Dimensions

For size comparison, has anyone seen what the dimensions of the V50 are going to be?  I am looking at a used 2003 XC70 or a new 2005 V50.  I am expecting to make a choice and purchase one of the two later this year.  So, I am also looking for some opinions and I new exactly where to go.

Go to http://apps.volvocars.us/V50/specs.asp to see the V50 specs. Compare it to the XC70. For example:

XC70
Cargo Capacity: Seat Up: 37.5 cu. ft.
Cargo Capacity: Seat Down: 71.5 cu. ft.

V50
Cargo Capacity - Seat Up: 14.7 cu. ft.
Cargo Capacity - Seat Down: 25.3 cu. ft.

As you can see, the XC70 is much roomier... http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

It is amazing how much more roomy the XC/V 70 is considering it is just a little longer.  The fault of the V50 is that it is too low. Volvo has had an Audi complex and made a Audi A4 lookalike with all the faults of the Audi, i.e it is cramped.  Why did they not look at Peugeot 307 SW instead. That is a great little Station Wagon with abundant space for rear seat passengers. It just lacks a Volvo drive line and quality.  I hope but doubt that Volvo will create more space into the future XC50  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/alien.gif

Something is very wrong with the 14.7 cu.ft. measurement. It can't be that small. Volvo must have their maths wrong.

Let me demonstrate.

Using the minimum cargo dimensions, not the maximums, we have:
Width of luggage compartment between wheelhouses is 37.8"
Rear opening height is 27"
Rear opening width above belt, min. is 35.9"

In other words the dimensions of the largest box shape that you could slip straight into the rear compartment.

37.8 x 27 x 35.9 = 36,639 cu. in. or 21.2 cu. ft

The larger dimensions for width and height are:
Height of luggage compartment is 30.9" (+3.9")
Rear opening max. width is 39.6" (+3.7")

So the actual cargo capacity may even be greater than 21.2 cu. ft, depending on how the official measurement is calculated.

For comparison, doing the same exercise for the XC70 yields a maximum box size of 30.25 cu.ft, whereas the published cargo capacity is 37.5 cu.ft.

I think I've figured out the 14.7 cu. ft. measurement.
Downloaded the V50 brochure from the UK website (PDF), reveals three figures (also on the US web site but described differently):

Volume rear seats up - 14.7 cu.ft.
Volume rear seats down - 25.3 cu.ft.
Volume rear seats down and to the roof - 46.2 cu.ft. (my emphasis)

In other words, the implication is that the 14.7 cu.ft. figure is up to the cargo blind or the top of the rear seat, and not to the roof, for safety reasons.
So the two sets of figures quoted above are comparing apples with oranges, which is why the V50 looks so bad.

The same three figures for the XC70, also from the UK website, are as follows:
Volume rear seats up - 17.1 cu.ft.
Volume rear seats down - 26.3 cu.ft.
Volume rear seats down and to the roof - 58.0 cu.ft.

As you can see, when comparing same for same, the V50 is smaller but not that much smaller than the XC70.