 |
| 2006 | S4 | 13.4 |
| 2006 | TT | 24.2 |
| 2007 | A3 | 54.6 |
| 2007 | A4 | 13.4 |
| 2007 | A6 | 15.9 |
| 2007 | A8 | 14.6 |
| 2007 | Q7 | 88.7 |
| 2007 | RS4 | 13.4 |
| 2007 | S4 | 13.4 |
| 2007 | S6 | 13.9 |
| 2007 | S8 | 14.6 |
| 2008 | A3 | 54.6 |
| 2008 | A4 | 10.2 |
| 2008 | A5 | 16.1 |
| 2008 | A6 | 15.9 |
| 2008 | A8 | 14.6 |
| 2008 | Q7 |
GM’s Luxury and Mainstream Volume Leaders
The 2006–2009 window was a transitional period for General Motors. You saw legacy models persisting alongside brand new platforms. The cargo numbers tell a story of shifting priorities. Buick leaned into comfort. Cadillac pushed luxury sedan volumes. Chevrolet covered the bases from tiny compacts to massive vans.
Here is how the trunk space actually shook out.
Buick Specs: The Mid-Size Anchor
Buick wasn’t chasing max volume. They were chasing the family sedan buyer. The LaCrosse and Lucerne sat in the same boat. Both offered 16 cubic feet in 2006. The Lucerne held 17 in 2007 and 2008. That single cubic foot difference barely registers in real life, but it was there.
Then there were the trucks.
The Rainier was gone by 2008. It had 80.1 cubic feet. The Rendezvous dropped off the list after 2007 with 108.9. The Terraza vanished entirely after 2006 with a massive 136.5.
When the Enclave arrived for 2008, Buick needed space. They got 116.2. It dropped slightly to 115 in 2009. The LaCrosse and Lucerne stayed steady at 16 and 17 respectively.
Cadillac: SUVs vs. Sedans
Cadillac split the difference. The sedans were tight. The SUVs were cavernous.
The CTS started at 12.5 in 2006. It grew to 13.6 by 2008. The V6 and V8 versions (CTS-V) matched this exactly. The DTS was consistently 18.8 across all four years. If you needed to fit ski boots and golf clubs, the DTS won.
The STS and STS-V stayed flat at 13.8. The XLR and XLR-V were low-slung convertibles with 11.6. Not much room for groceries.
The Escalade family dominated the volume charts.
- 2006: Escalade at 104.6. Escalade ESV at 131.6.
- 2007: Escalade jumped to 108.9. ESV hit 137.4.
- 2008–2009: Those numbers held.
The Escalade EXT had no listed cargo capacity. You probably knew why. It was a car-based pickup.
The SRX started at 69.5 in 2006. By 2009, it was listed at 13.8. That’s a massive drop. Why? Because 69.5 was likely rear seat folded or a different measurement standard. The 2009 figure aligns with the STS. The 2006 figure likely included more volume. Be careful comparing them.
The Escalade Hybrid appeared in 2009 with 69.5. Same as the SRX.
Chevrolet: From Aveo to Sprinter
Chevrolet had the widest spread.
The Aveo was small. 42 cubic feet in 2006. 12.4 in 2007? Wait. The Aveo 5 hatchback had 42 in 2007 and 2008. The sedan dropped to 12.4. By 2009, the Aveo sedan listed 42 again. Likely a typo in the source data or a reclassification. Treat it with skepticism.
The Cobalt was a solid 13.9.
The Corvette dropped from 22.4 in 2006 to 11 in 2007 and 2008. Then bounced back to 22.4 in 2009. C5 vs C6 generation changes often shift trunk placement and access.
The Express 1500/2500/3500 vans were the kings of volume. 225.1 cubic feet. Flat across all years. If you needed to haul a refrigerator, you bought an Express.
The HHR was quirky.
* 2006: 63.1
* 2007–2008: 57.7
* 2009: 57.7
The Panel version added a few feet. 62.7 in 2007 and 2008.
The Suburban and Tahoe were the heavy lifters.
* 2007–2009: Suburban 1500/2500 held 137.4. Tahoe held 108.9.
* The Tahoe Hybrid matched the gas Tahoe at 108.9.
The TrailBlazer sat at 80.1. The TrailBlazer EXT had 107.4 in 2006, but disappeared from the 2007+ list.
The Traverse arrived in 2009 with 117.5. It filled the gap between the Acadia (not listed here) and the large SUVs.
The Silverado trucks? No data provided. GM often omitted truck bed capacity in these specific interior cargo lists, or the data wasn’t standardized in this dataset. The same applies to the Avalanche and Colorado.
Chrysler: The Minivan King
Chrysler owned the MPV space.
The Town & Country was the benchmark.
* 2006: 146.7
* 2007: 144
* 2008: 143.8
* 2009: 143.8
It held a lot. The Pacifica followed.
* 2006: 62.7
* 2007: 92.2
* 2008: 62.7
* 2009: Not listed separately, likely merged or discontinued.
The PT Cruiser was a cult favorite for a reason. 92.2 in 2006. Dropped to 62.7 in 2007 and stayed there. The vertical doors and upright rear end made it versatile.
The 300 sedan stayed flat at 15.6 for 2006 and 2007. Jumped to 17.2 in 2008. Dropped back to 15.6 in 2009. The 300C mirrored these numbers.
The Sebring was small. 11.3 in 2006. 13.6 in 2007–2009.
The Aspen SUV appeared in 2007 with 102.4. It stayed there through 2009. The Aspen Hybrid matched it.
The Crossfire coupe was tiny. 6.5 in 2006–2007. 7.6 in 2008. Not a hauler.
Dodge: Work Horses and Vipers
Dodge’s list overlaps heavily with Chrysler since they share platforms.
The Grand Caravan was the volume monster.
* 2006: 167.9
* 2007: 167.9
* 2008–2009: 144.3
That drop in 2008 suggests a redesign or different measurement method. The 2006/2007 numbers are huge.
The Caravan minivan held 142.3 in 2006 and 2007.
The Sprinter vans were industrial tools.
* 2006: Van 2500/3500 at 247. Wagon 2500
Ford Truck and Van Space Metrics
If you are loading up a work truck or a family hauler, cubic footage is the metric that actually matters. It tells you how much junk fits. The numbers for Ford’s heavy-duty vans didn’t shift much between 2006 and 2009. The E-150, E-250, and E-350 Super Duty models held steady at 256.5 ft³ in ’06 and ’07. By 2008, that number dropped slightly to 230.6 ft³. It’s a small loss. But when you are moving appliances, that cubic foot adds up.
The mid-size vans like the Freestar started with 134.3 ft³ in 2006. Ford bumped that to 137.2 ft³ for 2007. After that, the Freestar vanished. The Excursion was gone by then too. The Focus and Fusion offered tight cargo spaces. The Fusion sat at a meager 15.8 ft³ across the board from 2006 to 2009. The Focus ranged from 40.2 ft³ down to 13.8 ft³ in 2009. That drop suggests a redesign that prioritized style over storage.
Pickups tell a different story. The F-150, F-250, F-350, and F-450 often show a dash for capacity. This usually means the bed size varies by cab and bed length configuration. Ford didn’t publish a single static number for these trucks in this dataset. The Ranger offered 18.1 ft³ in ’06 and ’08. It was absent in ’07 and ’09 data here.
SUVs dominated the top spots. The Expedition EL was a beast for hauling. It offered 130.8 ft³ in both 2007 and 2008. The standard Expedition sat at 108.2 ft³. The Explorer hovered around 85.8 ft³. The Escape Hybrid was surprisingly efficient with space, holding 65.5 ft³ in ’06 and ’07, then edging up to 66 ft³ in ’08 and 66.1 ft³ in ’09.
GMC Utility Vehicle Capacities
GMC’s strategy for cargo space was consistent. The Savana 1500, 2500, and 3500 vans were the kings of volume. They held 225.1 ft³ from 2006 through 2009. No changes. No tweaks. Just raw, flat-floor utility. If you need to fit a pallet or a motorcycle, this is your truck.
The Sierra pickups again show dashes. This confirms the variability issue with bed configurations. The Canyon also shows no data here. The Envoy was a steady performer, holding 43.7 ft³ from 2006 to 2009.
The Yukon line offered significant space. The standard Yukon dropped slightly from 63.6 ft³ in 2006 to 60.3 ft³ in 2007, then stayed there. The Yukon XL provided 45.7 ft³ in ’06 and 45.8 ft³ in ’07–’09. The Yukon Hybrid was a niche player, offering only 16.9 ft³ in its brief run in 2008 and 2009.
The Acadia entered the scene in 2007. It started with 19.7 ft³ and increased to 25.5 ft³ by 2008. That gain is notable. It shows GM optimizing the interior packaging for the crossover segment.
Honda Reliability and Space Efficiency
Honda balanced practicality with fuel economy well in this era. The Element was a utilitarian powerhouse. It held 74.6 ft³ consistently from 2006 to 2008. The Fit emerged in 2007 with 41.9 ft³, then jumped to 57.3 ft³ in 2009. That massive increase suggests a redesign that improved the rear seat folding mechanism or hatch design.
The Odyssey was the family hauler standard. It held 147.4 ft³ across all years listed. No change. It was the benchmark. The Pilot hovered around 87–87.6 ft³. It lost a fraction of a foot in 2009, likely due to minor packaging updates.
Sedans were tight. The Accord dropped from 14 ft³ in 2007 to 11.9 ft³ in 2008 and 2009. The Civic Hybrid was consistently small at 11.5 ft³. The Civic itself saw a huge drop from 72.9 ft³ in 2007 to 11.5 ft³ in 2009. This indicates a major platform shift. The pre-2008 Civic had a large trunk or hatch design. The new generation prioritized aerodynamics over storage.
The Ridgeline offered 41.4 ft³ consistently. It was one of the few pickup trucks with a usable trunk. The S2000 was a sports car. It offered just 5 ft³. You put your helmet in, not your luggage.
Hummer Off-Road Utility
Hummer’s cargo numbers were straightforward. The H2 was a massive SUV. It held 30.7 ft³ from 2006 to 2009. The H3 was slightly smaller at 29.5 ft³. The H3T pickup truck showed no data, likely due to bed configuration variables similar to the Ford and GMC pickups.
These numbers don’t reflect the ruggedness of the vehicles. They just show volume. The H2 was boxy. That shape maximized vertical space. The H3 was more compact but still retained a large usable area.
Hyundai Value Proposition
Hyundai was trying to catch up. The Accent started with 12.4 ft³ in 2006, then increased to 15.9 ft³ in 2007–2009. The Elantra grew from 13 ft³ to 14.2 ft³. These small gains matter in the compact segment.
The Santa Fe was a solid mid-size SUV. It held 30.5 ft³ in 2006, then increased to 34.2 ft³ from 2007 to 2008. The Tucson stayed steady at 22.7 ft³.
The Entourage minivan offered 32.2 ft³ in 2007–2008. It didn’t appear in 2009 or 2006 data here. The Veracruz showed no data. The Genesis entered in 2009 with 15.9 ft³. Hyundai was filling gaps in their lineup. They weren’t leading in raw volume, but they were becoming competitive.
Infiniti Luxury Performance
Infiniti’s luxury crossovers offered decent space. The FX35 and FX45 held 64.5 ft³ from 2006 to 2008. In 2009, the FX 35 and FX 50 dropped to 62 ft³. It’s a slight reduction. Maybe for rear headroom.
The G35 started with 7.8 ft³. It grew to 13.5 ft³ in 2008, then dropped to 7.4 ft³ in 2009. The G37 was tiny at 7.4 ft³. These are sports sedans. You don’t buy them for cargo.
The M35 and M45 were larger luxury sedans. They held 14.9 ft³ consistently. The QX56 was a full-size luxury SUV. It offered 91.7 ft³. It was one of the largest SUVs in its class. The EX35 entered in 2008 with 18.6 ft³. It was a smaller crossover.
Isuzu and Jaguar Niche Markets
Isuzu was a niche player. The Ascender was their main SUV. It held 80.1 ft³ from 2006 to 2008. The i-280 and i-350 pickups showed no data. The i-290 and i-37
Jeep Wrangler Unlimited and Patriot specs
The data gets interesting when you look at how Jeep handled their utilitarian lineup between 2006 and 2009. The Wrangler Unlimited was the clear volume king here, offering up to 86.8 cubic feet of cargo space in the 2008 and 2009 models. That’s a massive number for a vehicle with such a rugged reputation. You had to fold the rear seats to get those figures, but if you were hauling gear, it worked.
The standard two-door Wrangler was tighter on space. It sat around 45.8 cubic feet in 2006. By 2007, it jumped to 61.2. That’s a significant difference if you’re trying to fit a mountain bike or a week’s worth of camping gear. The Patriot was also a solid contender for those needing more room than a subcompact but not ready for a full SUV. It held steady at 62.7 cubic feet from 2007 through 2009. The Commander hovered around 68.5 to 68.9 cubic feet, offering a premium option for families who needed the extra footprint without sacrificing the Jeep badge.
Kia Sedona and Sportage capacity
Kia’s strategy was all about volume in the mid-2000s. The Sedona minivan dominated this period with cavernous interiors. In 2006, it offered 141.5 cubic feet of space. It dipped slightly to 121.3 cubic feet in 2007 and 2008, then remained stable. That’s still more room than most SUVs in the list. For those who didn’t need a full minivan, the Sportage was a reliable workhorse. It stayed flat at 66.6 cubic feet from 2006 through 2008. The 2009 model year saw the introduction of the Borrego, which offered a respectable 97.6 cubic feet, bridging the gap between crossovers and larger trucks. Smaller cars like the Rio 5 and Spectra 5 provided around 50 cubic feet, which was decent for the segment at the time.
Land Rover LR3 and Range Rover utility
Land Rover focused on premium utility, though the numbers tell a story of shifting priorities. The LR3 was the space leader. In 2006 and 2007, it offered a massive 90.3 cubic feet. Then in 2008, the figure plummeted to just 9.9 cubic feet. That’s a bizarre drop-off, likely due to a change in measurement methodology or a specific configuration of the third-row seating that wasn’t fully folded. By 2009, it bounced back to 90.3 cubic feet. The Range Rover itself was more modest, hovering around 35 to 75 cubic feet depending on the year and seat configuration. The Range Rover Sport stayed consistent at 71 cubic feet from 2006 to 2009. The LR2 entered in 2009 with 58.9 cubic feet, a more compact option for urban driving.
Lexus RX and GX cargo volumes
Lexus played it safe with conservative cargo estimates. The RX 350 and RX 400h were the volume leaders in the crossover segment. In 2006, the RX 330 and RX 400h both offered 84.7 cubic feet. This held steady through 2008, though the 2008 RX 350 showed a lower figure of 38.3 cubic feet in its standard configuration before seats were folded. The GX 470 was the heavy hitter, providing 77.5 cubic feet consistently from 2006 to 2009. The LX 570, introduced in 2008, offered 15.5 cubic feet in standard use, jumping to 83.1 cubic feet by 2009 when seats were folded. Smaller sedans like the ES 350 and IS 350 offered a modest 13 to 14.7 cubic feet. It’s not much for a family road trip, but adequate for groceries.
Lincoln Navigator and MKX space
Lincoln leaned into size. The Navigator was the clear winner here, offering over 100 cubic feet of space. In 2006, it sat at 104.8 cubic feet. It dipped slightly to 103.5 in 2007 and 2008, then returned to 104.7 in 2009. That’s serious hauling power. The Mark LT, which was essentially a pickup truck dressed as an SUV, offered 47.9 cubic feet. The MKX was the more suburban option, holding steady at 69 cubic feet from 2007 through 2009. For those who preferred sedans, the MKZ and Town Car offered around 15 to 21 cubic feet. It’s not competitive with the SUVs, but it fits the luxury sedan profile.
Mazda CX-9 and Tribute efficiency
Mazda’s lineup was diverse. The CX-9 was the largest SUV, offering 100.7 cubic feet from 2007 through 2009. That’s a strong number for a three-row crossover. The Tribute was a bit more volatile. In 2006, it offered 66.8 cubic feet. It dropped to 29.2 in 2008 for the standard model and 27.8 for the Hybrid. Then in 2009, it jumped back up to 66.2 cubic feet. The Mazda5 minivan was consistent at 44.4 cubic feet from 2006 to 2009. Smaller cars like the Mazda3 and MazdaSpeed3 offered around 43 to 44 cubic feet. The MazdaSpeed6 was tight at 12.4 cubic feet. It’s a performance car, not a hauler. The RX-8 was even tighter at 7.6 cubic feet.
Mercedes-Benz R-Class and GL-Class volume
Mercedes-Benz introduced the R-Class as a “large business car” or crossover alternative. It offered 85 cubic feet of space from 2007 through 2009. That’s a surprising amount of room for a vehicle that wasn’t marketed as a traditional SUV. The GL-Class was the dedicated SUV option. It offered 83.3 cubic feet from 2007 through 2008. The GL450 and GL550 were the specific models. The ML-Class models like the ML350 and ML500 offered 72.4 cubic feet. The sedans were much smaller. The S-Class offered around 15 to 19 cubic feet. The SL-Class and SLK-Class were tight, offering 9 to 10 cubic feet. It’s a brand that prioritizes driving dynamics over raw utility, and the numbers reflect that.
Mercury Mountaineer and Mariner utility
Mercury, being the sister brand to Ford, shared platforms with them. The Mountaineer was the direct counterpart to the Ford Explorer. It offered 84.7 cubic feet in 2006, 85.8 in 2007 and 2008, then dropped to 83.7 in 2009. The Monterey minivan was huge, offering 134.3 cubic feet consistently from 2006 to 2008. The Mariner crossover was also competitive, offering 66.3 cubic feet in 2006, 2008, and 2009. The hybrid version was slightly smaller at 65.5 to 66 cubic feet. In 2007, the Mariner dropped to 29.3 cubic feet, likely a measurement anomaly or specific trim difference. The Sable sedan offered 21.2 cubic feet in 2008 and 2009. It’s a solid, if unexciting, set of numbers.
MINI Storage Realities
The Cooper Hardtop from 2006 offered 25 cubic feet of space. The convertible version was tighter at 21.4. By 2007, the hardtop dropped to 24 cubic feet. The Clubman arrived in 2008 with a massive 32.8 cubic feet. The John Cooper Works models kept those same volumes.
Mitsubishi Volume Variance
Mitsubishi gave us the Endeavor with 76.4 cubic feet in 2006. The Eclipse was a tight 15.7. The Galant sat at 13.3. The Lancer was even smaller at 11.3. The Montero had 91.7. The Outlander started at 60.3. The Raider offered 37.1.
In 2007, the Endeavor dropped to 40.7. The Outlander fell to 36.2. The Raider vanished. By 2008, the Outlander jumped back up to 72.6. The Lancer edged to 11.6. The 2009 lineup kept the Eclipse, Galant, and Lancer numbers steady.
Nissan Capacity Quirks
Nissan’s cargo space varied wildly. The 350Z had a tiny 4.1 cubic feet. The Armada was huge at 97.1. The Murano held 81.6. The Pathfinder had 79.2. The Quest was massive at 148.7. The Xterra sat at 65.7. Sedans like the Altima and Maxima hovered around 15 cubic feet.
The 2007 Altima Hybrid dropped to 10.1. The Versa entered with 50.4. In 2008, the Rogue appeared with 98 cubic feet. The Sentra jumped to 97. The Titan pickup added 126. The Altima shrank drastically to 7.4. The GT-R in 2009 had 8.8 cubic feet. The Rogue shrank to 28.9 in 2009.
Pontiac Load Limits
Pontiac gave us the Grand Prix with 57.1 cubic feet in 2006. The Montana SV6 was a van with 136.5. The Torrent started at 68.6. The Vibe had 54.1. The G6 had 11. The GTO had just 7. The Solstice was miniscule at 3.8.
In 2007, the Grand Prix dropped to 16. The G5 appeared with 13.9. The Torrent fell to 32.2. The Solstice grew slightly to 7.5. By 2008, the G8 appeared with 17.5. The Grand Prix rose to 45.7. The Torrent returned to 68.6. The Vibe stayed at 54.1. In 2009, the Vibe dropped to 49.4.
Porsche Pack Space
Porsche rarely leads in volume. The 911 had no listed capacity in 2008. The Boxster had 9.9. The Cayman had 14.5. The Cayenne was large at 62.5.
In 2009, the 911 Carrera listed 7.24 cubic feet. The Boxster and Cayman held steady. The Cayenne remained at 62.5.
Saab Space
The Saab 9-2X had 61.6 cubic feet in 2006. The 9-3 had 14.8. The 9-5 had 15.9. The 9-7X was large at 80.1.
The 9-3 dropped to 15 in 2007. The 9-7X stayed at 80.1. In 2008, the 9-3 held 15. The 9-5 held 15.9. In 2009, the 9-3 shrank to 12.4. The 9-7X remained at 80.1.
Saturn Storage
The Saturn Ion had 14.2 cubic feet in 2006. The Relay van had 26.9. The VUE had 30.8.
In 2007, the Aura appeared with 14.9. The Aura Hybrid had 13.1. The Ion grew to 14.7. The Outlook was huge at 115.9. The Relay stayed at 26.9. The Sky had 5.4. The VUE grew to 63.8.
In 2008, the Astra appeared with 44.8. The Outlook held 115.9. The Sky held 5.4. The VUE dropped to 56.4. In 2009, the Astra vanished. The Outlook held 115.9. The VUE shrank to 29.2.
Scion Utility
The Scion tC had 12.8 cubic feet from 2006 to 2009. The xB started with 43.4 in 2006. In 2008, the xB grew to 69.9. The xD appeared with 35.7. The numbers held steady through 2009.
Smart Simplicity
The smart fortwo in 2008 had 12 cubic feet. That’s it.
Subaru AWD Volume
Subaru offered plenty of space in wagons. The B9 Tribeca had 74.4 in 2006. The Forester had 57.7. The Impreza Wagon had 61.6. The Outback had 33.5. Sedans like the Legacy had 11.4.
In 2007, the Forester grew to 68.6. The Outback dropped to 11.4. The Legacy Wagon held 65.4. In 2008, the Tribeca grew to 104. The Outback jumped to 98. The Forester held 68.6. The Impreza Wagon dropped to 44.4. In 2009, the Forester vanished from the list. The Legacy held 11.4. The Outback held 65.4. The Tribeca held 74.4.
Suzuki Capacity
The Suzuki Aerio had 14.6 cubic feet in 2006. The Grand Vitara had 24.4. The XL7 had 75.1. The Forenza had 12.4. The Reno had 8.8. The Verona had 13.4.
In 2007, the Grand Vitara grew to 68.9. The XL7 grew to 95.2. The SX4 appeared with 64. In 2008, the Grand Vitara held 68.9. The XL7 held 95.2. The SX4 dropped to 54. In 2009, the Equator and Grand Vitara vanished. The XL7 vanished. The SX4 held 54.
Toyota Cargo Carrying Capacity
Toyota didn’t just build sedans. They built moving vans disguised as cars. If you’re looking for space, the numbers tell a specific story about how they prioritized utility over the years.
2006
The 2006 lineup was straightforward. The Sienna led the pack with a massive 148.9 ft³ of cargo space. It’s a people-hauler, so why not treat it like one? The Sequoia followed closely at 128.1 ft³. If you wanted a compact solution, the Corolla offered a tight 13.6 ft³. Not much. Enough for groceries, maybe. The Matrix, however, was the practical choice for gearheads who needed room for skis or bikes, clocking in at 53.2 ft³. The 4Runner held 75.1 ft³. Solid. The Avalon? 14.4 ft³. The Camry? 16.7 ft³. The Prius? 16.1 ft³. The Land Cruiser? 20.8 ft³. The Highlander started at 39.7 ft³, while the Highlander Hybrid was notably smaller at 10.5 ft³. Why? Battery placement eats floor space. The RAV4 sat at 73 ft³. The Tacoma and Tundra? Dash marks. Pickup beds aren’t measured in cubic feet in these specs.
2007
Changes started showing up. The Avalon jumped to 41.4 ft³. That’s a huge shift from the previous year. What happened to the trunk? The Highlander Hybrid finally caught up to its gas sibling at 80.6 ft³. The Land Cruiser expanded to 90.8 ft³. The new FJ Cruiser brought 66.8 ft³ of rugged storage. The Yaris entered the chat with 25.7 ft³. The Sienna and Sequoia remained steady at 148.9 ft³ and 128.1 ft³ respectively.
2008
The Highlander grew again, hitting 95.4 ft³. The Highlander Hybrid slipped slightly to 94.1 ft³. The Land Cruiser dropped to 81.7 ft³. The Sequoia shrank to 120.8 ft³. Maybe they tightened the chassis? The Matrix stayed at 53.2 ft³. The Yaris held its 25.7 ft³.
2009
The Matrix got bigger, pushing to 61.5 ft³. The Corolla shrank to 12.3 ft³. The Yaris remained at 25.7 ft³. The Sienna continued its reign at 148.9 ft³. The Venza appeared, but with a dash. It’s a crossover, not a box.
More Toyota Specs:
- Toyota GAWR
- Toyota GCWR
- Toyota Cargo Carrying Capacity
- Toyota Curb Weight
- Toyota Payload
- Toyota Towing Capacity
Volkswagen Cargo Carrying Capacity
VW in the late 2000s was all about precision and unexpected volume. The Golf GTI wasn’t just a hot hatch. It was a storage unit.
2006
The Rabbit (the US Golf) offered 46 ft³. The Golf GTI sat at 41.8 ft³. The Passat Sedan was modest at 14.2 ft³. The Phaeton? A luxury limo with 13 ft³. The Beetle Coupe was tiny at 27.1 ft³. The Convertible? A trunk lid. 5 ft³. Useless for anything but a purse. The Touareg SUV held 71 ft³.
2007
The Eos convertible joined with 10.5 ft³. The Passat Wagon added significant utility at 61.8 ft³. The GTI held steady at 46 ft³. The Beetle numbers remained unchanged. The Rabbit stayed at 46 ft³.
2008
The R32, a performance machine, offered 43.4 ft³. The Touareg 2 kept 71 ft³. The GLI sedan dropped to 16 ft³. The Rabbit remained at 46 ft³.
2009
The Routan minivan appeared with 141 ft³. A proper hauler. The Tiguan compact SUV offered 56.1 ft³. The Jetta Sport Wagon provided 66.9 ft³. The Golf GTI held 46 ft³. The Beetle Convertible remained at 5 ft³. The Passat Wagon stayed at 61.8 ft³.
More Volkswagen Specs:
- Volkswagen GAWR
- Volkswagen GCWR
- Volkswagen Cargo Carrying Capacity
- Volkswagen Curb Weight
- Volkswagen Payload
- Volkswagen Towing Capacity
Volvo Cargo Carrying Capacity
Volvo’s answer to volume was understated. But when you need it, it’s there.
2006
The XC90 SUV led with 84.9 ft³. The V70 and XC70 wagons offered 71.4 ft³. The V50 gave 62.9 ft³. The S60 sedan had 36.5 ft³. The S40? 14.3 ft³. The C70 coupe? 12.8 ft³. The S80? 14.4 ft³.
