1984911Targa

I was looking at this car, and surprised how big the leg room is in the second row. Almost 4 inches on the X-5

Michael

AsianML

Yup, they downsized the rear cargo area a little for extra leg room. If you look at the specs for the W163 and W164 you'll find that the cargo area is smaller.

amb9800

Yeah, there's a bit more leg room than 163, which in turn had more than the X5 -- and consequently, at least subjectively, the cargo area is significantly smaller than in the 163 -- as in big difference...

GregW / Oregon

The '98-99s had 85.4 cu. ft., which went down in later W163s to 81.2 cu. ft. The W164 has 72.4 cu. ft., so it it significantly smaller. The width seems to be the biggest loss, along with a little length with the 2nd row folded.

If you want an M-B with cargo room, get the Sprinter, wtih 473.2 cu. ft.!

Birger

Hi,

- here we go again

The problem is that where the W163's luggage compartment was maybe not quite cubic, at least it was "WYSIWYG", whereas the W164 looks very much smooth and regular, but the VDA capacity includes all kinds of more or less weird nooks and crannies (some below the cargo area floor, and some calculated when removing parts of the seats). MB announce the W164 luggage capacity rear seats up @ 551 litres. Put in the luggage cover, discount the under-floor space (or get the emergency spare), and you're left with 448 litres - which isn't really impressive for a vehicle this big.

There is so much space wasted by the too-low position of the luggage cover (it should be flush with the upper part of the rear seat back, and not sitting 1½-2 inches below), and by the fake flush side panels of the luggage compartment. There's a LOT of air between the carpeted panels and the body - must be the ideal vehicle for smugglers of all kinds

Cheers,
Birger

amb9800

Yeah, but besides the volume difference, the layout of the space makes it effectively a lot smaller, and the inward sloping/narrowing nature of every dimension of the rear makes it worse -- not only utility-wise but also stylistically IMO.

From the second-row seats, for some reason the 164 seems shorter (ceiling-to-floor height) and because the hatch is/appears so much closer, the general feeling is more like a sedan than an SUV.

Basically, MB didn't want people to say that the rear of the ML looks like a minivan and thus did an X5/RX rear-end on the 164. I much prefer the rear box of the 163 -- and stylistically, I actually think the 163's rear looks much better than the 164...