Who is lying?
In our own trunk-volume measurements, we often see a gap between what the car maker claims and what the test shows. The source of the discrepancy is measurement technique. Even the same model can have different boot capacities depending on the market where it’s sold.
There are two main standardized methods used globally—the American SAE (J1100_2009) and the European VDA (DIN 70020). The American approach is somewhat tricky. The trunk is filled with real luggage: specified suitcases, bags, and even a golf bag. The guide also determines which clubs must be included.
Volumes are filled from smallest to largest, and any remaining space can be packed with boxes measuring 152 by 114 by 325 millimeters. The standard does not mandate how full the suitcase should be loaded. Consequently, some manufacturers may push the trunk height to the ceiling, creating a paradox where a Ford Focus hatchback appears to hold more cargo than a similar sedan.
In contrast, the European method is more rigid. When a suitcase shares space with the passenger compartment, it must be loaded up to the curtain or shelf. Yet Europe often reports a larger trunk volume, which is advantageous for manufacturer marketing. The European approach uses standard one-liter cubes to fill the space, which tends to maximize the measured volume more efficiently.
Our journal follows a different path. The Dmitrov test site’s experience informs the methodology. Measurements use eight-liter bricks and three types of four-liter cubes with distinct shapes. The test procedure mirrors European practice by loading up to the curtain, and the approach is candid about its aim: to reflect the true capacity of the cargo hold as accurately as possible.
Alternatives used
For every car in our resale assessment, a solid, relatively fresh alternative with the same body style and budget is identified, helping buyers compare options more effectively.
Instead of the new Vesta SW, a two- to three-year-old Kia Ceed SW can be found. A unit with around 50,000 to 60,000 kilometers may cost roughly one and a half million rubles. It is common to see a 1.6-liter engine (around 128 hp) paired with an automatic transmission. Performance isn’t spectacular, but reliability is solid. Before a facelift, basic-engine models often had independent rear suspension; after the update, an elastic beam was used, which had a mixed effect on handling.
For the price of a simpler Rapid, another Czech liftback becomes a viable option — the Octavia. If the current generation is out of reach, the 2019–2020 Octavia A7 offers a reasonable choice, equipped with a 1.4 (150 hp) or a 2.0 (180 hp) turbo engine. The gains are clear: more space, better acceleration, and the potential to tune the chassis. Although the turbo and automated gearbox have recovered from early issues, diagnostics remain a prudent step.
Geely Coolray, with its higher price tag, sits above two million rubles. In that budget range, a second-generation 2018 Mazda CX-5 becomes a compelling alternative, featuring a 2.0-liter engine (about 150 hp), an automatic gearbox, and all-wheel drive. Mazda’s only notable flaw is thin paint, so protecting the body with a film is sensible after a front-end repair.
Geely Coolray performs well on the track and with cornering, which is not always a given for Chinese-made models.
The Lada platform is praised for its robustness. It handles rough roads with ease and remains relatively comfortable on taxi routes, framing a strong base compared with rivals. Even though the PQ35 platform is over a decade old, the Rapid rides with unexpectedly modern poise on smooth pavement.
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS:
| Geely Coolray | Lada Vesta SW Cross | Skoda Rapid | |
| Roadworthy / gross weight | 1415 / 1715 kg | 1350 / 1730 kg | 1227 / 1732 kg |
| Acceleration time 0-100 km/h | 8.4 sec | 11.2 seconds | 9.0 sec |
| Maximum speed | 190 km/h | 180 km/h | 208 km/h |
| Fuel / fuel reserve | AI-92, AI-95 / 45 l | ||
| Fuel economy: urban/extra-urban/combined | 7.8 / 5.4 / 6.4 l/100 km | ||
| ENGINE | |||
| Kind of | petrol | ||
| Place | front, transverse | ||
| Configuration / number of valves | R3 / 12 | ||
| Working volume | 1477 cm3 | ||
| Current | 110 kW / 150 hp at 5500 rpm | ||
| Couple | 255 Nm at 1500-4000 rpm | ||
| TRANSFER | |||
| drive type | front wheel drive | ||
| Transfer | R7 | ||
| Gear ratios: I / II / III / IV / V / VI / VII / zh | 3.53 / 2.81 / 1.4 / 1.05 / 1.09 / 0.86 / 0.73 / 2.91 | ||
| CHASSIS | |||
| Suspension: front / rear | MacPherson / elastic beam | ||
| Brakes: front / rear | disk vented / disk | ||
| Ties | 215/55 R18 | ||
SERVICE IN NUMBERS
| Frequency of maintenance | Guarantee | Dealers | |
| Geely Coolray | 10,000 km or 12 months | 5 years or 150,000 km | 95 |
| Lada Vesta SW Cross | 15,000 km or 12 months | 3 years or 100,000 km | 300 |
| Skoda Rapid | 15,000 km or 12 months | 3 years or 100,000 km | 129 |
TRUNK MEASUREMENTS
| Trunk volume to curtain, l | Trunk volume up to the ceiling, l | Threshold height, mm | Tailgate open height, mm | The maximum size of the long length, mm | Boot opening dimensions: width × height, mm | |
| Geely Coolray | 264 | 348 | 702 | 1758 | 1696 | 1051×869 |
| Lada Vesta SW Cross | 376 | 500 | 737 | 1883 | 1783 | 976×770 |
| Skoda Rapid | 428 | 532 | 717 | 1980 | 1923 | 1009×1041 |
EXPERT RATING OF CARS
| Fashion model | Geely Coolray | Lada Vesta SW Cross | Skoda Rapid |
| Driver’s workplace | |||
| Chair | eight | 9 | 9 |
| Governing Bodies | 9 | eight | 9 |
| Review | eight | eight | eight |
| Salon | |||
| the front of | 9 | 9 | eight |
| Backside | 9 | eight | 9 |
| Trunk | 7 | eight | 9 |
| Driving Performance | |||
| dynamics | 9 | 7 | 9 |
| brakes | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| Manageability | 9 | eight | 9 |
| Noise | eight | eight | eight |
| Smooth operation | eight | 9 | 7 |
| climate | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| geometric patency | eight | 9 | 7 |
| Maintenance | 7 | 9 | eight |
| Exploitation | 7 | eight | eight |
| Overall rating | |||
| Geely Coolray | eight.27 | 8.40 | 8.40 |
Read more from the same outlet in Yandex.Zen.