Why the boot sizes are quoted in litres? No one puts liquid in there! A pragmatic option is to give length, width and height so that one can figure whether a TV or fridge will fit by folding seats.

Not necessarily, when you have to allow for sloping sides, curved tailgate, or intrusions from rear suspension, not to mention the loading aperture. The available volume can be useful when carrying a load of beanbags or fleeces, for example ... :-)

Why the boot sizes are quoted in litres? No one puts liquid in there!

A pragmatic option is to give length, width and height so that one can figure whether a TV or fridge will fit by folding seats.

That might be fine if they were exact cuboid shape, but the vast majority (other than flat bed trucks are not, so a volumetric figure is given. Sure, they could've chose square meters (likely previously square feet or cubic inches, as the Americans probably still use), but litres is fine.

You are right about the lack of other measurements, which I think are really useful, such as the boot aperture (especially for smaller saloons like mine, where the boot itself is physically larger than that of the hatchback version of the car (and by 20%) but it cannot fit in larger cube-shaped boxes because the boot aperture is not sufficiently large (as it is on the hatch version).

Similarly with the boot widths (minimum between the wheel arches/fuel pipe and the larger one that accommodates things like golf bags), heights and depths. Boot heights are very important these days because many are now artificially raised in order to accommodate the spare wheel/tyre or ICE (e.g. CD changer), plus the overall boot volume includes the underboot 'storage' area, which isn't much use if you want to store large items above it.

I noticed that when I looked for a similar replacement for my Mazda3 saloon in 2017, with the newest version having a larger boot in terms of area but with a far larger underboot area and a shallower main boot area, reducing the effective boot area I could use for my holiday stuff.

If I get another similar sized car, it'll more likely be a CX-30 (or equivalent for another make) than a 3 fastback (saloon) because of the boot issues of the latter, especially as the CX-30 is very similar in all other respects, including boot size (about 60L bigger than the 3 hatch version, only 20 less than the saloon and more than my 16yo car's boot capacity). Shame really, given how good looking the fastback is.

Probably why more and more people are getting SUVs / crossovers, other than the higher driving position.

Litres are a common form of SI units, used throughout the world for volume measures - most sales brochures include the maximum length, maximum width and maximum height but intrusions or sloping panels way restrict that volume.

Why the boot sizes are quoted in litres? No one puts liquid in there!

A pragmatic option is to give length, width and height so that one can figure whether a TV or fridge will fit by folding seats.

www.ridc.org.uk/features-reviews/out-and-about/car...B

Edited by mcb100 on 30/11/2022 at 21:31

Why the boot sizes are quoted in litres? No one puts liquid in there!

A pragmatic option is to give length, width and height so that one can figure whether a TV or fridge will fit by folding seats.

You need both of those.

At the end of her first year at Uni Miss B and I filled 90+% of the volume of my Xantia estate. Duvets, pillows and other squishables made the most of space.

Length of the Berlingo's boot, rear seats removed and front seat folded down allowed us to (just) get an IKEA sofa in. Had to leave Mrs B in the cafe and go home, returning in my Roomster. If we'd left the offside rear seat in place we'd have done it in one.

Volume in litres is not necessarily measured as if filled with liquid.

Ford helpfully explains here the difference between the SAE method of measurement and the VDA method, which yields a smaller number.

Less helpfully, they don't say which one they use.

I noticed a while back that Mazda for example don't say what method they use.