Cargo Space Versus the Rogue - 2015 Nissan Murano Long-Term Road Test

2015 Nissan Murano Long-Term Road Test

  • Full Review
  • Pricing & Specs
  • Road Tests (1)
  • Comparison
  • Long-Term

2015 Nissan Murano: Cargo Space Versus the Rogue

by Brent Romans, Senior Automotive Editor on October 14, 2015

2015 Nissan Murano

If you go by the spec sheets, so-called midsize crossover SUVs like our 2015 Nissan Murano don't typically offer substantial cargo-hauling capacity gains over popular compact crossovers. For example, the Murano is rated at 39.6 cubic feet of space behind the second row and 69.9 cubic feet available with the rear seats folded flat. 

The Murano's compact stablemate, the Rogue, checks in at 39.3 behind its second row and 70 cubic feet total.

"Why bother going midsize?" you might ask.

It's a fair question. But I learned there are some subtle differences.

For stuff you might throw in the back on a daily basis, our Murano fares well. The above picture shows its cargo hold with some luggage-type items. Here is another picture with a typical load of reusable grocery bags.

2015 Nissan Murano

Out of curiosity, I went back looking at our 2014 Nissan Rogue (a vehicle we praised for its cargo-carrying abilities) and found a picture I took with some luggage. Here it is again:

2015 Nissan Murano

Given the nearly identical cargo specs, I figured I'd end up with a similar layout. But here is our Murano with the same suitcases and laptop bag.

2015 Nissan Murano

You can see that there are a few more inches to work with. The Murano's greater width also allowed me to lay both suitcases flat, which I wasn't able to do in the Rogue. Based on the photos, I'd say the Murano provides a bit more horizontal loading length than the Rogue, too.

2015 Nissan Murano

In another test, I also had some big boxes I needed to haul with the Murano recently. It didn't go quite as well.

2015 Nissan Murano

The Murano's rear glass is sloped for sleeker styling, inhibiting vertical loads. To be fair, I don't think the Rogue would have held that white box either, but my suspicion (since we don't have a Rogue around anymore to test out) is that it has a bit more top end space since its profile is slightly boxier. The Rogue also has its nifty available cargo dividing system, which the Murano lacks.

Overall, I'd call it a tie. And going back to my original question, yes, there are some valid reasons for getting a Murano — upscale interior, standard V6 and comfy backseat, among them. But thinking you're getting dramatically better cargo-carrying capacity than a popular compact shouldn't be one of them.

Brent Romans, Senior Automotive Editor

Leave a Comment

Current Long-Term Road Tests


Past Long-Term Road Tests