Subaru Outback Forums banner

2020 Outback Cargo Space???

17K views 54 replies 25 participants last post by  RocketMan20 
#1 ·
Anyone know the real answer for how much cargo space (behind second row) the 2020 Outback will have? When 1st introduced in NY, it was being reported to have 32.5 cf, then shortly after, I was reading 37.2cf on Subaru's website. Now today, I see Subaru's website showing 32.5cf.


I'm dizzy, does anyone have the real answer???
 
#2 ·
Subaru's website lists 32.5 ft3 with seats up and 75.7ft3 with the seats down for the new 2020. The 2019 Outback has 35.5ft3 with the seats up and 73.3ft3 with the seats down. So they increased the total space for the new model, but probably pushed the rear seats back a few inches for more leg room which made the seat up space a little smaller.



As far as Subaru changing the number on their site, I do not know about that!
 
#5 ·
Hard to believe they would take a step backwards as far as cargo space with the seats up. My seats are almost always down so the total cargo space is what is important to me but I would think losing space behind the seats would be a pretty big deal for many. Leg room has always seemed pretty good in the Outback so I don't know why they would sacrifice rear cargo space to add more leg room.
 
#11 ·
If that was the case, the total cargo space would have also gone down, but it did not.


I'm thinking Subaru has taken a page out of GM's playbook and simply moved the 2nd row seats back more to increase leg room and sacrificed rear cargo space in doing so. GM did this in their Equinox & Blazer.
 
#7 ·
I was excited when I saw the 20' Outback and was hoping the cargo space would get bumped up a bit, so was disappointed when is read 32.5cf, then excited to see 37.2 posted on the website. I am now disappointed once again to see 32.5 ?. If 32.5 holds true, it's a deal breaker for me...
 
#15 ·
I was excited when I saw the 20' Outback and was hoping the cargo space would get bumped up a bit, so was disappointed when is read 32.5cf, then excited to see 37.2 posted on the website. I am now disappointed once again to see 32.5 😕. If 32.5 holds true, it's a deal breaker for me...

Then your expectation was unrealistic. The 2019 Outback is my wife's, I have a 2014 Ford Flex- it's a lot bigger and it has 43cf behind the 2nd, so to get 37.2, the Outback would have to grow considerable, to the point I think it'd lose sales.
V90 has 32.4
E Wagon has 35
Regal Tour X 32.7

Flex 43


You're not getting that space in a Wagon.
Not unrealistic at all since Subaru is doing it with the 2020, they increased total cargo space (2nd row down) by 2.4cf, but it seems they just configured the 2nd row to take advantage of their increased cargo space.
 
#20 ·
Not unrealistic at all since Subaru is doing it with the 2020, they increased total cargo space (2nd row down) by 2.4cf, but it seems they just configured the 2nd row to take adv
antage of their increased cargo space.



So the entire cargo space gains 2.4cf, yet the 2nd row up space should be able to grow by 4.7cf? That math doesn't work.
I think the math is pretty simple, if Subaru claims their overall cargo space will increase to 75.7cf and the space behind the 2nd row will decrees to 32.5cf, they simply moved the 2nd row back and gained more rear seat leg room at the expense of the rear cargo area.

Personally I think this is a DUMB move, what do I know...
 
#9 ·
If they slid the seats back a little further that would make it harder to use all the space with the seats down. A lot of the usable floor space is already lost due to the gap between the front seats and the seats folded down without coming up with something to fill that gap. That was 1 thing I liked about my 2013 TDI sportwagon. You removed the rear headrests and the seats folded down flush with the back of the front seats. I could carry more in my sportwagon than I can my bigger Outback! Then VW changed the design and the seats didn't fold down flat and had a gap. I might be driving a gas Sportwagon if VW hadn't done that.
 
#16 ·
I would like to see the measurements of the cargo area rather than just the relatively meaningless total cubic feet number. Even better yet I think I will have to see one in person to see what the practical cargo space is. By the numbers it appears that the newest Forester beats the '20 Outback in both total cargo space and behind rear seat cargo space.

For my purposes practical cargo space is how much room there is for stuff before it starts interfering with my visibility out the back and side windows and rear view mirror. The numbers of the Forester look good but a lot of the total cubic feet is due to the higher roof profile and for me much of that is wasted space.

One thing I can't tell from the pictures is whether the roof on the '20 Outback has been tapered more than the Gen 5 was. I've hated that trend in many other SUV-type vehicles over the years because it almost always reduces rear visibility. If it was done on the Gen 6 Outback it may account for some of the reduced cargo space behind the rear seat.
 
#24 ·
Wish there was more underfloor storage space
 
  • Like
Reactions: PilotXT
#30 ·
Anyone know the real answer for how much cargo space (behind second row) the 2020 Outback will have? When 1st introduced in NY, it was being reported to have 32.5 cf, then shortly after, I was reading 37.2cf on Subaru's website. Now today, I see Subaru's website showing 32.5cf.


I'm dizzy, does anyone have the real answer???
The 20 will have significantly LESS less cargo space behind the rear seat but more overall than the 19. So if you drive around with the seat backs down you have more storage but most people don't use their vehicle this way. Another step BACKWARDS with the 20 OB.
 
#33 ·
You are not as "smart" as a marketing person. See with this new configuration they can advertise both bigger storage capacity overall AND more rear seat room. But in reality the storage most people use, behind the seat back, is now significantly less than before. You will not see them advertise: "Get the new 2020 OB, now with LESS storage behind the rear seatback! :)
I'm one of the minority who usually does always have my rear seats folded down so this isn't a big deal for me. But without knowing the actual measurements it is hard to say where the loss in behind-the-seat cargo room comes from. If it is in "practical usable cargo space" as in smaller LxW measurements at floor level it is bad news. If the loss is because they dropped the rear roof-line and the loss is all up near the ceiling then it isn't as big of a deal. To me measuring cargo space in total cubic feet is pretty useless for determining practicality.
 
#36 ·
mystery not solved. i dont understand. volume is volume, how are there different ways to calculate it? l x w x h right? im pretty sure they can use 3d scanners to scan the cargo area and then let a 3d cad program calculate it. this seems bizarre to me. even in the brief clip with his roller bag back there it looks smaller than gen 6. and why would subaru goes to a "different calculation method" that puts them at a competitive disadvantage?
 
#40 ·
There has been a recent update to the SAE J1100 formula for measuring the dimensions of vehicles. I started researching this to the point where I was wasting way too much time doing so. You can do a Google search on the topic, but the key points seem to be as follows:
  • Not all mfg's are using the same methodology yet.
  • Some mfg's use measurements while others use blocks that represent cf or fractions of cf.
  • some mfg's factor in under floor space while others do not.
Subaru seems to be using the most current SAE recommended methodology for measuring cargo space, but I am still not clear on what the differences are vs the older method.

Example: In 2018, Chevy refreshed their Traverse and overall dimensions (interior & exterior) actually grew very slightly vs the 2017. For 2018 Chevrolet used the new SAE calculation for interior space and the cargo space behind the 1st row actually dropped 21.1% due to the new calculation when in reality there was basically no change...
 
#50 ·
Anyone know the real answer for how much cargo space (behind second row) the 2020 Outback will have? When 1st introduced in NY, it was being reported to have 32.5 cf, then shortly after, I was reading 37.2cf on Subaru's website. Now today, I see Subaru's website showing 32.5cf.


I'm dizzy, does anyone have the real answer???
I have a friend that has one. I was baffled because the overall length (191") is bigger than the Forester (102") for the cargo space is less. The extra space goes to the rear seats which have a huge amount of leg room. By comparison, the cargo space 32.5) looks really small. On the other hand, if you fold the rear seats (and they do fold flat (the cargo space is enormous (75.7)
 
#53 ·
i will say though, that my mom had a snow shovel in the trunk of her corolla. it was a tight fit, but got in there. i could not fit it in my outback trunk at any angle without dropping the seat. it's more a factor of the general shape of the trunks and their openings
 
#55 · (Edited)
A snow shovel is a pretty bulky item. Still I'd argue that the comparison to a cars trunk to the Subaru should be to the cargo area and not the under floor area.
Certainly something like this would fit easily in the crago area .
https://www.amazon.com/Lifeline-4004-Aluminum-Collapsible-Activities/dp/B002SIR91A
It might even fit in with the spare. ( There is a considerable amount of usable room under the floor if you have the donut spare.) FWIW, I just put one of these shovels inbetween the floor and foam spare cover on my Limited. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079KM7MZF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
#54 ·
This is an OLD thread but still relivent I guess. I'll add that I have read and seen in early reviews that Subaru changed how it measured cargo space in 2020. They say it is different as to how most other manufacturers are doing it now. Supposedly, the number is actualy higher if you use standard methods to calculate it. ( I'm still unclear as to how they calculate it differently though)
Coming from a mini van that had a 8'x4'x3'+ cargo area (with mid and rear seats removed) I was initally concerned. However the OB has only a foot or so less length and a couple of inches less width with it's rear seat collapsed. It's got ALLOT of usable space regardless of what the brochure says. On the rare occasion I need more space, it's tiem to break out the trailer.
Also worth noting is that our floor space is long as compared to some SUV's who attain higher numbers with their interior height but are much shorter.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top