BMW X5 (2014) vs. Chevrolet SS (2016) Specs
How powerful is the engine? How much room is in the back seat? Get the 2014 BMW X5 and 2016 Chevrolet SS specs.
2014 BMW X5 and 2016 Chevrolet SS Specifications
| Model Year |
2014 |
2016 |
|
| Model |
BMW X5 |
Chevrolet SS |
|
| Engine |
|
|
|
| Transmission |
|
|
|
| Drivetrain |
|
|
|
| Body |
4dr SUV |
4dr Sedan |
|
| |
|
|
Difference |
| Wheelbase |
115.5 in |
114.8 in |
0.7 in |
| Length |
193.2 in |
195.5 in |
-2.3 in |
| Width |
76.3 in |
74.7 in |
1.6 in |
| Height |
69.4 in |
57.9 in |
11.5 in |
| Curb Weight |
4680 lb. |
3997 lb. |
683 lb. |
| Fuel Capacity |
22.4 gal. |
18.8 gal. |
3.6 gal. |
| Headroom, Row 1 |
40.5 in |
38.7 in |
1.8 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 1 |
60.5 in |
59.1 in |
1.4 in |
| Hip Room, Row 1 |
0.0 in |
57.2 in |
-57.2 in |
| Legroom, Row 1 |
40.4 in |
42.3 in |
-1.9 in |
| Headroom, Row 2 |
38.8 in |
38.0 in |
0.8 in |
| Shoulder Room, Row 2 |
58.3 in |
59.0 in |
-0.7 in |
| Hip Room, Row 2 |
0.0 in |
58.0 in |
-58 in |
| Legroom, Row 2 |
36.6 in |
39.7 in |
-3.1 in |
| Total Legroom |
77 in (over 2 rows) |
82 in (over 2 rows) |
-5 in |
| Cargo Volume, Minimum |
22.9 ft3 |
16.4 ft3 |
6.5 ft3 |
| Cargo Volume, Maximum |
66.0 ft3 |
16.4 ft3 |
49.6 ft3 |
Return to top
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2014 BMW X5
| 2014 |
BMW's multicontour seats, a $1,300 option on six-cylinder X5s and standard with the V8, deliver a rarely matched combination of support in turns and comfort on long drives. In a reversal of traditional tendencies, the buckets in the Range Rover Sport feel firmer and less comfortable.
Though you'll find a commanding view forward in either driver seat, the Range Rover Sport maintains an edge in this area. Unusually large windows are one thing that makes a Land Rover a Land Rover.
see full BMW X5 review |
| 2014 BMW X5 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons |
| Year | Comment |
|
Audi and Mercedes both offer much longer SUVs. At least until BMW fields an X7, the X5 is available with an optional third-row seat. Especially considering the size and price of the X5, said third row is absurdly tight, thinly upholstered, and difficult to access. The door openings are small, and the entire second row seat pivots forward and upward off the floor in an only partially successful attempt to compensate. To provide even minimal legroom for those using it, the second row must slide forward a few inches, to the point that its occupants find their own legroom severely compromised. Both rows are too low to the floor for adult comfort.
The third-row seat optional in the Range Rover Sport probably isn't much better, and deletes the spare tire (not available on the BMW regardless). This might explain why it wasn't on the tested vehicle. If you want a usable third row, Land Rover offers the less stylish, but also much less expensive and roomier LR4.
Shift focus to the second-row seat, and I found that in the smaller X3 at least as comfortable, and easier to get into and out of thanks to the more compact vehicle's lower ride height. That in the Range Rover Sport, though also not the roomiest or the most comfortable, is better than the X5's.
see full BMW X5 review |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2014 BMW X5
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2014 BMW X5.
Be the first!
TrueDelta Reviews the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2016 Chevrolet SS
| 2015 |
Despite its slightly more compact exterior, the Chevrolet SS has a roomier back seat than the Dodge Charger. Rear headroom is in unexpectedly short supply in the latter. The Chevrolet also has a couple more inches of rear hiproom, so three adults won't have to get quite as cozy in its back seat.
Both cars have about 16 cubic feet of trunk space. A good amount, but you'll find as much in most midsize sedans. Unlike the Charger's, the SS's rear seat cannot fold to expand the trunk. But a pass-through in the center is far larger than most.
see full Chevrolet SS review |
| 2016 Chevrolet SS Seat Room and Comfort: Cons |
| Year | Comment |
|
The front seats in the Chevrolet SS are comfortable. They also look like they'd provide generous lateral support, but don't, at least not for those of us who aren't built like linebackers. Thankfully the upper seat back features some synthetic suede trim, and this prevents sliding in hard turns. Still, a car with such high handling limits should have seats with much larger and more effective side bolsters--like those available in the Dodge Charger.
see full Chevrolet SS review |
What Our Members Are Saying about the Seat Room and Comfort of the 2016 Chevrolet SS
| 2017 |
4dr Sedan 415-horsepower 6.2L V8
6-speed manual RWD |
Rear seat is functional and roomy. I'm 6'4" and with the drivers seat in my preferred postion there is still a decent amount of legroom behind. Overall much better than the Charger/Challenger.
see full Chevrolet SS review |
| 2016 Chevrolet SS Seat Room and Comfort: Cons |
| Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
| 2017 |
4dr Sedan 415-horsepower 6.2L V8
6-speed manual RWD |
The front seat is just OK. Feels like a pretty flat bottom and fairly hard. Also, for a car with sporting pretentions there is surprisingly little side bolstering.
see full Chevrolet SS review |
See TrueDelta's information for all
SUVsSee TrueDelta's information for all
BMW models.
