Crfiv

I’ve searched and can’t seem to find any deatails on the ‘19 63 or 500 cargo dimensions such as width between “wheel wells”, and length between cargo door and rear seats. Anyone know where to find or have that info? Thanks for any assistance.

greynlds

Can we get someone with a 2019 G550 or G63 to take these measurements please? I'd like to know this info as well.

carforhire

In person it does seem a little slimmer than the previous G curious to see the measurements.

mercedesmax

According to the order guide the distance between the base of the rear seat and the rear do is 758mm or 30".
No mention of the distance between the wheel wells.

greynlds

The local dealer had a new (sold) G63 on the lot yesterday and allowed me to spend some time measuring the cargo area.

Here are some pictures I took of the cargo area in that 2019 G63. The dimensions of the cargo space in the 2019 G63 are about 35 3/4" deep (back of seats to the door) x 41 1/2" wide (between wheel wells), for a total of about 1483 square inches. If you measure the cargo space depth from behind the hump that's behind the seats, the length drops to about 28", but ignores the fact that there's usable space above the hump.

For comparison, the 2017 G63 cargo space dimensions are about 40" deep x 38 3/4" wide, for a total of about 1550 square inches. So the changes in the new model results in a loss of about 4% of storage space, not factoring in the space lost to the much taller wheel wells on the new model. I suspect the total cargo space when the rear seats are folded down will be increased by quite a bit given that the total vehicle length is longer on the 2019's. Having had a chance to examine and measure the cargo space myself, the concerns I had expressed in one of the other threads about the loss of cargo space are significantly reduced.

This first photo shows a decent overview of the overall cargo area. A few things to take note of is how tall the wheel wells are compared to the prior model and the hump on the floor behind the rear seats:




This photo shows the cargo space depth measurement when I measured from the back of the actual rear seats, ignoring the hump behind them:


This photo shows the hump behind the rear seats, which is sort of annoying, but I suspect you end up with a level surface from there forward when you tip the seat backs forward and it also protects stuff you have in the back from the seat back hinges:


This photo shows the measurement of the width between the wheel wells:

dwight047

greynlds

That info in the DOG suggests the ~28" cargo floor depth, which is kind of deceptive after seeing and measuring it in person.

BCMgunner

2020 DOG that trunk capacity is listed as 37.39 cubic feet.

2017 G550 trunk capacity listed at 38.6 cubic feet.

New Gwagon trunk capacity is down about 1.2 cubic feet.

greynlds

Right, but for me the cubic inch number is a lot less important than the width and depth because I rarely use the full height. There’s also the question of how they measured as the depth measurement on the DOG is deceptive since it only measures to the back of the little hump behind the seats.

The cubic foot number is certainly a useful number if it was measured the same way in both models to give a good idea of the overall cargo space.

BCMgunner

Agreed that the 1+ cubic feet lost is probably the more “useful” space at the base of the cargo area.

I simply listed the 2019 cubic feet as that was a number no one has been able to locate as of yet and provides a “hard” number to wrap our minds around how much smaller the entire space actually is.

It appears most is the gain from added over all length and width do the 2019+ G was given to the rear passenger area.

greynlds

Yeah, it's definitely a useful number for comparing.

It looks like all of the added length and more were given to the front and rear passenger areas. I remain very surprised that they added around 5" of total length and still ended up taking away depth from the cargo area. The new passenger area really is a nice upgrade over the older model, but I'm still not sure if my next vehicle will be a G class. From what I've seen so far, the new GLS is pretty sharp looking, has more cargo space than the G, has pretty decent off road capabilities (quite honestly either of these have far more off road capability than I'll make use of as I'm not into anything resembling serious offroading these days), and is less expensive.

BCMgunner

Tires make the 4x4. All terrain or Mud terrain tires are not available for the GLS (or Range Rover for that matter).

The GLS is fine as long as you don’t go looking for mud.

I enjoy offroading (Hidden Falls outside of Austin, Moab) and my favorite hobby involves driving through various ranches, often in the rainy Sprint time.

My options were the G550, Rubicon Unlimited, or the new Defender.

Lack of side airbags excluded the Rubicon (baby on the way), lack of actual locking rear (and front) diff excluded the Defender.

After doing Fins n Things in Moab, I’ve seen the real life benefit of a locking front diff.

G550 for me. Should work until it’s time for Baby #3

greynlds

I hadn't checked on tire options for the GLS yet, but yikes - there's NOTHING even mildly aggressive in the stock tire size. If something like a BFG AT KO2 were available, that would be reasonable.

If I lived in that part of the country, I would take the G63 to all sorts of fun places. But here in the Boston area, there aren't many opportunities to go offroad that are much more than simply conquering a challenge on a powerline trail and most of those are off limits these days. My interest is more in driving somewhere that has a view that's a big payoff at the end.