Why don't SUVs have tons of leg room? It is too hard to make? (vehicles, sedan)

[unseengundam]

I have noticed most SUV don't have ton of leg room, say compared to cars. Most of from leg rooms run from 40" to 45", while back legroom is often only 35" to 40". Honestly, I haven't seen any SUV that makes huge distinction when it comes to leg room.

For example, I can't think of a SUV with over 50" from legroom or with over 45" rear legroom. Do they even exist?

Another, important question is how hard it is for car makers to get in another 1-2 feet of extra legroom? I thought it would be as easy as making the SUV longer. However, I have noticed a car that is 1-2 feet longer (compact vs mid/full size) may only have a measly 2-4" in extra legroom!

I would think there would be a market for SUV (or cars) for matter that has tons of legroom. Something like 50" front, 45" rear leg room and could claim to be most spacious car with tons of legroom. But for some reason sure doesn't seem like is any SUVs even trying for that.

[00molavi]

Being that I am 6' tall with all my height in my legs, I hear you. Lucky my kids are short.

The SUV's of today are actually mostly crossovers, based on their sister sedans. So a Highlander is a higher sitting Camry, or a CRV is a Civic in disguise. If you check their dimensions, most of the are as long as their sedan version, so that leaves very similar amount of room inside. Other than extra cargo space due to the boxy design. Then add the fact that most buyers want a 3rd row seat too, makes the space even smaller. We bought a CRV mostly on the basis that the second row goes for and back too. So at least I put my seat all the way back, incline the back and my kids still can seat behind me. In a Corolla, my seat is essentially touching the rear seat.

I was recently test driving a Mazda CX-9 and even though the car is 12" longer than the Highlander, the driver legroom was tighter-go figure.

[nick gar]

Airbags, crumple zones, and unibody construction squeeze out leg room. Look at some body on frame models.

[Merc63]

Back seat leg room in my old Range Rover:



And thta's with the front seats in a normal seating position:



Most SUVs don't have a wheelbase that's any longer than a car's wheelbase, so it follows that they have the same rear legroom as a car of the same wheelbase.

[frankgn87]

Our Rav4 has massive rear legroom. Its rated at just under 42" rear legroom and over 52" in the front and I can tell ya that is enough any the largest people we have ever had in the car

Internal dimensions: front headroom (inches): 40.8, rear headroom (inches): 39.7, front hip room (inches): 53.8, rear hip room (inches): 52.4, front leg room (inches): 41.8, rear leg room (inches): 38.3, front shoulder room (inches): 57.1, rear shoulder room (inches): 55.3 and interior volume (cu ft): 108.2[LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[43north87west]

Because there are minivans. If you look at minivan designs, they all have short hoods, long cabins, and that's how they get all of the passenger space.

By the looks of it, some crossovers are slowly evolving (devolving?) into minivans anyway.

[texdav]

The larger SUVs do have more leg room.Smaller is always smaller.

[LRPct]

Originally Posted by texdav

The larger SUVs do have more leg room.Smaller is always smaller.

Not always.. like pointed out above by others by specific example theres tons of vehicles that measure bigger on the outside but offer LESS interior room than other smaller on the outside vehicles. Packaging. One thing many people dont pay attention to is how LONG the rear door is. Take a good look at that, how WIDE the rear door opening is. It USUALLY is a good hint at the rear legroom inside and many people overlook something so simple and just go for what "looks big" overall.

[Sean-a-thin]

The newer Subaru Foresters have pretty insane rear leg room.

[jaypee]

Originally Posted by texdav

The larger SUVs do have more leg room.Smaller is always smaller.

Land Rover LR4 is 2-ft longer than Subaru Forester but has .5-in less rear leg room.