Hello, Allpar Forums member or visitor! If you were a member, you would not see this ad!
Register or log in at the top right of the page...
Discussion in 'Rumors and Speculation' started by hmk123, Dec 26, 2017.
Chrysler Grand Commander patience... Dodge Stelvio is my next car
Could be mine too. Depends on timeing. I need some spy shots of mules or something to hold me over.
Well if the object is under the top rear seat level is ok, otherwise in the event of a crash are projectiles flying vs. front.
It is even worse in commercial vans. I am always surprised that most of U.S.A. vans has no cargo partition or the partition is removed by customers.
For the ones so worried about cargo space, well take a Ram Promaster City, that is squared and has a flat long cargo floor, it is also law no less pain for the back.
And if You go in Europe, take a Fiat Panda, not a Jeep Wrangler, since a Fiat Panda has more cargo room that a Jeep Wrangler.
How is a solid box that is taller than the seat back going to become a flying projectile? It would, at worst, slide forward and hit the seat back.
As I said, measuring cargo to the seat top is a meaningless statistic.
This is your original sentence:
It is meanningless for You, for others have a meaning, for safier transport in the event of a crash.
And, about boxes, do You really think that all objects stay in contained in a single box? None pile up boxes or objects? Even the box, if of cardbards, if in the object there are items piles up, do You really thing they will not brake the cardboards?
What happens when someone piles up smaller boxes in a crash event, even at not high speed?
And object have not necessarly be so big to make serious and sometimes mortal injuries.
In this last video, look at what do the packed tiles.
just ask any tow truck driver about what happens to any unsecured projectiles in the cabin.they have seen it all.anyone carry a snowbrush in the cabin?how about it flying across the cabin and hitting the driver in the head?it happened.
A single tall box in the back isn’t going to fly over the seat back, but the Stelvio’s droopy roof limits that type of cargo.
And in a roll over crash, even items behind the seat will move around.
I love all the justification of a cargo measurement that is meaningless in the real world, but admired because it favors the Stelvio.
Nothing to say.
I am interested in safety.
You are interested in other stuff.
If cargo is priority there are vehicles with larger cargo space than a Stelvio, Compass, ... or similar vehicles.
And the Stelvio having more longitudinal space than a Compass is because is longer. It is long as a Cherokee, not as a Compass.
Unsecured, objects that can travel freely in a cabin are dangerous. Even a smartphone, a tablet or camera.
The number of injuries caused by objects that are inside a vehcile in a crash are more than people can image.
At it the same also in a pickup for objects at the height of the glass if there is no protection, they traverse the glass.
Rear McPherson and short overhang are killing Compass cargo volume.
Engineers for Stelvio played by the book. Very clever solution both for aerodynamic and cargo volume. Rear hatch is very flat or vertical for cargo part. Than higher it have aerodynamic line. So they both maximized cargo volume and aerodynamic, they got both.
And what's most important. Cargo space for Stelvio is extremely long.
But this US vs rest of the world things are funny. Whole world takes one standards and only US is unique. Canada is like their junior partner but that will also change in the near future with Canada-EU FTA.
More interesting topic are GDI engines and how US Government does not care about extremely harmful PM.
Can we help it if we are better?
As for PM the so called science on that is extremely flawed.
The EPA did illegal human experiments. Told the test subjects there was no harm from PM2.5.
But then turned around and claimed that a single short exposure to PM2.5 kills.
So they either lied to the human test subjects or they were lying when they wrote the regulation.
Since everyone seems convinced that this "back seat/cargo height" standard is the proper way to measure cargo, let's look at a hypothetical situation:
It appears the Stelvio seat back is 51 cm tall. Therefore some are arguing the cargo volume should not include any height above this. So you are at Ikea (or wherever) and your purchase is in a box that is a 2 meter cube. What do you do?
1) Place it in the back knowing it's taller than an arbitrary line equal the to the height of the seat back?
2) Wait (and possibly pay) to have it delivered since it crosses that imaginary line?
And if this arbitrary cargo line is all about safety, you must also then concede that the rear view from a droopy roof vehicle like Stelvio is severely compromised by the roof line thus making it less safe than it could be.
Since it seems that You (valiant67) don't know why there is that height that You define "arbitrary line".
It is not an "arbitrary line", it is the height of the cover of the cargo area (tonneau cover, roll-up cover, ...).
Since some here in Europe, and also in other parts of the world, are strange, we like to know how much space there is under the cover (almost all cars have it, even the smaller low cost city cars). But also the full space when rear seats are down till the roof, since than the cover has no utility.
Than maybe someone is interested also in dimension and shape of the cargo area.
Than there is also the safety, either as height of the rear seats, how the seats fold, if there are hooks to retain the cargo, nets, ....
Anyone is free to look at what thinks is better or not, to purchase the vehicle that is better for her/his needs.
As for volumes of cargo areas maybe better to pay attention, since are not always measured the same way.
That is the reason why, someones, look are the data from automotive media that make all their tests the same way. It is just to have an idea on what one should expect as cargo area dimensions and volume.
Interesting, because in the images presented they aren't measuring from the cargo cover anchoring points.
If the debate was "what can fit under the cargo cover (if so equipped)", I would not call it an arbitrary line. But the line is not the cargo cover line in the images presented earlier (perhaps you should review the measuring points in those images). The cargo cover is a good 3"-4" lower than the second row seat back in my Durango. The seat back is an arbitrary line.
The volumes at the rear is the closed area, the measures are to show the available space when the cover is off (your example of a box taller than the cover).
That images are from a paper publication, and there is a section in the magazine where they describe how they measure volumes and dimensions.
As for the Stelvio the 18.5 cu ft that are on U.S.A. publication are the 525 liter that are under the cover (roll-up) + the free space under the removable floor, that are, at least for Qauttoruote, 29 liter under the floor and 496 liter between floor and cover).
The volume till the roof, with rear seat fold down is 1600 liter, that are 56.5 cu ft..
I will look if I find the FCA data for the Fiat Freemont (Dodge Journey) 5 seats version, well if there was a 5 seats version since I don't remeber well.
The numbers for 7 seats version are 136 liter (4.80 cu ft) in 7 seats configuration, 540 liter (19.07 cu ft) in 5 seats configuration and 1461 liter (51.60 cu ft) with second row seats fold down (volume till the roof).
Should be also needed the cargo space dimensions, but I don't have that.
The Dodge Journey is longer than a Alfa Romeo Stelvio.
Aa previous cargo area dimension, hereafter the ones for Fiat Freemont (the Fiat Dodge Journey), same source as the other.
Third row folded, 426 liter with rear seats all back, 508 liter with rear seats all forward.
Stelvio or better said Giorgio platform is very space efficient. Thank You for this data.
We went from A,B and C bodys.to Platform now we call them Architecutre
I'm geting old.