Sable wagon volume vs Grand Marquis trunk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
1,780
Location
Prospect, KY
Taking a trip to Florida next year and trying to decide which car has more actual volume spec. My Grand Marquis trunk says it is 20.6 cu ft. I cannot find just the sable wagon rear space if seat is folded down. I find like 80 something cubic ft but that has to be total volume I think. Any help with this would be appreciated.
 
Put your luggage in each one. Unless you have all soft sided luggage or keep your stuff in trash bags the total volume will matter less than how the actual stuff you're moving fits in the space. Also people can't see your stuff in the trunk.
 
Why not simply rent a passenger van/cargo van with unlimited mileage?

They are far more fuel efficient and you'll save the hassle of potential break down's on the side of the road
(which is highly likely given the age of your choices above).
 
Edmunds says 38.8 cu.ft behind the back seat in the wagon. It also said seating for 8 which surprised me. If you took out the 3rd row seating you can get a few more cu.ft.
There's 81 cu.ft behind the front row and 143 cu.ft overall. If you want to carry stuff the wagon will definitely do more and more oddly shaped things.
 
According to this, the Gen IV Sable wagon's cargo capacity is 81 cu. ft. with the back seats down. Definitely more than the Grand Marquis' 21 cu. ft. trunk.

That said, if equipped with a 2.73 rear axle, I doubt gas mileage will be something to worry about with the Grand Marquis for highway driving - especially the aero listed in your signature. That's its natural habitat and the 4.6L is a low revving engine, turning under 2,000 rpm @ 75 MPH.
smile.gif
 
Are we talking about the Sable's 2nd and 3rd row folded down? Because then you have a ridiculous amount of room. I would say that in the rear of a Sable wagon you can fit about as much as a Grand Marquis trunk, but the luggage would not be secured because you would have it stacked to the headliner. I've gotten 28mpg with a Grand Marquis on the highway so that might be my choice.
 
Fuel economy is very close between the 2 vehicles and neither one are in condition that that I fear them breaking down. They have been driven mostly highway miles and have been taken care of so drive like much newer lower mileage cars. I have kept up with new suspension on all my vehicles, and done all the regular maintenance minus belts that need replaced so might do that before going. Looks like the 38.8 Cu ft behind the rear seat is quite a bit more than the 21 cu ft of the grand marquis. I do love the ride / drive of the grand marquis on the highway. It is a challenge to keep the speed down as it drives so nicely.

Thanks everyone for all of your help.
 
I should have mentioned that the 3rd row seat folds into the back similar to Chrysler Stow and Go so no need to remove it. Also 3 kids often prefer to split up rather than sit next to each other so some gear tends to go in middle and on a car topper.
 
Originally Posted By: spk2000
I should have mentioned that the 3rd row seat folds into the back similar to Chrysler Stow and Go so no need to remove it.


Unpopular opinion, but... anyone who isn't familiar with the vehicles shouldn't weigh in
27.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top