Trunk Dimensions

Home » Comparisons » Trunk comparison: Opel Grandland vs Peugeot 308 SW 3-row

Trunk comparison: Opel Grandland vs Peugeot 308 SW 3-row

Comparison of trunk dimensions for the Opel Grandland and Peugeot 308 SW 3-row
Comparison of trunk dimensions for the Opel Grandland and Peugeot 308 SW 3-row

Key Differences

When it comes to usable cargo space, the picture is mixed: With the seats folded down, the Opel Grandland offers a longer trunk than the Peugeot (+9.4 in / +17%), while the Peugeot is longer with the "first row upright" condition than the Opel (+7.5 in / +21%).

When all seats are upright, the Grandland is significantly larger (+21.3 in / +154%).

Regarding the geometry of the loading area, the Grandland stands out with a significantly greater depth of the cargo floor (distance from loading edge → trunk floor) (+4.7 in / +300%) and a considerably higher loading lip above the road (+8.7 in / +39%).

The width at the narrowest point is the same for both; the trunk opening of the Peugeot is only slightly wider and a bit taller (+2 in / +5% and +3.1 in / +10%), these values are below or at the 10% mark and are therefore not emphasized.

Impact on Practical Use

For long items and large luggage: If the goal is maximum cargo length with all seats folded down, the Grandland is advantageous due to its longer loading floor.

The same applies when all seats must remain upright — here the Grandland clearly has the larger storage space, making it more practical for transports where seating must be preserved.

For flexible use with partially upright seating: If the first row remains upright and longer items still need to be loaded, the Peugeot has the advantage (longer cargo space in this condition).

When loading and unloading heavy or bulky items, the geometry differences are crucial: The higher loading lip of the Grandland (+8.7 in) increases the effort required to lift items, and the greater "depth" of the trunk can facilitate sliding items in or require deeper placement.

The slightly higher opening height and marginally larger opening width of the Peugeot, on the other hand, favor easier fitting of tall or wide items.

Conclusion: The Grandland offers overall more storage space in seating configurations often relevant in everyday use (especially with upright seats), but is less ergonomic to load due to the higher loading lip and deeper cargo floor.

The Peugeot scores with a more accessible opening and, in certain seating configurations, longer usable length, making it more practical for easy loading/unloading and for long items with the first row upright.