I think the last time this thread was brought up it was CX-5 vs Camry and a poster said that Mazda measures their legroom in ideal situations (the front leg room is measured with the front seat all the way back, the rear leg room is measured with the seat all the way forward). Not sure if this is true or not.
A few years ago when our kid was in a rear facing car seat, we spent so much time actually traveling to different dealers. I would set both front seats to where I was comfortable and then try and get it to fit in the back. The front seat angle and height of the back seat had more impact than advertised “leg room.”
This is so true! Not enough people talk about seat angle impacting legroom. In my wagon, straightening the seat is way more effective than moving it forward.
We had a 2002 Jetta GLI with a rear facing car seat and it was a bit of a squeeze. I’m 6’2” and had to be forward slightly uncomfortably. It may have been doable if we bought a different car seat but at the time we couldn’t afford to get one of the super expensive smaller ones.
Had this problem with the bmw x5 - if the rear facing seat is installed and I try the passenger seat, my knees smash into the glovebox.
Genesis GV80 leaves several inches to spare.
Both are mid sized two row CUVs on longitudinal platforms...
In the Cherokee KL, if the front seats are as high as possible, the back seat as amazing leg room while the front has less because the seat moves forward when you raise it. All the way lowered the front is like driving a car and the back is just for kids.
If I happen to be wearing boots instead of shoes and need more legroom for a short drive, I'll just adjust seat angle one notch instead of messing with the fore/aft position.
Gas pedal to rear seatback. Normalizes for adjustable steering wheels and seat depth. Front edge of the seat doesn't mean anything if the seat is so shallow my knees are sticking over a foot out from the seat.
No, it's typically manufacturers who have models that are less competitive that engage in this.
For example, the powershift Ford Focus. Changed from measuring with static front seat to altering, and went from dead last in legroom to 2nd best overall in the segment.
A car like the Acura RDX has tons of real life legroom, and they don't embellish, ending up having less legroom than the CX-5 on paper -which is laughable.
only way to know is to do the rear seat test for yourself. A higher or lower front seat can also affect the ability to put your foot under the chair, which gives more room overall. And that isn't usually documented.
A lot of sedan EVs have good leg room numbers, but because of the high battery in the floor, it's less comfortable since you're hugging your knees the whole time. On the flip side, most bespoke EVs don't have transmission tunnels and that can do a lot to improve rear leg space but that never shows up in measurements.
I recall one thread recently about how the Corolla and BRZ have the same rear legroom. Not sure how Subaru reached that number without pulling the front seats out.
Agreed, that is literally impossible. I'm 5'10" with a 32" inseam and there was maybe 4-6" of legroom in the back of my old 2013 BRZ when the seat was adjusted for me. You can't tell me I'd have the same experience sitting behind myself in a Corolla as in the BRZ.
My friends have a Sienna and we fit two toddlers in bulky seats, all their shit (including 2 strollers), and 5 adults comfortably for a day trip. Minivans are magic.
I dunno man, why does everyone get these “car seats” and stuff, that seems to be the problem. My back seats fold flat, so if I have to carry kids around, I just fold those down, throw down some blanket and pillows, and let them crawl around back there, lots of space! And the blankets and pillows are soft, so it’ll protect them in a crash!
/s
Lol I actually had a friend that told me they would take the kid out of the seat on long trips while driving and let them play in the car, since the kid got fussy in the car seat. I told him that was a horrific idea and his kid would become a projectile in a crash. I don't even like to think about it.
Well, I think if they were worried about their kids being yeeted, it might make them drive less like assholes. Every time I mention how people that want to drive like the highway is a Nascar race should buy something purpose built I get a reply like "I can't fit my kids in a sports car" ok so why are you driving that tank so recklessly with your kid in the car. People think suv+child seats=invincible.
My wife wouldn’t even breast feed our kids while the car was moving. Meanwhile my father had my brother and I wrestling in the back of the minivan during quiet segments of roadtrips…
I tried to convince the wife of that, but minivans just aren't cool. SUVs are the fashionable thing. What can I say though, my personal daily is a tuned manual GTI (which actually has as much car seat room as the CX-5). Previous daily, and now garage queen was a cammed / supercharged C6 Vette... So it's not like I make rational vehicle choices either.
Is it really cool if everyone has one?
Test drive the Highlander and then the Sienna. Let your wife see how much cargo space and leg room she will lose to be "cool". Before the redesign, the Honda Pilot had almost exactly half (16 vs 32 cu ft) the cargo space behind the third row than the Odyssey.
No there are some seriously roomy suvs and often the minivans aren’t as comfortable for tall people as say an Infiniti QX80.
I’m only 6’4” but I have a lot of family 6’7” and taller. Minivans aren’t the right vehicle for tall people. Unless they’re lying down
Legitimate 2nd row legroom? Sure absolutely.
3rd row? Maybe. It will be better than a Highlander/etc. but it’s still meant for kids at the end of the day.
If you have more than 2 kids then I think a full-size SUV like a Suburban is always better. You’ll be carrying around them, their friends, and all their sports equipment, chairs, instruments, etc. on a regular basis. You’ll likely do road trips or extended drives and that comfort bonus is massive when you can stretch your legs for days.
As they grow up they’ll get larger and so will their friends and all of a sudden that 3rd row is no longer practical for your son’s and daughter’s friends on the football team or swim team or whatever else.
For now the minivan is probably the right bet if he doesn’t know what the future holds but if his needs expand then there’s really only a few options.
What I've found looking at cars and trying to fit a rear facing child seat in is that "legroom" is practically meaningless, because some will carve out an extra inch or two out of the seats to fit your knees... but the child seat doesn't stick forward there, it's up by your shoulders.
The measurements online are almost meaningless. I physically drug a child seat around with me when car shopping and test fit it in everything.
I never realized how weird car interiors are until having to deal with rear facing car seats and strollers. Dimensions and the volume of the space mean nothing. Dragging a car seat or stroller around is the only way to find out what works. It's all about the shape of the space. My MK4 Jetta wagon fits our stroller better than a 2010 Escape did. The Jetta cargo area is deep and narrow instead of wide and shallow.
The society of automotive engineers actually has a standard for measuring interior dimensions. It's J1100, but nobody forces car makers to measure legroom to the exact standard so there's always a bit of variation in legroom measurement among cars. I find that comparing interior dimensions among the same brand is the most accurate as that will likely have been measured using the same internal standard the company uses.
To paint a better picture, I find it generally useful to add the front and rear legroom numbers together to find the total amount of legroom between the 2 rows to help discount any discrepancy among the position of the front seat when the measurement was taken.
If you're curious, here is the J1100 interior measurement standard, it's quite an interesting read if you're into this sort of nerdy stuff.
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/005/sae.j1100.1984.pdf
In my experience, Mazda interior space is especially limited vs other brands. Granted, I have long legs but I feel more comfortable with American brands, regardless of dimensions.
100% agree. I’ve had several Mazdas as rentals and they just don’t do a very good job on interior space usage.
The most noticeable example was when I had a CX-30 and a Trailblazer on back to back weeks. The CX-30 in basically every other metric is a much better vehicle than the Trailblazer, but I could not comfortably enter or exit the Mazda, and the drivers area was extremely cramped. The Chevrolet was extremely ergonomic in that sense. Easy to enter and exit, a better greenhouse, and I drove it pretty comfortably for a couple of hours
It’s almost impressive how inefficient Mazda designs interiors. My CX9 by all specs should be way roomier than my NX (AKA a RAV4) whatwith it being 18” longer and 5” wider.
In reality, somehow every seat feels smaller. The door armrest and center console jut out at knee level so you can’t manspread. The footwells are so narrow that I sometimes step on my left foot while braking. And the 2nd row is somehow left with less legroom even at its farthest distance that renders the 3rd row useless. Plus the center passenger gets a big ass transmission tunnel hump vs a flat floor.
I don't know if this is also the case with the CX-90, but my CX-50's interior storage space is pretty underwhelming. It doesn't feel like it has much more storage space than my old 2007 Civic.
That said, I still love the car. I just wish it had a bit more space in all of the storage cubbies.
The CX90 has been particularly noted in comparison reviews for it being one of the largest vehicles by exterior dimensions with one of the smallest interiors.
6'4" here. Just give up. About 9 years ago I finally broke down and got a F150. It was the first vehicle I ever owned that I was comfortable in. The average male is 5'9" and female is 5'4" in America so most car manufacturers make that range their sweet spot.
6'9 and never owned a truck, I can fit behind myself in my driving position in the accord. (Though I never have to, it's just nice for passengers).
I think i managed the same in an elantra N and WRX test drives. Im not opposed to trucks or SUVs i just prefer the driving dynamics of a sedan. The suvs that drive like cars are unfortunately out of my price range
I’m a really leggy tall guy and the first time I rented a truck (Ram 1500), I was in heaven with the leg room. I have no need at all for a truck, but I know what my next vehicle will be.
That's why I drive a Ford Flex. Third row is small but sufficient for shorter people on short drives... But the second row is cavernous. Oodles of leg room with the front seats for my 6'3" self.
The fact that it's a quirky car and the boxy wagon shape reminds me of the pre-merger Volvo wagons I grew up riding in are icing on the cake. Plus it -scoots- with the transverse version of the 3.5L Ecoboost they put in the F-150.
CX-5 legroom: 41" / 39.6"
Highlander: 42" / 38.7" / 28"
The highlander has more front legroom, which may make it better for car seats. I wonder if front chair size and shape also comes into play with rear car seats.
This is what I have noticed. Some cars have tons of front leg room. This allows the people up front to scoot forward giving the rear passenger more room.
My wife has a CX-5 also so I know exactly what you mean about it being tight with a rear facing car seat. From the little bit of research I just did it sounds like rear legroom measurements are way more complicated than you would think so comparing two numbers doesn’t always tell the whole story. I think the combination or seat design and angles of all the parts involved can make smaller legroom feel bigger than it really is and vice versa. It used to bother me when I sat in the passenger seat of my wife’s car but I would just remind myself that it is temporary and now that my kid sits forward facing I haven’t thought about it since.
Mazda made terrible usage of the cabin space up front. The dash is massive and hangs down too far. No clue why... It's a traverse mounted 4 cylinder and has a big ol nose.
My r/cars-not-approved spicy opinion is that Mazda makes gorgeous interiors.... for the front passengers. A very valid critique of mazda is that they have some of the worst internal packaging amongst the major players. 2nd row usability (let alone third) is so much lower than Toyota or Honda or similar.
Large hoods are often featured on cars with small or nonexistent engines to give the appearance of power. Notice that the Tesla model S has a very large hood, but actually has not engine at all.
It’s not the current generation, but I’d disagree as a 2014-18 Mazda3 is one of the most spacious (for front seats) vehicles for me at 6’7”. Especially compared to most Hondas (Civics and Accords of basically all gens for the past 15+ years) which have that as a far more severe issue.
The same generation CX-5 is about the same as the Mazda3, along with the current Mazda3.
I find that Mazdas generally get driving positions right a lot better than cars of similar size. The rear seats just suffer for it.
I personally think Honda sedans suck even more for tall people than notoriously anti-headroom Mazda. A lot of it comes from oddly high seats for a sedan. Civics and Accords always felt way more claustrophobic than my Cayman.
If you want true rear legroom then get a crew cab pickup truck or full sized SUV.
It’s a literal couch back there in both classes of vehicles and legroom for days in both. The half-ton pickups are designed to have space for 4-5 fully grown men in relative comfort(luxurious if you buy high trims). The flat floor in many also adds to the leg room.
The same goes for full size SUVs like the Wagoneer L, Suburban, Yukon XL, Expedition Max, etc. These are the only vehicles that can take 6-7 adults in genuine comfort + all their belongings for any real length of commute/trips.
Edit: Also it’s not true for everything but a good rule of thumb is that generally American and German vehicles will usually be better for larger folks.
Can confirm, if you don’t need a third row then a crew cab pickup has just about the roomiest back seat. Comes with the obvious tradeoffs of not having dedicated interior storage outside of the seating area unless you get a bed cover though. I also noticed a bit of an issue with using a rotating rear-facing car seat in my F-150. The back rest angle is so vertical that the car seat rubs on the backrest when I rotate it to load my kid into the seat, but otherwise it’s a great family hauling / practical vehicle for road trips.
I rode in a fully loaded Chrysler Pacifica and felt like i was in the cabin of a private jet. Liked it so much I almost got one, even though I had zero use for a minivan at the time.
That's one of the biggest things I love about my Flex. It's 4 inches longer than an Explorer, and all four inches went to the second row. I never have to ask 'got enough space back there' because I know they do.
Their third-row access is pretty good, too. Most crossovers/SUVs have the second row recline/slide forward. The Flex (and probably Explorer) fold the seatback completely flat, then the entire seat pivots forward on the leading edge. Once complete, the back of the second-row seat is up against the back of the first-row seat. [better video actually](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0RUccEYUY)
I'm tall and find myself in a lot of Ubers, so can confirm the Accord. Also the Charger. But the champ for sedans is the old Lincoln Towncar, where you had a whole fucking living room to yourself.
Absolutely just 100% not true. It has a “dumb amount of legroom” if you’re like 5’6” or were driving something like an S2000 prior(great car though).
I had an Accord before my truck and it’s a night and day difference. The seat is far more plush/weighty, my hips feel far better since they are correctly seated now vs. being pressed down and low with my legs higher than my hips due to the seating position, my knees aren’t dented from pressing against the seat well sides, and my lower back doesn’t ache if I drive more than an hour now.
If he wants a sedan and a very comfortable amount of legroom he should look at things like a G90, LS, 7 Series, S-Class, A8. Obviously all of these are extremely expensive though and not particularly reliable or practical for someone in his situation.
What year accord? I'm 6'2 and my knees never come close to touching when I sat in one for a 3 hour trip. But I'm sure you're about to tell me how that's wrong.
Edit: wait we're all talking about rear seat legroom. Why are you talking about driving?
Edit 2:
Here: [LOTS of legroom in the new Honda Accord! (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdfKiolpQ0)
A 6'4 dude sitting behind his own driving position, and his knees aren't touching. Is that not enough for you? lol
I’m 6’4”, 2014 Accord so it was part of the most recent generation.
Everyone is different with body types, you may have a longer torso and shorter legs or some other amalgamation of body mechanics that cause it to be different for people.
Are we really going to sit here and pretend that’s a comfortable seating position? Or that this is a good faith example? His knee is literally like an inch away from the back of the driver seat. He’s also clearly doing this on a media day. Not at all the same as actually sitting in that position for extended periods of time or lengthy ownership.
Edit: Your knees never came close to touching what? The back of the drivers seat? This is entirely dependent on who the driver or front passenger is and their seating position.
Regardless OP is clearly uncomfortable with a larger vehicle in the CX-5 so how is recommending a midsize sedan a good idea?
Ok one, if you're 6'4, obviously *your opinions* of what's reasonable/required rear leg room don't apply to most people. Plenty of people are very happy in seating that you wouldn't be. ALSO, most people are 6+ inches shorter than you, so whether you're driving or they're driving, they're very content.
Next, you're talking about a car that's *literally a decade old.* That's irrelevant to current cars.
*Regardless OP is clearly uncomfortable with a larger vehicle in the CX-5 so how is recommending a midsize sedan a good idea?*
Thirdly, coincidentally, my partner has a 2022 CX5, and I can absolutely, unequivacably say that a current gen accord has more rear seat leg room than that car. That's my biggest strike against Mazda, actually. They aggressively sacrifice rear leg room for a better front seat experience. 100%, new gen Accord has more rear leg room than a current gen CX5, no matter what you might feel. Go to a dealer tonight and sit in both behind yourself.
I’ve had one, it’s not. Legroom measurements are basically pointless to go by, the only real experience with any value is sitting in a car and testing it out.
German cars do have more space, but 3rd row wise the americans remain unmatched. Except, weirdly the toyota vellfire that is sold in certain asian marlets.
It really depends on the geometry of the backseat, too. The model 3 has an OK amount of legroom but due to the way the backseat bench is angled and the high floor it feels much more uncomfortable. This makes way more difference than the actual distance between the front and back seats. I think they fixed this in the refresh.
I really like the way they do things in the lucid air, where there is a cutout in the battery compartment to make extra legroom in the rear seat. I'd sacrifice range for that.
Copy/paste from a previous comment of mine.
Leg room space is a more complicated measurement than you might think. Others have commented on "maximum leg room" and "effective leg room" but that I believe is just for the front seat. The difference between front seat all the way back or the front seat at a specific location referred to the "seating reference point" or SGRP which is the front seat at a location where 90%+ of drivers would have it.
2nd row leg room, as defined and measured by the SAE at least in 2001 "#L51 - effective SGRP leg room second - the dimension measured along a line from the ankle pivot center to the SGRP-second plus 254 mm (10 in.). The foot may be placed on the floor pan with the centerline of the leg segment up to 127 mm either side of the Y plane occupant centerline." https://ia800504.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.law.sae.j1100.2001/sae.j1100.2001.html
These pictures from that article might help show how so many factors can influence leg room.
IMO. Honda Pilot did fairly well in this department. Leg room always seems catered to younger kids/teens, but not adults. Reviews on youtube should cover/show this if the reviewer tells you their height size/etc..as it's not just the measurements, but how the space was designed factoring in power trains, etc.
We had a CX5 with a rear facing seat. Same issue. Common complaint. Got a CX9 a year later instead. From what I’ve learned, leg room is measured around the knee area based on who’s sitting back there, but then those CX5 seats bulge way out at the top, and that’s right where the top of the car seat is gonna smack into, so it’s kind of a suck situation that’s technically correctly advertised. I get that we use rear legroom to try to understand how feasible it is to fit a rear facing car seat, but we really need to know rear-seat-back-to-top-front-seat space
In 2015 I was hunting for a compact car with good mileage and small parking spaces. I'm ~6'2" and none of Chevy/Ford/Honda/Nissan/etc fit me. For some reason, I remember Chevy being specifically bad. I happened across a 2015 Lancer and I fit in it comfortably and my teenage son could still sit directly behind me with room. It's like shopping for women's clothing. The numbers don't mean anything.
Honda and Toyota do a much better job building cars for car seats than most other manufacturers. The majority of other manufacturers, you have to go to a minivan, full-size SUV, or crew cab truck to fit a rear-facing car seat behind a driver who is taller than 5'9".
I don't think there is a meaningful interior measurement that helps you figure out what car is good for car seats. Maybe seat depth, but even that can be ruined by the first and second rows being close together.
Yeah I’ve encountered that before. Where the specs don’t match how much actual leg room you have.
I was looking at a new pathfinder. The specs said the 2nd row had like 35 or 36 inches of legroom, and I was like nahhh can’t be.
So I went and sat in one and the legroom in the 2nd row was super spacious.
Now I just go sit in the cars to determine for myself.
Legroom in cars is measured from the back of the front seat to a theoretical point where the rear seat cushion meets the backrest at a right angle. But considering the size and design of the rear-facing child seat your legroom is going to be a lot less. When my kids where in a carseat we always put them behind me no matter if I was driving or the passenger because my husband is so much taller than I am. He needed the legroom or else he just looked so cramped up and uncomfortable.
Alex on Autos always mentions its calculated in some weird way but I don't think he's ever posted a video explaining it in detail. I would love for him to do a deep dive into this.
Just ignore manufacurers numbers, they can make up whatever they want. Measure yourself with a tape measure or watch videos with the same person sitting in the backseat, pause and take a look at the distance between their legs and the front seats.
> front seat.
> rear facing child seat behind it
Why are you putting that there. Unless you got twins, then RIP and go get a minivan. Forget about trying to look cool. It’s daycare time for you
Baby and a 5 year old. For day to day use the vehicles are set up so I can drive mine fine and passenger in hers fine. The problem is when we want to switch up, say after I get a drink at a restaurant or we are on a road trip. Moving the seats on demand isn't feasible. It's a whole event.
I think the last time this thread was brought up it was CX-5 vs Camry and a poster said that Mazda measures their legroom in ideal situations (the front leg room is measured with the front seat all the way back, the rear leg room is measured with the seat all the way forward). Not sure if this is true or not.
A few years ago when our kid was in a rear facing car seat, we spent so much time actually traveling to different dealers. I would set both front seats to where I was comfortable and then try and get it to fit in the back. The front seat angle and height of the back seat had more impact than advertised “leg room.”
This is so true! Not enough people talk about seat angle impacting legroom. In my wagon, straightening the seat is way more effective than moving it forward.
We had a 2002 Jetta GLI with a rear facing car seat and it was a bit of a squeeze. I’m 6’2” and had to be forward slightly uncomfortably. It may have been doable if we bought a different car seat but at the time we couldn’t afford to get one of the super expensive smaller ones.
Had this problem with the bmw x5 - if the rear facing seat is installed and I try the passenger seat, my knees smash into the glovebox. Genesis GV80 leaves several inches to spare. Both are mid sized two row CUVs on longitudinal platforms...
In the Cherokee KL, if the front seats are as high as possible, the back seat as amazing leg room while the front has less because the seat moves forward when you raise it. All the way lowered the front is like driving a car and the back is just for kids.
If I happen to be wearing boots instead of shoes and need more legroom for a short drive, I'll just adjust seat angle one notch instead of messing with the fore/aft position.
Also the thickness of the seat, especially where people's knees usually go.
A measurement which would minimize this issue across brands would be steering wheel to the edge of the second row seat.
What about tilting/telescoping steering wheels?
Or extrathicc seats?
Gas pedal to rear seatback. Normalizes for adjustable steering wheels and seat depth. Front edge of the seat doesn't mean anything if the seat is so shallow my knees are sticking over a foot out from the seat.
[удалено]
No, it's typically manufacturers who have models that are less competitive that engage in this. For example, the powershift Ford Focus. Changed from measuring with static front seat to altering, and went from dead last in legroom to 2nd best overall in the segment. A car like the Acura RDX has tons of real life legroom, and they don't embellish, ending up having less legroom than the CX-5 on paper -which is laughable.
only way to know is to do the rear seat test for yourself. A higher or lower front seat can also affect the ability to put your foot under the chair, which gives more room overall. And that isn't usually documented. A lot of sedan EVs have good leg room numbers, but because of the high battery in the floor, it's less comfortable since you're hugging your knees the whole time. On the flip side, most bespoke EVs don't have transmission tunnels and that can do a lot to improve rear leg space but that never shows up in measurements.
Not gonna lie, I’m 6’4” with a MK3 focus st and my 5’10”- 6’ friends can sit behind me
They don't bother publishing this stuff because they know the families coming in to test it out will find out for themselves that it is roomy.
I recall one thread recently about how the Corolla and BRZ have the same rear legroom. Not sure how Subaru reached that number without pulling the front seats out.
Agreed, that is literally impossible. I'm 5'10" with a 32" inseam and there was maybe 4-6" of legroom in the back of my old 2013 BRZ when the seat was adjusted for me. You can't tell me I'd have the same experience sitting behind myself in a Corolla as in the BRZ.
If you want legitimate 2nd and 3rd row legroom you gotta go minivan
My friends have a Sienna and we fit two toddlers in bulky seats, all their shit (including 2 strollers), and 5 adults comfortably for a day trip. Minivans are magic.
I dunno man, why does everyone get these “car seats” and stuff, that seems to be the problem. My back seats fold flat, so if I have to carry kids around, I just fold those down, throw down some blanket and pillows, and let them crawl around back there, lots of space! And the blankets and pillows are soft, so it’ll protect them in a crash! /s
Lol I actually had a friend that told me they would take the kid out of the seat on long trips while driving and let them play in the car, since the kid got fussy in the car seat. I told him that was a horrific idea and his kid would become a projectile in a crash. I don't even like to think about it.
Well, I think if they were worried about their kids being yeeted, it might make them drive less like assholes. Every time I mention how people that want to drive like the highway is a Nascar race should buy something purpose built I get a reply like "I can't fit my kids in a sports car" ok so why are you driving that tank so recklessly with your kid in the car. People think suv+child seats=invincible.
My wife wouldn’t even breast feed our kids while the car was moving. Meanwhile my father had my brother and I wrestling in the back of the minivan during quiet segments of roadtrips…
Or an S class if they just need 2nd row lol
Or super crew cab
I tried to convince the wife of that, but minivans just aren't cool. SUVs are the fashionable thing. What can I say though, my personal daily is a tuned manual GTI (which actually has as much car seat room as the CX-5). Previous daily, and now garage queen was a cammed / supercharged C6 Vette... So it's not like I make rational vehicle choices either.
Is it really cool if everyone has one? Test drive the Highlander and then the Sienna. Let your wife see how much cargo space and leg room she will lose to be "cool". Before the redesign, the Honda Pilot had almost exactly half (16 vs 32 cu ft) the cargo space behind the third row than the Odyssey.
I (the guy) drive the minivan in my family. Woke, I know.
No there are some seriously roomy suvs and often the minivans aren’t as comfortable for tall people as say an Infiniti QX80. I’m only 6’4” but I have a lot of family 6’7” and taller. Minivans aren’t the right vehicle for tall people. Unless they’re lying down
Legitimate 2nd row legroom? Sure absolutely. 3rd row? Maybe. It will be better than a Highlander/etc. but it’s still meant for kids at the end of the day. If you have more than 2 kids then I think a full-size SUV like a Suburban is always better. You’ll be carrying around them, their friends, and all their sports equipment, chairs, instruments, etc. on a regular basis. You’ll likely do road trips or extended drives and that comfort bonus is massive when you can stretch your legs for days. As they grow up they’ll get larger and so will their friends and all of a sudden that 3rd row is no longer practical for your son’s and daughter’s friends on the football team or swim team or whatever else. For now the minivan is probably the right bet if he doesn’t know what the future holds but if his needs expand then there’s really only a few options.
A Minivan will do pretty well all a Suburban can do for a family hauler unless you need towing/4WD, at a price 20-30k less.
Yeah it will do what he needs for now for sure, just saying if his family grows to 2-3 kids + activites/etc. then a larger SUV is worth the look.
What I've found looking at cars and trying to fit a rear facing child seat in is that "legroom" is practically meaningless, because some will carve out an extra inch or two out of the seats to fit your knees... but the child seat doesn't stick forward there, it's up by your shoulders. The measurements online are almost meaningless. I physically drug a child seat around with me when car shopping and test fit it in everything.
I never realized how weird car interiors are until having to deal with rear facing car seats and strollers. Dimensions and the volume of the space mean nothing. Dragging a car seat or stroller around is the only way to find out what works. It's all about the shape of the space. My MK4 Jetta wagon fits our stroller better than a 2010 Escape did. The Jetta cargo area is deep and narrow instead of wide and shallow.
> I physically drug a child oi
The society of automotive engineers actually has a standard for measuring interior dimensions. It's J1100, but nobody forces car makers to measure legroom to the exact standard so there's always a bit of variation in legroom measurement among cars. I find that comparing interior dimensions among the same brand is the most accurate as that will likely have been measured using the same internal standard the company uses. To paint a better picture, I find it generally useful to add the front and rear legroom numbers together to find the total amount of legroom between the 2 rows to help discount any discrepancy among the position of the front seat when the measurement was taken. If you're curious, here is the J1100 interior measurement standard, it's quite an interesting read if you're into this sort of nerdy stuff. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/005/sae.j1100.1984.pdf
In my experience, Mazda interior space is especially limited vs other brands. Granted, I have long legs but I feel more comfortable with American brands, regardless of dimensions.
100% agree. I’ve had several Mazdas as rentals and they just don’t do a very good job on interior space usage. The most noticeable example was when I had a CX-30 and a Trailblazer on back to back weeks. The CX-30 in basically every other metric is a much better vehicle than the Trailblazer, but I could not comfortably enter or exit the Mazda, and the drivers area was extremely cramped. The Chevrolet was extremely ergonomic in that sense. Easy to enter and exit, a better greenhouse, and I drove it pretty comfortably for a couple of hours
It’s almost impressive how inefficient Mazda designs interiors. My CX9 by all specs should be way roomier than my NX (AKA a RAV4) whatwith it being 18” longer and 5” wider. In reality, somehow every seat feels smaller. The door armrest and center console jut out at knee level so you can’t manspread. The footwells are so narrow that I sometimes step on my left foot while braking. And the 2nd row is somehow left with less legroom even at its farthest distance that renders the 3rd row useless. Plus the center passenger gets a big ass transmission tunnel hump vs a flat floor.
I don't know if this is also the case with the CX-90, but my CX-50's interior storage space is pretty underwhelming. It doesn't feel like it has much more storage space than my old 2007 Civic. That said, I still love the car. I just wish it had a bit more space in all of the storage cubbies.
The CX90 has been particularly noted in comparison reviews for it being one of the largest vehicles by exterior dimensions with one of the smallest interiors.
Sometimes it’s suspension geometry designed for handling rather than space
6'4" here. Just give up. About 9 years ago I finally broke down and got a F150. It was the first vehicle I ever owned that I was comfortable in. The average male is 5'9" and female is 5'4" in America so most car manufacturers make that range their sweet spot.
6'9 and never owned a truck, I can fit behind myself in my driving position in the accord. (Though I never have to, it's just nice for passengers). I think i managed the same in an elantra N and WRX test drives. Im not opposed to trucks or SUVs i just prefer the driving dynamics of a sedan. The suvs that drive like cars are unfortunately out of my price range
100%. Same height and nothing has felt more comfortable to me than my half ton pickup or a similar sized vehicle.
I’m a really leggy tall guy and the first time I rented a truck (Ram 1500), I was in heaven with the leg room. I have no need at all for a truck, but I know what my next vehicle will be.
That's why I drive a Ford Flex. Third row is small but sufficient for shorter people on short drives... But the second row is cavernous. Oodles of leg room with the front seats for my 6'3" self. The fact that it's a quirky car and the boxy wagon shape reminds me of the pre-merger Volvo wagons I grew up riding in are icing on the cake. Plus it -scoots- with the transverse version of the 3.5L Ecoboost they put in the F-150.
If I could change one thing about myself it would be to lose 6 inches of height so I could experience a Miata
Eh, there’s very real benefits to being tall. I think most people who drive a Miata would probably give it up for an extra half foot of height.
Like dying earlier and having more health problems 😵. Id be happy at 5'10 or so and lying to say I was 6' like most men.
I mean..if you’re lying to make your height be 6’0” it doesn’t really sound like you’re happy with it lol
You joke but I have tried driving a manual Miata. I literally could not get my leg to the clutch with the door closed.
CX-5 legroom: 41" / 39.6" Highlander: 42" / 38.7" / 28" The highlander has more front legroom, which may make it better for car seats. I wonder if front chair size and shape also comes into play with rear car seats.
This is what I have noticed. Some cars have tons of front leg room. This allows the people up front to scoot forward giving the rear passenger more room.
My wife has a CX-5 also so I know exactly what you mean about it being tight with a rear facing car seat. From the little bit of research I just did it sounds like rear legroom measurements are way more complicated than you would think so comparing two numbers doesn’t always tell the whole story. I think the combination or seat design and angles of all the parts involved can make smaller legroom feel bigger than it really is and vice versa. It used to bother me when I sat in the passenger seat of my wife’s car but I would just remind myself that it is temporary and now that my kid sits forward facing I haven’t thought about it since.
Mazda made terrible usage of the cabin space up front. The dash is massive and hangs down too far. No clue why... It's a traverse mounted 4 cylinder and has a big ol nose.
My r/cars-not-approved spicy opinion is that Mazda makes gorgeous interiors.... for the front passengers. A very valid critique of mazda is that they have some of the worst internal packaging amongst the major players. 2nd row usability (let alone third) is so much lower than Toyota or Honda or similar.
Large hoods are often featured on cars with small or nonexistent engines to give the appearance of power. Notice that the Tesla model S has a very large hood, but actually has not engine at all.
It’s not the current generation, but I’d disagree as a 2014-18 Mazda3 is one of the most spacious (for front seats) vehicles for me at 6’7”. Especially compared to most Hondas (Civics and Accords of basically all gens for the past 15+ years) which have that as a far more severe issue. The same generation CX-5 is about the same as the Mazda3, along with the current Mazda3.
I find that Mazdas generally get driving positions right a lot better than cars of similar size. The rear seats just suffer for it. I personally think Honda sedans suck even more for tall people than notoriously anti-headroom Mazda. A lot of it comes from oddly high seats for a sedan. Civics and Accords always felt way more claustrophobic than my Cayman.
If you want true rear legroom then get a crew cab pickup truck or full sized SUV. It’s a literal couch back there in both classes of vehicles and legroom for days in both. The half-ton pickups are designed to have space for 4-5 fully grown men in relative comfort(luxurious if you buy high trims). The flat floor in many also adds to the leg room. The same goes for full size SUVs like the Wagoneer L, Suburban, Yukon XL, Expedition Max, etc. These are the only vehicles that can take 6-7 adults in genuine comfort + all their belongings for any real length of commute/trips. Edit: Also it’s not true for everything but a good rule of thumb is that generally American and German vehicles will usually be better for larger folks.
Can confirm, if you don’t need a third row then a crew cab pickup has just about the roomiest back seat. Comes with the obvious tradeoffs of not having dedicated interior storage outside of the seating area unless you get a bed cover though. I also noticed a bit of an issue with using a rotating rear-facing car seat in my F-150. The back rest angle is so vertical that the car seat rubs on the backrest when I rotate it to load my kid into the seat, but otherwise it’s a great family hauling / practical vehicle for road trips.
I rode in a fully loaded Chrysler Pacifica and felt like i was in the cabin of a private jet. Liked it so much I almost got one, even though I had zero use for a minivan at the time.
That's one of the biggest things I love about my Flex. It's 4 inches longer than an Explorer, and all four inches went to the second row. I never have to ask 'got enough space back there' because I know they do. Their third-row access is pretty good, too. Most crossovers/SUVs have the second row recline/slide forward. The Flex (and probably Explorer) fold the seatback completely flat, then the entire seat pivots forward on the leading edge. Once complete, the back of the second-row seat is up against the back of the first-row seat. [better video actually](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0RUccEYUY)
*If you want true rear legroom then get a crew cab pickup truck or full sized SUV.* Or a proper sedan. Accords have dumb amount of legroom.
I'm tall and find myself in a lot of Ubers, so can confirm the Accord. Also the Charger. But the champ for sedans is the old Lincoln Towncar, where you had a whole fucking living room to yourself.
Absolutely just 100% not true. It has a “dumb amount of legroom” if you’re like 5’6” or were driving something like an S2000 prior(great car though). I had an Accord before my truck and it’s a night and day difference. The seat is far more plush/weighty, my hips feel far better since they are correctly seated now vs. being pressed down and low with my legs higher than my hips due to the seating position, my knees aren’t dented from pressing against the seat well sides, and my lower back doesn’t ache if I drive more than an hour now. If he wants a sedan and a very comfortable amount of legroom he should look at things like a G90, LS, 7 Series, S-Class, A8. Obviously all of these are extremely expensive though and not particularly reliable or practical for someone in his situation.
What year accord? I'm 6'2 and my knees never come close to touching when I sat in one for a 3 hour trip. But I'm sure you're about to tell me how that's wrong. Edit: wait we're all talking about rear seat legroom. Why are you talking about driving? Edit 2: Here: [LOTS of legroom in the new Honda Accord! (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdfKiolpQ0) A 6'4 dude sitting behind his own driving position, and his knees aren't touching. Is that not enough for you? lol
I’m 6’4”, 2014 Accord so it was part of the most recent generation. Everyone is different with body types, you may have a longer torso and shorter legs or some other amalgamation of body mechanics that cause it to be different for people. Are we really going to sit here and pretend that’s a comfortable seating position? Or that this is a good faith example? His knee is literally like an inch away from the back of the driver seat. He’s also clearly doing this on a media day. Not at all the same as actually sitting in that position for extended periods of time or lengthy ownership. Edit: Your knees never came close to touching what? The back of the drivers seat? This is entirely dependent on who the driver or front passenger is and their seating position. Regardless OP is clearly uncomfortable with a larger vehicle in the CX-5 so how is recommending a midsize sedan a good idea?
The accord has been redesigned since 2014 and has the space of a full sized sedan now.
lol. Sit in a G90/ 7 series/S class and say that with a straight face
Ok one, if you're 6'4, obviously *your opinions* of what's reasonable/required rear leg room don't apply to most people. Plenty of people are very happy in seating that you wouldn't be. ALSO, most people are 6+ inches shorter than you, so whether you're driving or they're driving, they're very content. Next, you're talking about a car that's *literally a decade old.* That's irrelevant to current cars. *Regardless OP is clearly uncomfortable with a larger vehicle in the CX-5 so how is recommending a midsize sedan a good idea?* Thirdly, coincidentally, my partner has a 2022 CX5, and I can absolutely, unequivacably say that a current gen accord has more rear seat leg room than that car. That's my biggest strike against Mazda, actually. They aggressively sacrifice rear leg room for a better front seat experience. 100%, new gen Accord has more rear leg room than a current gen CX5, no matter what you might feel. Go to a dealer tonight and sit in both behind yourself.
Or a Dodge Charger.
Honda says the Accord has the same rear legroom as an Odyssey, so it should be pretty spacious.
I’ve had one, it’s not. Legroom measurements are basically pointless to go by, the only real experience with any value is sitting in a car and testing it out.
I’d think they’d be consistent since it’s the same manufacturer doing the measurements.
were not talking about your outdated Accord anymore.
The newest two generations are barely any different.
German cars do have more space, but 3rd row wise the americans remain unmatched. Except, weirdly the toyota vellfire that is sold in certain asian marlets.
It really depends on the geometry of the backseat, too. The model 3 has an OK amount of legroom but due to the way the backseat bench is angled and the high floor it feels much more uncomfortable. This makes way more difference than the actual distance between the front and back seats. I think they fixed this in the refresh. I really like the way they do things in the lucid air, where there is a cutout in the battery compartment to make extra legroom in the rear seat. I'd sacrifice range for that.
They’ve redesigned the seats on the latest Model 3. Overall it has a lot of space for its size.
Copy/paste from a previous comment of mine. Leg room space is a more complicated measurement than you might think. Others have commented on "maximum leg room" and "effective leg room" but that I believe is just for the front seat. The difference between front seat all the way back or the front seat at a specific location referred to the "seating reference point" or SGRP which is the front seat at a location where 90%+ of drivers would have it. 2nd row leg room, as defined and measured by the SAE at least in 2001 "#L51 - effective SGRP leg room second - the dimension measured along a line from the ankle pivot center to the SGRP-second plus 254 mm (10 in.). The foot may be placed on the floor pan with the centerline of the leg segment up to 127 mm either side of the Y plane occupant centerline." https://ia800504.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.law.sae.j1100.2001/sae.j1100.2001.html These pictures from that article might help show how so many factors can influence leg room.
IMO. Honda Pilot did fairly well in this department. Leg room always seems catered to younger kids/teens, but not adults. Reviews on youtube should cover/show this if the reviewer tells you their height size/etc..as it's not just the measurements, but how the space was designed factoring in power trains, etc.
Honda pilot: 41.0/40.8/32.5 inches
How dare you say something bad about Le Mazdé!
NGL… I read this title as “LeGroom” like LeBron was on some Drake shit or something, then I checked the actual sub and snapped out of it.
There are websites completely devoted to testing how child seats fit in nearly every vehicle.
We had a CX5 with a rear facing seat. Same issue. Common complaint. Got a CX9 a year later instead. From what I’ve learned, leg room is measured around the knee area based on who’s sitting back there, but then those CX5 seats bulge way out at the top, and that’s right where the top of the car seat is gonna smack into, so it’s kind of a suck situation that’s technically correctly advertised. I get that we use rear legroom to try to understand how feasible it is to fit a rear facing car seat, but we really need to know rear-seat-back-to-top-front-seat space
In 2015 I was hunting for a compact car with good mileage and small parking spaces. I'm ~6'2" and none of Chevy/Ford/Honda/Nissan/etc fit me. For some reason, I remember Chevy being specifically bad. I happened across a 2015 Lancer and I fit in it comfortably and my teenage son could still sit directly behind me with room. It's like shopping for women's clothing. The numbers don't mean anything.
forget about measurements. you have to sit in it, IMHO.
Leg room is measured hip-to-knee-to-heel, I believe.
Honda and Toyota do a much better job building cars for car seats than most other manufacturers. The majority of other manufacturers, you have to go to a minivan, full-size SUV, or crew cab truck to fit a rear-facing car seat behind a driver who is taller than 5'9". I don't think there is a meaningful interior measurement that helps you figure out what car is good for car seats. Maybe seat depth, but even that can be ruined by the first and second rows being close together.
I’m pretty happy with my 2024 Outback. I can fit an infant rear facing seat behind the passenger without affecting legroom.
Cx5 is fit for Asian markets. It’s just too small for NA.
Japanese cars too smol for western people, news at eleven.
Yeah I’ve encountered that before. Where the specs don’t match how much actual leg room you have. I was looking at a new pathfinder. The specs said the 2nd row had like 35 or 36 inches of legroom, and I was like nahhh can’t be. So I went and sat in one and the legroom in the 2nd row was super spacious. Now I just go sit in the cars to determine for myself.
Small SUVs/crossovers are a literal scam on space, less room than a sedan and worse driving experience
Legroom in cars is measured from the back of the front seat to a theoretical point where the rear seat cushion meets the backrest at a right angle. But considering the size and design of the rear-facing child seat your legroom is going to be a lot less. When my kids where in a carseat we always put them behind me no matter if I was driving or the passenger because my husband is so much taller than I am. He needed the legroom or else he just looked so cramped up and uncomfortable.
Alex on Autos always mentions its calculated in some weird way but I don't think he's ever posted a video explaining it in detail. I would love for him to do a deep dive into this.
Just ignore manufacurers numbers, they can make up whatever they want. Measure yourself with a tape measure or watch videos with the same person sitting in the backseat, pause and take a look at the distance between their legs and the front seats.
I'm 6'1 and a big dude, and i drive a mazda 3 hatch and I fit fine.
> front seat. > rear facing child seat behind it Why are you putting that there. Unless you got twins, then RIP and go get a minivan. Forget about trying to look cool. It’s daycare time for you
Baby and a 5 year old. For day to day use the vehicles are set up so I can drive mine fine and passenger in hers fine. The problem is when we want to switch up, say after I get a drink at a restaurant or we are on a road trip. Moving the seats on demand isn't feasible. It's a whole event.