Here's a shot of the xB's cargo area. And below is a list of everything I put in it this weekend...
Three mountain bikes. Big ones. Twenty-nine inch wheels and such. Loaded them at the same time, but couldn't stand them up as the xB's cargo area isn't tall enough -- even with the front wheels removed. Few full-size SUVs can accommodate a load this tall so it's not surprising or disappointing. It's kinda ugly when they're stacked up with padding between them, but they do fit. Probably could have rammed another one in there if I was determined.
Then the wife and I went shopping for a bathroom remodel we're starting. The Scion swallowed two 15x18x12-inch sinks, two 20x26x6-inch mirror/medicine cabinets, two sizeable light fixtures and two towel racks. There was still enough room to fit a toilet and third passenger (no relation).
I'm impressed. Much as I don't like the goofy-box styling of this kind of car, I can't argue with its utility. The best part is that the xB provides this much utility without the unruly driving character of many SUVs which offer similar usable space. Minivans are really the only vehicles which can match the xB's usable space/decent-to-drive ratio. But I'm guessing there's a reason the kids don't swarm to the Chrysler Town and Country like the do the xB.
Josh Jacquot, Senior road test editor @ 12,526 miles
txmatt1 says:
01:48 PM, 01/22/08
Yep, it's a pity Americans are generally turned off by wagons. They'll do 95% of the things most people ever use an SUV for, and they handle better and get better mileage too.
stingray454 says:
01:51 PM, 01/22/08
Nice utility, but still not enough of an excuse for this vehicle's horrible styling.
sabastian says:
01:51 PM, 01/22/08
Good point, txmatt1. I wonder how long it will be before people find out that SUV's are just tall wagons.
porttackstart says:
01:59 PM, 01/22/08
I think the Honda Element wins the competition when it comes to utility as it can swallow up to four bicycles standing up with all of the wheels still attached. In addition there is no carpet in the interior so you don't need to worry about the mud from your bikes. The Element is based on the Honda Civic so it still has the fun to drive factor.
While I respect the xB, I would much rather have the utility of an Element plus its all-wheel drive.
texases says:
02:44 PM, 01/22/08
Element vs. xB - I'd go with xB:
Styling - a tie, neither great, but I do like the xB a bit more
People hauling - xB, I don't like those clamshell doors on the Element, need to open the front to get in the back, deal breaker for me
AWD - don't need it, so xB
Cost - xB
Stuff hauling - xB's big enough, I'm not hauling 4 bikes, though.
While the Element's easier to clean, don't make the mistake of some, and hose it out - bad for the electronics under the floor, I understand.
daytona_500 says:
03:34 PM, 01/22/08
I like the Element better - styling wise its a very nice design, its certainly aged well. But more importantly it doesnt have the stupid center mounted gauges which is a deal killer for me in any car.
billt9 says:
06:12 PM, 01/22/08
txmatt1, that's a big group lumping there.
Some crossovers get better mpg than wagons,
such as the Rogue, 22/27 mpg, vs the Element, 20/25 mpg.
Some wagons cost more than crossovers, such as the Subaru Outback at $22,000, or the deceased Mazda6 wagon, which _starts_ at $28,000.
In general, car based wagons cost more than crossovers, because car-based wagons are larger than crossovers. Person in one of previous threads noted how much larger Taurus wagons are than Escapes. They really are. Tall isn't everything eh?
You'll have to make specific "crossover A vs Wagon B" battles to not have such a huge overlap. My impression over the years is wagons have a significantly higher MSRP than a comparably sized crossover.
mikemir87 says:
11:06 PM, 01/22/08
I own an element and its definitly nicer then an XB. Decent gas mpg and its extremely roomy and you can carry anything in it! Plus I enjoy the suicide doors, and I hate center mounted gauges as well!
M/M
thegrocer says:
08:45 AM, 01/23/08
The Taurus wagon is bigger than its Escape contemporary and the new Escape...out weighing them by 200-300 lbs, having a 5" longer wheelbase, and being roughly 2' longer than both. Plus the Taurus has 38 cubic feet of space as opposed to 33 for the first gen Escape and 29 (!) for the 2nd gen. The Taurus wagon was bigger than the Escape.
And the Mazda6 wagon started at around 25K, not 28K...with a standard V6.
tjbeck says:
09:00 AM, 01/23/08
porttackstart - "Element is based on the Honda Civic"
Well, no, it's really based on the previous-generation CR-V, with the same drivetrain and what not. Of course, everything other than that is completely unique to the Element.
Id be curious to know how the cargo area in the Fit compares to the xB. Much flatter floor.
txmatt1 says:
10:08 AM, 01/23/08
First off, I was talking SUV's and not just crossovers. And talk about cherry-picking... a better comparison would be a Focus wagon to the Escape since they represent Ford's small sedan/wagon and small crossover respectively.
Regardless, I'll stand by the generalization that wagons do what most people use an SUV for without, on average, the performance/mileage penalty of SUV's. Pick an SUV, especially some of the popular ones like the Explorer and Grand Cherokee, and there are wagons available that will carry as much stuff, handle better, and get better mileage.
thegrocer says:
10:58 AM, 01/23/08
Yeah, a fairer comparison would be Escape/Focus and Explorer/Taurus. Indeed, the Freestyle nee Taurus X is adequate for 80% or more of current Explorer owners. The only thing wagons don't do is tow your boat or camper.
billt9 says:
12:27 PM, 01/23/08
...But the Focus is a compact car, The Escape is a midsized car. Just sit in it and you know the Escape is a larger car. 3" wider interior is the difference between a compact car and a midsized car. And they cost about the same.
But the Taurus X starts at $27,000, while the Explorer starts at $26,000.
The sizes don't match, and the prices don't match. These comparisons are just contrived.
But the market has decided the wagons lose. They don't save enough gas, and they rob you at MSRP. You pay higher MSRP for the wagon, even though they hand you a smaller engine. Explain that to your neighbor why you pay more to get less.
thegrocer says:
10:26 AM, 01/24/08
The Escape has 99 cubic feet of passenger space, the Focus has 95 cubic feet of passenger space - strictly according to interior space, they are both subcompact.
The third row in the Explorer is $850 dollars extra and the 3.5L in the Taurus X has 53 more horsepower than the 4.0L in the Explorer.
An Explorer maybe $200 cheaper up front but considering its 14/20 mpg vs. 16/24 mpg for the Taurus X at 12,000 per year and 60% city and 40% highway mileage, the Explorer is $318 per year more expense to operate with gas at $3 a gallon.