Nissan Kicks Cargo Test: How Big Is the Trunk?

• The Nissan Kicks' cargo capacity differs by trim level and drivetrain.
• The front-wheel-drive SR we tested has 29.2 cubic feet.
• Our real-world test shows you how much stuff will fit inside.

Here is the Nissan Kicks cargo area. Two things to note here. First, there's a rigid hatchback-style cargo cover that needs to be removed from the vehicle if you want max capacity. As such, I'll be testing with and without this cover. Second, the front-wheel-drive Kicks has a dual-level cargo floor. This would be the floor in its upper height, which you would only ever use when folding the back seat down. I'm not testing that, so I only tested with the floor in its lower setting.

Now, the new-for-2025 all-wheel-drive Kicks does not have the dual-level cargo floor because the added rear differential raises the floor height. As a result, this is roughly what the AWD Kicks cargo area looks like, but it's not identical. The AWD Kicks also has independent rear suspension hardware versus the FWD Kicks' torsion beam. Specifically, its shock towers further reduce cargo space and create a different cargo area shape.

In other words, I couldn't just raise the floor and say, "This is what you get with the AWD Kicks." This test only applies to the FWD Kicks.

OK, having said all that, here is the Kicks FWD cargo area with the floor lowered. It's quite the significant drop, and unlike the Kia Niro or Chevy Equinox EV, the floor is totally flat to the back seat.

Here is a better look at the height difference between the upper and lower floor heights.

Ah, but we haven't unmasked the entire Kicks cargo area yet!

A temporary spare tire is available as an accessory in every Kicks (presumably this cavity is just higher with AWD). My test vehicle did not have one. Not opting for one sure seems like a terrible decision. Nevertheless, should you decide to risk it for the extra space, this is what it can fit ...

This is my 20-inch-long, 10.5-diameter Edmunds Golf Classic duffle bag with some obvious space left over. I really don't think this is worth dealing with a tire sealing kit on the side of the highway after blowing a tire, but its presence is nevertheless noted. Hey, maybe it makes more sense with AWD?

OK, now before stuffing some bags in there, here's some nice boilerplate information about the bags I use and their dimensions. There are two bags you'd definitely have to check at the airport: Big Gray (26 inches long x 16.5 inches wide x 12 inches deep) and Big Blue (26 x 16.5 x 10). There are three roll-aboards that usually fit as carry-on: Medium Tall (24 x 14 x 9), Medium Wide (23 x 15 x 9) and the smaller Green Bag (21 x 14 x 9.5). Finally, there's everyone's favorite Fancy Bag (21 x 12 x 11), a medium-size duffle.

Test 1: Bags under the cargo cover

With the cargo cover in place, I could fit all the bags except the Fancy Bag. The cargo cover became dislodged, but it could remain inside and liftgate closed. Acceptable.

This is better than what I fit under the Chevy Trax's cargo cover: the two biggest bags, Skinny Medium and Green Bag. It is the same as I could manage in the Kia Seltos (26.6 cubic feet), but you'll note there is space left over here in the Kicks. There wasn't in the Seltos, so the volume spec difference still makes sense. The Taos, CX-30 and HR-V I tested did not have cargo covers, so I have no data for those.

Now, time to chuck the cover.

Test 2: Max capacity

Removing the cargo cover let me turn Big Gray on its side, which opened up enough space for the Fancy Bag. Voilà! All bags fit in the Nissan Kicks. Let's also not forget that the Edmunds duffle is lurking down under the floor.

This would be the same as the Seltos, which also had space remaining for the same duffle ... inside the cargo area. With the spare tire, the Kia is winning this (it comes standard with a spare, BTW). There is indeed space remaining in the Kicks (see below), but I couldn't use it for a bag.

The HR-V and CX-30 could also fit everything, but it was much harder to load (especially the HR-V that required seven failed Tetris attempts, ugh) and bags were closer to the roof. This result is also pretty similar to the Trax, though there was ultimately more space left over in the Kicks, the bags didn't impede visibility at all, and without the spare, I could stuff in the Edmunds duffle.

Finally, there's the Volkswagen Taos. Its volume also differs with front- and all-wheel drive. The FWD version I tested fell under the Kicks at 27.9 cubic feet, but its final result was even better than the Seltos. Nevermind the Edmunds duffle, I could fit a 38-quart cooler in addition to all my bags.

So no, the Nissan Kicks is not the cargo-carrying champ its specs suggest. Ultimately, though, I think that says more about the Seltos and especially the Taos exceeding spec-based expectations. The Kicks still manages to swallow more bags than vehicles that are bigger on the outside, and often more expensive to purchase.

Based on the competitors mentioned above, here is the order of subcompact SUV cargo capacity based on specs and my cargo tests:

• According to the specs: Kicks SR FWD (29.2 cubes), Taos FWD (27.9 cubes), Seltos (26.6 cubes), Trax (25.6 cubes), HR-V (24.4 cubes), CX-30 (20.2 cubes)
• According to our cargo test: Taos FWD, Seltos, Kicks SR FWD, Trax, CX-30, HR-V

The big unanswered question, of course, is exactly how much you lose with all-wheel drive. Others in the segment don't have the same drivetrain-caused reduction, or even in the case of the Taos, as much of a reduction. TBD, I guess.