Trunk comparison: Mazda Mazda CX-5 vs Renault Austral

Key Differences and Implications for Usability

The most noticeable difference is the cargo length with the first row of seats upright: the Mazda CX-5 offers 3.9 in more length (+12%) than the Renault Austral.

This makes the Mazda significantly more practical when transporting long items (e.g., skis, slats, long packages) without folding down the front seats – thus better suited for users who regularly carry longer cargo with passengers.

Another major difference is the depth of the trunk (distance from loading edge → trunk floor): the Renault Austral is 1.2 in deeper (+60%) here. This gives the Austral more usable interior space vertically and allows bulky or taller items to be accommodated better.

At the same time, cargo parts sit deeper in the trunk, which improves stability and stacking but changes the reach feeling when loading and unloading; combined with the slightly higher loading edge of the Austral (only +0.8 in), lifting heavy items can be marginally more strenuous.

Other, smaller differences (under 10%) have less impact in practice: with the interior fully folded down, the Mazda has a 3.9 in (6%) longer loading floor and at the narrowest point a 2.4 in (6%) wider width; the trunk opening is 2.4 in (8%) higher on the Mazda.

The Renault, on the other hand, offers a 2.4 in (6%) wider opening. These deviations can slightly favor handling certain cargo (very wide items, significantly increased opening height) but are less decisive in everyday use than the two differences mentioned above.

Conclusion: Those who regularly transport long items and mostly keep the seats upright benefit more from the Mazda CX-5. Those who need more vertical cargo space for bulky or tall goods and value a deeper loading floor find advantages in the Renault Austral — albeit with slightly increased effort when lifting heavy cargo due to the deeper placement and the marginally higher loading edge.