I'm starting this thread because I'm preparing to place an order and trying to clarify my thinking about the cargo space. Here are my assumptions and preconceived notions:

1.) I don't need more than 5 seats for my personal situation
2.) I have a personal aesthetic preference for the looks/balance of the 110 over the 130. When I look at photos of the 130 I always hear that song in my head, "Baby got back." And not necessarily in a good way LOL.
3.) There will be many situations where I will have one or possibly two passengers, so all of the cargo space behind the 1st row seating is potentially available.

Having said the above, I've taken the cargo volume data directly from the Land Rover website. In an effort to conceptualize the available space, I've divided the cargo volume into "How many Patagonia 55L black hole duffle bags can I fit in that space if I were to pack them side to side and top to bottom?" This duffle bag and it's size is one that perhaps many of us are familiar with, and may allow you to visualize the useable space in a helpful way.

110X
Volume behind 1st row = 78.8 cubic feet = 2231 liters = 40.6 duffle bags
Volume behind 2nd row = 34.0 cubic feet = 962.7 liters = 17.5 duffle bags

130X
Volume behind 1st row = 76.1 cubic feet = 2154.9 liters = 39.2 duffle bags
Volume behind 2nd row = 35.8 cubic feet = 1013.7 liters = 18.4 duffle bags

I find it interesting to note that the 110 actually wins if you have two passengers and fold down the 2nd row, and only gives up one extra duffle bag behind the 2nd row. My conclusion is that if you don't actually need seating for 8 persons, and seating for 5 will do just fine (as in my case), then the 110 is a better choice, especially considering what you give up in terms of departure angles, etc. Not to mention my own personal thoughts about the aesthetics of the longer overhang on the 130.....

I do wonder if you chose to buy a 130 and then removed the third row seats if you would gain significant space for fridges, dual batteries, and other gadgets of special interest to the Overlanding community in particular. Or to ask the question another way, if LR chose to offer the 130 with only two rows, would it really maximize the cargo space available?

Would welcome thoughts from all about this question, especially those of you who may have actually seen a 130 in the wild, or perhaps The Insider or others who may have insight into the manufacturer's or designer's perspective.

 

IMO the 130 is hideously large. That is as far as I can get with it, I have a 90 for reference

 

The 130 is available with only 2 rows if you wish.

Supposedly, the 130 can hold 88.9 cubic feet with all the rows folded. I suspect that is the 8 seater version, the 5-seater may be marginally higher since the floor is flat in the rear. In comparison, the 110 is stated to max out at 78.8 cubic feet with all the seats folded. Supposedly some 110 models (maybe 7 seaters?) have only 69 cubic feet max.

Land Rover is known for glitches on its spec sheets, so take the data below with a grain of salt. Some numbers could be incorrect, especially for the 130 model that has not launched yet (well, supposedly they started production on July 4th, but they have not arrived yet).

 

I concur that you are comparing numbers that are not accurate. The 130 is the same vehicle with an additional 13.38" grafted onto the rear cargo area. There is no way on Earth that it is not significantly more voluminous. Keep in mind that it has the same wheelbase as the 110, all the changes to the body are behind the second row of seats.

 

That was exactly my initial thought process, and maybe you are after all correct. It's why I was confused by the numbers from the configurator. I was so confused by it that I triple checked my math (always a good idea anyway LOL). Maybe it's to do with the extra seat row. I'm like you, I can't understand how an extra 13" would not add a huge amount of volume.

 

Well I think I'm just about the only person with an order for a '23.5MY 130 on these forums (If there are others pls, voice your opinion). You can opt for the "standard seating configuration" which is 5 seats. I opted for 8 just cuz. I had a '22 90 S and loved the look, it was odd and different. I think the 130 looking ridiculously long is also unique. I never liked the profile of the 110 at all, its my least favorite wheelbase, but that's just me.

I'd say, if ya want maximum room, get the 130 with the standard seating config (ie. 5 seats) (you can add the premium upgrade interior pack which includes the extended leather pack if ya want too [even though the build and price is weird about it) if that's your thing]. If you really don't like the look of the 130, get the 110.

I'm calling Monday to see if I got my allocation yet, I'm number 1 at my dealer and hoping to get it latest by December (keyword hoping).

I'll provide some links to the 130 in person in just a moment...







Edit: You may have to follow the accounts on Insta to View (new_gen_defender and lucky8offroad).

 

Good Lord that thing is awkward. It just looks so oddly proportioned. I think it is the wheel and tire combination is now far too small for the sheer size of the thing. Thanks, Land rover, for not giving this platform the 33" tire it needed from the get-go. Well done.

It's not the only elephantine full-size SUV out there guilty of this. Have you seen the new Tahoes? Ridiculously tiny wheels and tires.

 

Yeah I like the odd proportions, just like I did with the 90. My buddy ordered a 130 with the same Black 19’s I had on my 90. Meanwhile, I ordered it with the Black 22’s. You ever see a 90 with the silver 22’s, man that looks like a weird but cool Hot Wheels toy.

 

Agreed. 90s on 22s look silly.

 

the 110 has a surprising small cargo space. golf clubs have to fit diagonal and luggage is tricky to get in.

of course this is with the back seats up.

most end up mounting something to the roof on longer trips. roof box etc

but that being said i wouldn’t even consider the 130.