You know that sinking feeling. It’s the one that hits when you load up your hatchback with boxes of ceramic tile from the home improvement store. After a few heavy lifts, you see it. The rear bumper drags dangerously close to the pavement. The front end lifts up. You’ve overstuffed the suspension. It’s obvious. Your little car wasn’t built to haul that much dead weight.
Even if you’re driving a pickup or an SUV, the physics don’t change, only the tolerance. Those trucks have stiffer springs and heavier frames. You can pile on more tile before the rear end kisses the asphalt. But eventually, you’ll hit the limit.
Now, imagine that same pile of tile inside a massive Class A RV. You wouldn’t notice a thing. Unless you actually stepped inside and looked at the floor, you’d have no idea the boxes were there. These machines are engineered to carry enormous loads. They eat weight for breakfast.
But here’s the problem. Because you can’t see the overload like you can with your subcompact, it’s easy to ignore the danger. RVs carry furniture, appliances, TVs, and often, lots of people. How much is too much? The answer isn’t a guess. It’s a specific number: your RV’s cargo carrying capacity, or CCC.
Knowing this number isn’t just about comfort. It’s about safety. And getting it right requires a little bit of simple math.
The Formula for RV Cargo Carrying Capacity
Most people look at an RV and see a living space. Manufacturers see a collection of numbers. To find your CCC, you need to strip away everything except the stuff you can actually load.
Start with the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). This is the maximum total weight the vehicle is designed to handle, including itself, passengers, fuel, and cargo.
From there, you subtract the things that are already there when you roll off the lot or when you pull into the campground.
The cargo carrying capacity is a hard limit. Exceeding it compromises braking, handling, and structural integrity.
Here is the breakdown using a hypothetical example:
- Start with the GVWR : 20,000 pounds
- Subtract the Unloaded Vehicle Weight (UVW) : 14,500 pounds
- This is the manufacturer’s weight of the vehicle with a full tank of fuel, coolant, and oil.
- Subtract the Sleeping Capacity Weight Rating (SCWR) : 924 pounds
- This is a fixed calculation: 154 pounds multiplied by the number of sleeping positions. For six spots, that’s $6 \times 154$.
- Subtract the Propane Fuel Weight : 50.4 pounds
- Propane (LP gas) weighs 4.2 pounds per gallon. With a 12-gallon tank, that’s $12 \times 4.2$.
- Subtract the Fresh Water Weight : 207.5 pounds
- Water weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon. A 25-gallon fresh tank adds significant mass.
The result?
4,318.1 pounds
That is your CCC. That is the maximum weight you can add in terms of cargo, personal belongings, and optional equipment. It is not a suggestion. It is the manufacturer’s safety ceiling.
Where to Find Your Numbers
If you aren’t sure about your own vehicle’s UVW, GVWR, or SCWR, don’t guess. The manufacturer provides these data points. You can often find them in the owner’s manual or on a sticker near the entry door or driver’s side frame rail.
If you don’t have the manual, a quick online search usually yields the specs. Most manufacturers publish detailed vehicle information on their websites.
But what about cars and trucks? The concept applies there too. While RVs are famous for CCC calculations, passenger vehicles have payload limits that serve the same function. If you’re wondering where to find this data for your specific car or truck, you’re not alone.
Cargo Capacity by Make and Model
Whether you’re packing a sedan for a road trip or a truck for a job site, knowing your limits matters. Below is a snapshot of cargo carrying capacity (in cubic feet) for select models from major manufacturers. Note that for passenger vehicles, this figure often refers to volume rather than weight capacity, but it serves as a good proxy for space constraints.
Acura Cargo Carrying Capacity
Acura has consistently offered robust storage in their SUVs while keeping sedans tight.
| Year | Model | Cargo Carrying 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 |
Additional Acura Specs: GVWR, GAWR, GCWR, Curb Weight, Payload, Towing Capacity
Audi Cargo Carrying Capacity
Audi’s lineup ranges from the tiny R8 to the spacious Q7. The volume varies wildly depending on the platform.
| Year | Model | Cargo Carrying 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 | 88.7 |
| 2008 | R8 | 3.5 |
| 2008 | RS4 | 13.4 |
| 2008 | S4 | 13.4 |
| 2008 | S5 | 16.1 |
| 2008 | S6 | 15.9 |
| 2008 | S8 | 14.6 |
| 2008 | TT | 8.8 |
| 2009 | A3 | 54.6 |
| 2009 | A4 | 10.2 |
| 2009 | A5 | 16.1 |
| 2009 | A8 | 14.6 |
| 2009 | Q7 | 88.7 |
| 2009 | R8 | 3.5 |
| 2009 | S4 | 10.2 |
| 2009 | S5 | 16.1 |
| 2009 |
The trunk space in American cars from this era is a study in extremes. You have sedans barely squeezing over a golf bag and vans that could house a small apartment. If you are buying used, you need to know exactly what fits in the back before you hand over cash.
Generic specs don’t help. You need the numbers.
Buick Cargo Carrying Capacity
Buick played it safe with their sedans. The LaCrosse and Lucerne offer identical, modest space.
2006 Buick Cargo Specs
* LaCrosse: 16 ft³
* Lucerne: 17 ft³
* Rainier: 80.1 ft³
* Rendezvous: 108.9 ft³
* Terraza: 136.5 ft³
2007 Buick Cargo Specs
* LaCrosse: 16 ft³
* Lucerne: 17 ft³
* Rainier: 80.1 ft³
* Rendezvous: 108.9 ft³
2008 Buick Cargo Specs
* Enclave: 116.2 ft³
* LaCrosse: 16 ft³
* Lucerne: 17 ft³
2009 Buick Cargo Specs
* Enclave: 115 ft³
* LaCrosse: 16 ft³
* Lucerne: 17 ft³
The Terraza was the outlier. A minivan crossover, it offered 136.5 cubic feet in 2006. By 2008, the Enclave replaced it. The Enclave starts huge at 116.2 ft³, then drops slightly to 115 ft³ the next year. The sedans stay static. If you need a Buick sedan, the Lucerne gives you one extra cubic foot. It doesn’t matter.
Cadillac Cargo Carrying Capacity
Cadillac split their lineup between luxury sedans and massive SUVs. The gap is wide.
2006 Cadillac Cargo Specs
* CTS: 12.5 ft³
* CTS-V: 12.5 ft³
* DTS: 18.8 ft³
* Escalade: 104.6 ft³
* Escalade ESV: 131.6 ft³
* Escalade EXT: –
* SRX: 69.5 ft³
* STS: 13.8 ft³
* STS-V: 13.8 ft³
* XLR: 11.6 ft³
* XLR-V: 11.6 ft³
2007 Cadillac Cargo Specs
* CTS: 12.5 ft³
* CTS-V: 12.5 ft³
* DTS: 18.8 ft³
* Escalade: 108.9 ft³
* Escalade ESV: 137.4 ft³
* Escalade EXT: –
* SRX: 69.5 ft³
* STS: 13.8 ft³
* STS-V: 13.8 ft³
* XLR: 11.6 ft³
* XLR-V: 11.6 ft³
2008 Cadillac Cargo Specs
* CTS: 13.6 ft³
* DTS: 18.8 ft³
* Escalade: 108.9 ft³
* Escalade ESV: 137.4 ft³
* Escalade EXT: –
* SRX: 69.5 ft³
* STS: 13.8 ft³
* STS-V: 13.8 ft³
* XLR: 11.6 ft³
* XLR-V: 11.6 ft³
2009 Cadillac Cargo Specs
* CTS: 13.6 ft³
* DTS: 18.8 ft³
* Escalade: 108.9 ft³
* Escalade ESV: 137.4 ft³
* Escalade EXT: –
* Escalade Hybrid: 69.5 ft³
* SRX: 13.8 ft³
* STS: 13.8 ft³
* STS-V: 13.8 ft³
* XLR: 11.6 ft³
* XLR-V: 11.6 ft³
The CTS-V and CTS are tight. The V8 version doesn’t lose space to the engine bay, but you aren’t hauling gear. The DTS is the executive choice, offering 18.8 ft³. It’s spacious for a full-size sedan.
The Escalade ESV dominates the SUV segment. In 2007, it jumped to 137.4 ft³ and held that line until 2009. The standard Escalade stays steady at 108.9 ft³ from 2007 onward. The Escalade EXT is listed with no capacity. That’s because the bed is open. You can’t put a suitcase in there and close a lid.
The XLR is a low-slung roadster. 11.6 ft³ is barely enough for two weekend bags. The SRX sits in the middle at 69.5 ft³. In 2009, the SRX spec shifts to 13.8 ft³, likely matching the sedan trunks as rear seats fold or measuring differently. Wait. The 2009 SRX is listed at 13.8 ft³? That’s a massive drop from 69.5. Or perhaps the 69.5 was with seats up and 13.8 is the sealed volume? No, the SRX usually holds more. Let’s look at the data as provided. The shift is drastic.
Chevrolet Cargo Carrying Capacity
Chevy had the volume king in the Express van. And the Corvette.
2006 Chevrolet Cargo Specs
* Avalanche 1500: –
* Avalanche 2500: –
* Aveo: 42 ft³
* Cobalt: 13.9 ft³
* Colorado: –
* Corvette: 22.4 ft³
* Equinox: 68.6 ft³
* Express: 225.1 ft³
* HHR: 63.1 ft³
* Impala: 18.6 ft³
* Malibu: 15.4 ft³
* Malibu MAXX: 41 ft³
* Monte Carlo: –
* SSR: –
* Silverado 1500: –
* Silverado 1500 Hybrid: –
* Silverado 1500 SS: –
* Silverado 1500 HD: –
* Silverado 2500 HD: –
* Silverado 3500 HD: –
* Suburban 1500: –
* Suburban 2500: –
* Tahoe: –
Ford’s Van Dominance and Truck Limitations
You want to haul stuff? Look at the E-Series. Ford didn’t mess around with the E 150, E 250, or the E 350 Super Duty. For 2006 and 2007, those vans offered a massive 256.5 cubic feet of space. That’s not just a little room. That is serious volume. The 2008 model year saw a slight cut to 230.6 cubic feet. Still huge. Still the king of the party van conversion game.
Then there are the trucks. The F 150, F 250, and F 350. You will notice dashes in the cargo tables for these years. That isn’t an error. It’s because bed liner dimensions vary wildly based on bed length (6.5 ft vs 8 ft) and cab style (SuperCrew vs SuperCab). If you need exact numbers for a Ford F 150 cargo capacity, you have to dig into the specific trim.
The crossover segment was Ford’s battleground. The Escape Hybrid offered 65.5 cubic feet in 2006, edging out the standard Escape’s 66.3. Marginal gains. The Explorer sat at 85.8 cubic feet across the board from 2006 to 2009. Consistent. Reliable space.
SUVs like the Expedition EL broke the 100 cubic foot barrier. 2007 brought the EL with 130.8 cubic feet. The Expedition itself? 108.2 cubic feet. Big boxes. Good for big families or big projects.
GMC’s Heavy Haulers and Small Footprints
GMC played the same game as Ford but with different branding. The Savana 1500, 2500, and 3500 vans are basically Chevys in disguise. They all share that 225.1 cubic feet cargo capacity from 2006 through 2009. No changes. Just pure utility.
The Yukon family is where it gets interesting. The Yukon XL gave you 45.7 cubic feet in 2006, creeping up to 45.8 in later years. Not much growth. The standard Yukon? 63.6 cubic feet in 2006, dropping slightly to 60.3 in 2007. Why the drop? Aerodynamics? Styling? It doesn’t matter. It’s just fewer cubic feet.
The hybrid element entered the chat. The 2008 Yukon Hybrid offered only 16.9 cubic feet. That is tiny. The battery packs eat into the rear. If you need to move a sofa, skip the hybrid. Go with the regular Yukon and get 60.3 cubic feet.
Compact SUVs like the Acadia started small. 2006 didn’t even list it properly in some specs, but by 2007 it sat at 19.7 cubic feet. 2008 brought that up to 25.5. Small improvements. But 25 cubic feet is barely enough for groceries for a family of four.
Honda’s Sedans Shrink, Crossovers Shine
Honda loves efficiency. But efficiency often means less space. Look at the Accord. 2006 gave you 12.8 cubic feet. 2007 bumped it to 14. This is a sedan. You aren’t packing for a move. You are packing for a weekend trip.
Then the Civic. 2006 Civic had 72 cubic feet with the rear seats folded. That is huge for a compact car. 2008? It dropped to 35.7. Why? The generation change. The 2006 Civic was a box. The 2006 Civic Hybrid was a different beast, offering 11.5 cubic feet. The sedan shape limited it.
The CR-V stayed small in the trunk. 10.4 cubic feet from 2006 to 2008. Honda prioritized ground clearance and handling over cargo volume in that generation. If you needed space, you folded the seats. The Element? 74.6 cubic feet. Always. It was a box on wheels designed for camping gear and mud.
The Odyssey was the minivan king. 147.4 cubic feet. Every year. 2006 to 2009. No change. If you have seven kids and a dog, the Odyssey is the only choice. The Pilot? 87.6 cubic feet in 2006, dropping to 87 in 2009. Minor fluctuations.
The Ridgeline truck bed was unique. 41.4 cubic feet. Not huge, but innovative. In-bed trunk space added to this, but the table only lists the bed.
Hummer’s Minimalist Approach
Hummer didn’t care about cargo space. The H2 offered 30.7 cubic feet. The H3 offered 29.5. Same. Every year. 2006 to 2009.
The H3T was a pickup. The table shows a dash. Again, bed liner variables. But you can guess. It’s not enough for a car haul. It’s enough for a few bags of mulch.
These weren’t practical vehicles. They were status symbols with high fuel consumption. The cargo capacity reflects that. You bought an H2 to look tough, not to move furniture.
Hyundai’s Expanding Portfolio
Hyundai was growing up. The Accent offered 12.4 cubic feet in 2006, rising to 15.9 in 2007. Small sedan. Small trunk.
The Santa Fe? 30.5 cubic feet in 2006. 34.2 in 2007. Better. The Tucson sat at 22.7 cubic feet. Consistent.
The Entourage minivan offered 32.2 cubic feet. That sounds small until you realize it’s with the third row up. Fold those seats, and it expands. But the base table doesn’t show that. It shows the standard configuration.
The Veracruz was a mid-size SUV. The table shows a dash for cargo capacity. Likely due to varying seat configurations. But you knew that. Hyundai was competing with the Mazda CX-9 and the Ford Edge. The Edge, by contrast, offered 69 cubic feet in 2008. Hyundai was still catching up in raw volume.
Infiniti’s Luxury Constraints
Luxury cars rarely prioritize cargo. The G35 sedan had 7.8 cubic feet. The M35 and M45? 14.9 cubic feet. The Q45? 13.6 cubic feet. These are executive sedans. You carry briefcases, not luggage.
The crossover SUVs told a different story. The FX35 and FX45 offered 64.5 cubic feet. Huge. The QX56 was massive. 91.7 cubic feet. Every year. 2006 to 2009. No change. It’s a full-size luxury SUV. It competes with the Cadillac Escalade and Lincoln Navigator. Space is king.
The EX35 entered in 2008 with 18.6 cubic feet. Small for a crossover. The G37 replaced the G35. The sedan trunk shrank to 7.4 cubic feet. Even less room. Luxury buyers don’t care. They have drivers. Or they don’t.
Isuzu and Jaguar’s Niche Spaces
Isuzu was fading. The Ascender offered 80.1 cubic feet. Every year. 2006 to 2008. It was a rebadged Chevy Traverse. The i-290 and i-370 pickups showed dashes. Bed dimensions vary.
Jaguar is all about style. The S-Type sedan had 28.6 cubic feet. The X-Type? 16 cubic feet. The XJ8 and XJR? 16.4 cubic feet. The XK and XKR? 11.5 cubic feet in 2006, dropping to 7.1 in 2007, then up to 10.6 in 2008. The 2009 XF offered 17.7 cubic feet.
These numbers don’t tell the whole story. Luxury trunks often have weird shapes. Irregular contours. Hard to stack boxes.
Jeep Storage Space Breakdown
The 2009 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited still dominates with 86.8 cubic feet of rear cargo space. That is nearly double what you get in the two-door Wrangler at 61.2 cubic feet. The Commander sits in the middle at 68.5 cubic feet. The Patriot offers 62.7 cubic feet.
The Compass is stuck at 53.6 cubic feet. The Grand Cherokee holds steady at 67.4 cubic feet. The Liberty drops slightly from 69 to 64.2 cubic feet between 2006 and 2008. It stays there in 2009.
| Year | Model | Cargo Capacity (ft³) |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Commander | 68.7 |
| 2006 | Grand Cherokee | 67.4 |
| 2006 | Liberty | 69 |
| 2006 | Wrangler | 45.8 |
| 2007 | Commander | 68.9 |
| 2007 | Compass | 53.6 |
| 2007 | Grand Cherokee | 67.4 |
| 2007 | Liberty | 69 |
| 2007 | Patriot | 62.7 |
| 2007 | Wrangler | 61.2 |
| 2008 | Commander | 68.5 |
| 2008 | Compass | 53.6 |
| 2008 | Grand Cherokee | 67.4 |
| 2008 | Liberty | 64.2 |
| 2008 | Patriot | 62.7 |
| 2008 | Wrangler | 61.2 |
| 2008 | Wrangler Unlimited | 86.8 |
| 2009 | Commander | 68.5 |
| 2009 | Compass | 53.6 |
| 2009 | Grand Cherokee | 67.4 |
| 2009 | Liberty | 64.2 |
| 2009 | Patriot | 62.7 |
| 2009 | Wrangler | 61.2 |
| 2009 | Wrangler Unlimited | 86.8 |
Kia Cargo Volume by Model
The 2006 Kia Sedona is a massive hauler with 141.5 cubic feet of space. By 2007 and 2008, that drops to 121.3 cubic feet. The Rondo sits at 74.4 cubic feet for those same two years.
The Borrego enters in 2009 with 97.6 cubic feet. The Sportage holds 66.6 cubic feet across 2006, 2007, and 2008. The Sorento is identical at 66.4 cubic feet for those years too.
Sedans are tiny. The Optima and Amanti hover around 15.5 to 15.9 cubic feet. The Rio is cramped at 11.9 cubic feet. The Spectra and Spectra 5 offer 12.2 and 52.8 cubic feet respectively in 2006.
| Year | Model | Cargo Capacity (ft³) |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Amanti | 15.5 |
| 2006 | Optima | 14.8 |
| 2006 | Rio | 11.9 |
| 2006 | Rio 5 | 49.6 |
| 2006 | Sedona | 141.5 |
| 2006 | Sorento | 66.4 |
| 2006 | Spectra | 12.2 |
| 2006 | Spectra 5 | 52.8 |
| 2006 | Sportage | 66.6 |
| 2007 | Amanti | 15.9 |
| 2007 | Optima | 14.8 |
| 2007 | Rio | 11.9 |
| 2007 | Rio 5 | 15.8 |
| 2007 | Rondo | 74.4 |
| 2007 | Sedona | 121.3 |
| 2007 | Sorento | 66.4 |
| 2007 | Spectra | 12.2 |
| 2007 | Spectra 5 | 52.8 |
| 2007 | Sportage | 66.6 |
| 2008 | Amanti | 15.9 |
| 2008 | Optima | 14.8 |
| 2008 | Rio | 11.9 |
| 2008 | Rio 5 | 49.6 |
| 2008 | Rondo | 74.4 |
| 2008 | Sedona | 121.3 |
| 2008 | Sorento | 66.4 |
| 2008 | Spectra | 12.2 |
| 2008 | Spectra 5 | 52.8 |
| 2008 | Sportage | 66.6 |
| 2009 | Borrego | 97.6 |
| 2009 | Spectra | 12.2 |
| 2009 | Spectra 5 | 52.8 |
Land Rover Interior Space
The LR3 is huge. It offers 90.3 cubic feet in 2006 and 2007. Then it plummets to just 9.9 cubic feet in 2008. That is a massive drop. It recovers to 90.3 cubic feet in 2009.
The LR2 starts in 2009 with 58.9 cubic feet. The Range Rover sits around 74 cubic feet. It was 74.9 in 2006 and 2007. It dropped to 35.1 in 2008. It comes back to 74.2 in 2009.
The Range Rover Sport is static. It holds 71 cubic feet for every year listed.
| Year | Model | Cargo Capacity (ft³) |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | LR3 | 90.3 |
| 2006 | Range Rover | 74.9 |
| 2006 | Range Rover Sport | 71 |
| 2007 | LR3 | 90.3 |
| 2007 | Range Rover | 74.9 |
| 2007 | Range Rover Sport | 71 |
| 2008 | LR2 | – |
| 2008 | LR3 | 9.9 |
| 2008 | Range Rover | 35.1 |
| 2008 | Range Rover Sport | 71 |
| 2009 | LR2 | 58.9 |
| 2009 | LR3 | 90.3 |
| 2009 | Range Rover | 74.2 |
| 2009 | Range Rover Sport | 71 |
Lexus Cargo Capacity Details
The Lexus LX 470 and RX 330/400h are big. The LX 470 holds 90.4 cubic feet. The RX models sit at 84.7 cubic feet. The RX 350 in 2007 and 2009 increases slightly to 85 cubic feet. In 2008, the RX 350 drops to 38.3 cubic feet. Why the variance? Measurement standards often change with model years.
The GX 470 is steady at 77.5 cubic feet. The IS models are small. The IS 250 and IS 350 offer
MINI Cargo Carrying Capacity
The Cooper Hardtop and Convertible are tight on space, especially if you are hauling gear for a weekend trip. In 2006, the Hardtop offered 25 cubic feet of space. The Convertible sat at 21.4 cubic feet. By 2007, the Hardtop lost a cubic foot, dropping to 24. The Convertible stayed flat at 21.4. The Clubman arrived in 2008. It opened up to 32.8 cubic feet. That is a noticeable jump for a small car. The Convertible remained static. The John Cooper Works variants kept those same numbers in 2009. Hardtop at 24. Clubman at 32.8. If you need more room, you look elsewhere.
Mitsubishi Cargo Carrying Capacity
Mitsubishi played in different segments. The Eclipse coupe was tight. 15.7 cubic feet across the board from 2006 to 2009. The Galant was similar. 13.3 cubic feet every year. The Lancer started at 11.3 in 2006. It bumped to 11.6 in 2008 and stayed there. The bigger stuff is where the numbers get interesting. The Endeavor SUV was a beast in 2006 with 76.4 cubic feet. Then it shrank for 2007 and 2008 to 40.7. The Outlander fluctuated wildly. 60.3 in 2006. Down to 36.2 in 2007. Then up to 72.6 in 2008. The Raider pickup was listed at 37.1 in 2006. No data for the later years.
Nissan Cargo Carrying Capacity
Nissan had some odd fluctuations here. The 350Z is a sports car. You get 4.1 cubic feet. That is barely enough for a helmet. The Altima saw a massive drop. 15.6 in 2006. 15.3 in 2007. Then it plummeted to 7.4 in 2008 and stayed there. The Quest is a people mover. It holds 148.7 cubic feet in 2006. Slight dip to 145.7 in 2007. Back up to 148.1 in 2008 and 2009. The Rogue also changed. It started at 98 cubic feet in 2008. Then dropped to 28.9 in 2009. The Titan pickup showed 126 cubic feet in 2008, but nothing for 2009. The Frontier and Titan pickups generally had no data listed here for most years.
Pontiac Cargo Carrying Capacity
Pontiac’s lineup was short before the end. The Montana SV6 minivan in 2006 offered a huge 136.5 cubic feet. The Vibe hatchback was consistent. 54.1 cubic feet from 2006 to 2008. It dipped slightly to 49.4 in 2009. The Solstice convertible was tight. 3.8 in 2006. 7.5 in 2007. Then down to 5.4 for the last two years. The Grand Prix coupe varied a lot. 57 in 2006. Down to 16 in 2007. Up to 45.7 in 2008. The G6 sedan sat steady at 14 cubic feet for the last three years. The G8 sedan added 17.5 cubic feet in 2008 and 2009.
Porsche Cargo Carrying Capacity
Porsche is not known for volume. The 911 Coupe had no data for 2008. In 2009, the 911 Carrera offered 7.24 cubic feet. That is small. The Boxster was slightly better. 9.9 cubic feet in both 2008 and 2009. The Cayman was similar. 14.5 cubic feet. The Cayenne SUV was the only roomy option. It held 62.5 cubic feet across all years listed, 2006, 2008, and 2009. Consistent, but not massive for an SUV.
Saab Cargo Carrying Capacity
Saab had a small selection. The 9-3 sedan was tight. 14.8 in 2006. 15 in 2007 and 2008. Down to 12.4 in 2009. The 9-5 sedan was steady. 15.9 cubic feet every year. The 9-7X SUV was the big one. 80.1 cubic feet across the board from 2006 to 2009. The 9-2X in 2006 offered 61.6 cubic feet. It disappeared after that.
Saturn Cargo Carrying Capacity
Saturn struggled with consistency. The VUE crossover was a roller coaster. 30.8 in 2006. 63.8 in 2007 and 2008. Then down to 29.2 in 2009. The VUE Hybrid followed the same path. The Outlook SUV was huge. 115.9 cubic feet from 2007 to 2009. The Relay minivan was also big. 26.9 in 2006. Then 136.5 in 2007. It vanished after that. The Aura sedan sat at 14.9 (13.1 for hybrid). The Sky convertible was tiny. 5.4 cubic feet. The Astra wagon appeared in 2008 with 44.8 cubic feet. No data for 2009.
Scion Cargo Carrying Capacity
Scion focused on youth and practicality. The tC coupe was consistent. 12.8 cubic feet from 2006 to 2009. The xB was the volume king. 43.4 in 2006. Then 69.9 in 2008 and 2009. The xD hatchback entered in 2008. 35.7 cubic feet. It stayed there in 2009. Simple numbers. No weird fluctuations.
smart Cargo Carrying Capacity
The smart fortwo is a city car. You do not buy it for cargo. In 2008, it offered 12 cubic feet. That is it. No other models listed. If you need space, you buy a different car.
Subaru Cargo Carrying Capacity
Subaru offers wagon space. The Impreza Wagon and Outback Sport were consistent at 61.6 in 2006 and 2007. Then dropped to 44.4 in 2008. The Legacy Wagon was 66.2 in 2006. 65.4 in 2007. Then jumped to 93 in 2008. Then back down to 11.4 in 2009. The Outback itself was weird. 33.5 in 2006. 11.4 in 2007. 98 in 2008. 65.4 in 2009. The Tribeca SUV held 74.4 in 2006 and 2007. 104 in 2008. Back to 74.4 in 2009. The Forester was 57.7 in 2006. 68.6 in 2007 and 2008. No data for 2009.
Suzuki Cargo Carrying Capacity
Suzuki had some surprises. The XL7 SUV grew over time. 75.1 in 2006. 95.2 in 2007 and 2008. It vanished in 2009. The Grand Vitara was 24.4 in 2006. Then jumped to 68.9 in 2007 and 2008. No data for 2009. The SX4 was 64 in 2007. 54 in 2008. 54 in 2009. The Reno was 8.8 in 2006. 45.4 in 2007 and 2008. The Aerio and Forenza stayed steady at 14.6 and 12.4 respectively. The Verona was 13.4 in 2006. No data later. The Equator pickup had no data in 2009.
Toyota’s 2009 Lineup: The Matrix Takes the Crown
The 2009 Toyota Matrix wasn’t just an update; it was a significant jump in utility. With 61.5 cubic feet of cargo space, it finally overtook the RAV4 as the brand’s volume leader for that year. This matters if you’re looking at used SUVs because it shows Toyota prioritizing versatility in their compact crossover segment. The Highlander Hybrid also saw a slight dip to 94.1 cubic feet, down from the non-hybrid’s 95.4, likely due to battery placement constraints. That’s a notable difference for families hauling gear.
Earlier years tell a different story. Back in 2006 and 2007, the Matrix sat steady at 53.2 cubic feet, while the Highlander Hybrid was drastically underutilized with just 10.5 cubic feet in 2006. By 2007, the Highlander Hybrid caught up, matching the gas version at 80.6 cubic feet. It’s weird to see such a drastic change in hybrid packaging between model years. The Sienna remained the king of Toyota’s fleet with a massive 148.9 cubic feet, unchanged from 2006 through 2009. If you need to move a couch, the Sienna is still the only logical choice in this lineup.
The Corolla saw a reduction in 2009, dropping from 13.6 cubic feet to 12.3. It’s a small loss, but noticeable if you’re a commuter trying to fit a weekend’s worth of laundry.
Volkswagen’s 2009 Expansion: The Routan and Tiguan Arrive
Volkswagen’s 2009 catalog introduces the two biggest volume players in their lineup: the Routan and the Tiguan. The Routan, a rebadged Chrysler minivan, offers a staggering 141 cubic feet of space. This is the highest figure for VW in this dataset. It’s essentially a Chrysler Town & Country in disguise, but the cargo volume is what counts for utility seekers. The Tiguan adds 56.1 cubic feet, filling a gap between the compact Rabbit and the mid-size Touareg.
The Jetta Sport Wagon also made its debut in 2009, offering 66.9 cubic feet. This is a substantial increase over the standard Jetta sedan’s 16 cubic feet or the Passat Wagon’s 61.8 cubic feet. The Passat Wagon has held steady at that 61.8 cubic feet mark since 2007.
The Touareg 2 remains consistent at 71 cubic feet. It’s a heavy SUV, so the space efficiency is decent but not class-leading. The Golf GTI and Rabbit both offer 46 cubic feet, which is impressive for small-footprint vehicles. If you’re comparing the Golf GTI to the Jetta GLI, the GTI wins by 30 cubic feet (46 vs 16). That’s a massive discrepancy for a similar-sized German sedan/hatchback pairing. The Beetle Convertible remains stuck at a meager 5 cubic feet, a design choice that sacrifices utility for style.
Volvo’s 2009 Volumes: The XC90 and V70 Dominate
Volvo’s 2009 data shows the XC90 and V70 as the primary workhorses. The XC90 holds 85.1 cubic feet, and the V70 offers 72.1 cubic feet. These figures have been stable since 2008. The XC70, their crossover/wagon hybrid, sits at 72 cubic feet. It’s interesting to see how close the V70 and XC70 are in volume, suggesting similar rear packaging despite different underpinnings.
The S60 sedan offers 36.5 cubic feet, a significant amount for a midsize luxury sedan. The S80 is less generous at 14.9 cubic feet, which aligns with its executive sedan positioning. The C30 hatchback improved slightly from 12.9 cubic feet in 2008 to 15.3 cubic feet in 2009. This might seem like a small number, but for a city car, it’s competitive.
The V50 wagon remains a strong contender with 62.6 cubic feet. It’s a practical choice if you want European build quality without the SUV footprint. The C70 convertible is consistently low at 12.8 cubic feet, reflecting its two-door, hardtop design.
Why These Numbers Matter for Used Buyers
You might think these cubic feet are just static numbers on a spec sheet. They’re not. They dictate what you can actually carry. A 2009 Toyota Sienna with 148.9 cubic feet can handle bulkier items than a 2009 Volkswagen Routan’s 141 cubic feet. The difference is less than 8%, but in the used car market, every bit of utility counts.
For small cars, the gap is stark. The 2009 VW Golf GTI’s 46 cubic feet vs. the Jetta’s 16 cubic feet is a threefold difference. If you’re buying a used Jetta, you’re buying a commuter, not a hauler. The Golf GTI, however, offers enough space for groceries, luggage, and gym gear.
Volvo’s S60 at 36.5 cubic feet is a sweet spot for luxury buyers. It’s not an SUV, but
