I was looking at the specs posted on Edmunds and the xB2 has 4.6 inches less legroom in the front. Have any tall people been to the backstage events? Is this true?

xB2 specs on Edmunds: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/scion/xb/100868013/specs.html

xB1 specs on Edmunds: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2006/scion/xb/100570418/specs.html

went to backstage last night as a matter of fact!i can agree with that me and the wife both thought there was less leg room in the xb2 than the first gen. xb and defintly way less headroom in the xb2.

I noticed this too, although I have seen different numbers on edmunds vs. scion.com. I guess the real story will be told when I get in for the first time., as long as I am corfortable, I really don't care!

I sat in the front and rear seats of the xB2 at a recent Backstage event and will tell you my observations. The interiors were mock-ups to a great extent and I am not sure if the dimensions will remain the same in the production model. The center console was much higher so my right leg kind of felt cramped compared to my xB. I am not that tall at 6', but the armrest was worthless as it was way below where my arm would rest in a comfortable manner. I hope this was due to the mock-up interior. The headroom is of course less as the xb2 is lower. One interesting point is that in the book they gave us, the xB and xB2 are compared for front and rear seat shoulder room--and I see no comparison of leg room other than to Hondas and Mazdas. Still and all, there was plenty of room in the xB2.

grizzly choppers over on the club xb forums drove a 2008 xB and says, "I put the seat back and could straighten my legs even! BTW, I'm 6'3" for those that don't know me."

41.3 is pretty average in the front seat for a wide range of vehicles.
.
Look at other really large vehicles and compare to the 41.3 inches front leg room and 38 inches rear leg room in the 2008 xB.
2006 Chevy Tahoe
front leg room (inches): 41.3, rear leg room (inches): 38.6
2006 Dodge Ram 3500 Crew cab
front leg room (inches): 41, rear leg room (inches): 36.7
2006 Cadillac Escalade
front leg room (inches): 41.3, rear leg room (inches): 38.6
2006 Hummer H2
front leg room (inches): 41.3, rear leg room (inches): 38.6
2006 Land Rover Range Rover
front leg room (inches): 38.9, rear leg room (inches): 35.5 (for $83,000+ BTW) :rofl:
2006 BMW 7-Series
front leg room (inches): 41.3, rear leg room (inches): 37.2 (for $70,000+)

Anyway the 2008 xB looks pretty good.

If you think about it, you can buy 165.2 inches of front leg room and 152 inches of rear leg room by buying four 2008 xB's for less than the Range Rover. :P

well i should point out where i noticed less leg room was in the rear seat! i know i know , how much am i going to be in the back seat?? well i do have two teenage kids. they really enjoy the room in my 06.(compared to my wifes S-10 blazer) but hey defintly a kewl kewl car.

If a bigger hatch area comes at the expense of a little legroom, so be it. The xB has room to spare in that department, so I expect the xB2 to be cavernous with it's larger dimensions.

And I thought the new gen's had the rear seats on adjustable rails? Are those measurements with the rear seats moved up or back? Or am I getting my rumors mixed up?

there is plenty of room in the back seat. i am 6' and i have plenty of room back there.

well i should point out where i noticed less leg room was in the rear seat! i know i know , how much am i going to be in the back seat?? well i do have two teenage kids. they really enjoy the room in my 06.(compared to my wifes S-10 blazer) but hey defintly a kewl kewl car.
The rear seat leg room in the gen 1 xB is listed as 38 inches also.

Makes me wonder if the difference might be because of the 4 inches more in front on the gen 1. Maybe that means the gen 1 front seat was usually adjusted further forward in most cases making more than the listed legroom in back.

So if you slide the gen 1 seat forward until there is only 41.3 inches in front and that should make it 42 inches in back. Does that make sense?

Oh and djct watt, the xD is the one that is supposed to have the adjustable rear seat.

Something isn't adding up. The new car is 12" longer and has 4" more wheelbase.

The 21.7 ft^3 rear cargo number keeps getting repeated as well, which is only slightly larger than the old xB.

The new car's cargo area is CLEARLY larger than the old car, yet the numbers are almost identical. The space had to go somewhere.

I know the front end/engine bay makes up a good portion of the size increase, but the new car is supposed to have over 10 ft^3 more interior volume than the old one.

My guess? The 29 cubic foot cargo number seen before is actually correct, and the numbers for front and rear legroom and headroom may be a bit off. I know this might seem kinda ignorant, but something just doesn't add up.

If the rear cargo space is the same size, and the rear seats are smaller, how is it that the space with the rear seats folded is so much larger than the old xb?

I hate to say it, but I am starting to believe the 21.7cu ft. I say that in looking at this picture.
http://www.scion.com/#xBAccessories_interior_cargoLine
Take a look at the boots. They run over half way between the seat back and the hatch. That would make the seat back to hatch dimension about 30 inches or less.

I know there have been some speculation posts about the cargo space with the rear seat down, but I don't recall, nor can I find, anything official that shows that spec. Makes me wonder if the 29.1cu ft was right but with the rear seat down.

Dunno.

I don't know if this helps but I reclined the front seat in the original xb all the way back and then layed down with my head on the rear seat and my legs stretched out. My feet would almost strech out completely but hit's the dash. The same thing happened to the new xb which makes me feel that the new xb interior seating length is exactly the same length as the old one (just wider). In addition, to give you an idea of how big the trunk space is with the seats folded in the new xb - I was able to push the rear seats forward and lay completely flat in the trunk area with just my ankles dangling in the air. I'm 5'6" so that's a pretty deep trunk..

I know there have been some speculation posts about the cargo space with the rear seat down, but I don't recall, nor can I find, anything official that shows that spec. Makes me wonder if the 29.1cu ft was right but with the rear seat down.

Dunno.

No way. 29.1 cubic feet with the rear seats down would make it the smallest interior of any wagonlet out there....that would be an 8 cubic foot rear-seat space, which is only about 2 cubic feet more than the trunk of my FIERO...no way would 2, let alone 3 people ever be able to fit back there.

Here is the problem simplified.

The cargo area is supposed to be marginally bigger(much less than 1 cubic foot bigger), the rear sear area is smaller and the front seat is supposedly a lot smaller. But the car is supposed to have more than 10 cubic feet of additional interior volume. Where did the space lost to the old car, let alone the additional space, go?

Also, if that 21 cubic foot rating is correct, and the 69 cubic foot total cargo volume spec is right, something else doesn't add up. The old car supposedly had the same cargo room, and a much bigger back seat, but only has 45 cubic feet of total cargo capacity. The the new car's seating area is smaller, why is there so much more room with the seats folded?


There is something screwey with these numbers...anyone have any idea how we can get verification from an offical source? (Engineer, EPA, etc, etc)??


Here is one other thing to consider.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2007/scion/tc/100728688/specs.html
With the rear seats folded, the tC has 60 cubic feet of cargo space. The new xB HAS to have more space than that.

Um, remember, the new car is wider. I had the 2008 and the 2006 sitting side by side here on Thursday and it's quite a bit wider. That may be where your numbers aren't looking right.

In any case, the new car is bigger. As roXor_boXor quoted, yes, I straightened my legs in the driver's seat with it all the way back. I still had 3" of space above my head too (and I don't gangsta lean the seat either). I didn't get a chance to try the back seat because it was full of giveaways for the event.

I found the driver's position extremely comfortable while driving and the armrest just right too.

If the damn thing came in orange I would be SEVERELY tempted to get one.

-Alex

It is 3 inches wider. Dunno if that makes up the difference or not...I still think at least one of the numbers is incorrect, but maybe I am just being stubborn.

Also, if that 21 cubic foot rating is correct, and the 69 cubic foot total cargo volume spec is right, something else doesn't add up. The old car supposedly had the same cargo room, and a much bigger back seat, but only has 45 cubic feet of total cargo capacity. The the new car's seating area is smaller, why is there so much more room with the seats folded?


There is something screwey with these numbers...anyone have any idea how we can get verification from an offical source? (Engineer, EPA, etc, etc)??
That is pretty much what I said a while back.

Take a look at the next to last post with the pics of the cargo area.
http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=163737&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=20
That was exactly my point there. There is no way the behind the seat can be 21.7 and folded seats have 69.9.

Other than the post by todasiracing in that thread, I can find no published numbers for the interior volume or the folded seat space.

Anybody know where there are official numbers for interior volume and cargo with the rear seats folded?

went to backstage last night as a matter of fact!i can agree with that me and the wife both thought there was less leg room in the xb2 than the first gen. xb and defintly way less headroom in the xb2.

I didn't check the rear seat, but I did the "fist above the head" test for headroom in the xB2 and I noticed no effective difference in headroom over the xB1.

It may _feel_ like there's less headroom as all the windows are shorter. But according to my standard measurement test, there's no real difference from the driver's point of view.

yea she ( my wife defintly felt it as she bonked her head getting out of it). she dont even come close to doing that in my 06 and as far as leg room goes maybe it could be that the new seats go back farther than on the 06 i dunno but sitting in the back seat I felt there wasnt as much room!!! crunch all the numbers you want I felt cramped.blah anyways its my opinion i mean like there is an @$$ for every seat and that isn mine kewl car but hey i was kind of dissapointed.

Here is one other thing to consider.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2007/scion/tc/100728688/specs.html
With the rear seats folded, the tC has 60 cubic feet of cargo space. The new xB HAS to have more space than that.
This is a perfect example of why we have confusion/ lack of info on the Cargo space for the 2008 xB.
Scion.com shows the "cargo volume" for the tC as 35.4 cu ft. It does not specifically say, but I would guess that is the max volume or seats folded measurement.
http://www.scion.com/#tCSpecs_interiorDimensions
So why on earth does Edmunds have:
Luggage Capacity: 12.8 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 60 cu. ft.
:roll:

I dunno, but for the new xb, edmunds and Scion disagree on a couple of numbers as well.

Um, remember, the new car is wider. I had the 2008 and the 2006 sitting side by side here on Thursday and it's quite a bit wider. That may be where your numbers aren't looking right.

In any case, the new car is bigger. As roXor_boXor quoted, yes, I straightened my legs in the driver's seat with it all the way back. I still had 3" of space above my head too (and I don't gangsta lean the seat either). I didn't get a chance to try the back seat because it was full of giveaways for the event.

I found the driver's position extremely comfortable while driving and the armrest just right too.

If the damn thing came in orange I would be SEVERELY tempted to get one.

-Alex
How tall are u alex? I am 6'5" 295. Owned a mini cooper and fit nicely in that. test drove the 06 XB and felt a little tight width wise but had plenty of leg room and head room.
Does the new XB have wider seat space?

The new xB is definitely wider.

I haven't posted any interior dimensions to my own site yet because all of the numbers I've seen look fishy. Sitting in the car in Chicago, shoulder room was definitely up, but neither headroom nor legroom felt as generous as before. As someone already noted in this thread, the reduced size of the windows may affect perceived roominess.

On cargo volume, there are many different ways to measure it, so much so that cargo volume specs cannot be reliably compared from car to car, especially if the manufacturers are different.

For example, some companies only measure up to the based of the windows. This could be the source of the 29 cube stat.

There is much more room in the new xB: '06 xB=90.1 passenger volume, '08 xB=122.5 passenger volume.

There is much more room in the new xB: '06 xB=90.1 passenger volume, '08 xB=122.5 passenger volume.

Where did this number come from? I have seen it before, but I don't know where it came from.

Interior volume is head*shoulder*legroom. Total is this + cargo.

The old one feels larger than 90 cubes, a typical number for a compact without including cargo volume.

122 is impossible for the new one without including cargo volume. That would make it about the roomiest car on the market. So the 122, unlike the 90, includes cargo volume.

to me the first gen has more rear seat leg room but the 2nd gen has more front seat leg room