Looking at the current Mazda lineup the replacement for the Mazda6 (29 mpg) is the CX-50 which adds AWD and gets 28 mpg or 38 mpg for the hybrid. I was suprised

Looking at the current Mazda lineup the replacement for the Mazda6 (29 mpg) is the CX-50 which adds AWD and gets 28 mpg or 38 mpg for the hybrid. I was suprised the Mazda6 would have so much more cargo area but in the spec sheet it lists 22 ft vs 31 for the CX-50. So to me the CX-50 looks like more capacity in about the same physical and carbon footprint, what am I missing here? In Toyota's lineup the RAV4 is basically a tall Camry, and in Subaru's lineup the Outback kind of just got a bit taller and reclassified as a crossover alternative to the Legacy. Of course these companies all have larger and smaller options, but in general it seems like the adoption of larger vehicles is not because smaller ones aren't available, it's because for various reasons customers want to buy them. In any case worrying about exactly what vehicle mix is selling to me feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.