[AYP]

Here is my opinion on this situation-

When it comes to the 60-40 split discussion, I am of the firm belief that the 60% split should be present diagonal to the driver.

In India's case, it should be on the left side of the rear bench. Why you ask me? Well, most of the chauffeur driven owners are usually supposed to sit diagonal to the driver so that they can get the best legroom possible by adjusting the passenger's seat. Plus you can get a view of the driver instrument console which I'd say is a better view than staring at an empty passenger's seat.

If the 60% split is on the left side, then the rear passenger can enjoy better comfort especially if the rear seat can be reclined as the middle armrest portion also moves along with the whole setup. If you are seated on the 40% part of the seat and recline your seat, then the armrest will stay fixed in its place and it will be at an awkward angle for you to rest your hand at.

If the rear seat is non-adjustable, then perhaps the difference would be minuscule but still present.

[SmartCat]

In hatchbacks, 5 seat SUVs and sedans, it really does not matter if 60% split is on the left or right side. That's because the objective of seat split is to carry extra luggage (or long items) and still carry 3 passengers in comfort.

But in 7 seat MPVs and SUVs, 60% split should be behind the driver's seat and 40% behind the front passenger seat.



That's because - from safety point of view - ingress/egress for 3rd row passengers should be from the left side of the car. And it is lot easier to tumble down the smaller (40% split) and lighter seat behind the front passenger.

[blackwasp]

Voted for the 40% to be on the left. My reason, when carrying a long object, the 40 split + reclining / pushing forward the front passenger seat can liberate even more space.

One more reason - in my Abarth, the rear seats fold + tumble. So if the 40% was on the left side, I could have it tumbled without affecting driver leg space. Currently, if I tumble the 60%, it doesn't allow the front seats to be moved back as much as I would like.

[McLaren Rulez]

I'd add a third poll option that it makes no difference.

[silverado]

60% part has to be behind driver, else how do you carry long objects and people at the same time?

Many Indian hatchbacks don't fold flat and this is what I most dislike about these split seats.

In my 3 year ownership, I have used the split function only 2 times.
Would like know from others as well, as to how often they use it?

[AdityaDeane]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

In hatchbacks, 5 seat SUVs and sedans, it really does not matter if 60% split is on the left or right side. That's because the objective of seat split is to carry extra luggage (or long items) and still carry 3 passengers in comfort.

But in 7 seat MPVs and SUVs, 60% split should be behind the driver's seat and 40% behind the front passenger seat.

Attachment 1870455

That's because - from safety point of view - ingress/egress for 3rd row passengers should be from the left side of the car. And it is lot easier to tumble down the smaller (40% split) and lighter seat behind the front passenger.

This is the most logical position with respect to the practicality of 60:40 Split Seats and ingress for 3rd row in vehicles with 3 rows of seats. But even in smaller cars, I love this arrangement as it is!!

Voted for 60% seat should be on the right and 40% on the left!!

[knightrider_7]

Voted for 60% behind driver.

I am a big fan of this feature because I have used this feature of Wagon R (2014) extensively. Remove headrests of front passenger and rear 40% , slide the front passenger seat to maximum forward position, and you will get enough space in the middle to carry even a gas cylinder!

Sad to see nowadays it is considered as a luxury feature. Manufacturers calls their vehicle UV (with C/CS/S/M in front), and doesn't provide the basic utility they can offer in the vehicle.

[artemis_fowl]

To me, it really does not make a difference (but only because I have never used the feature in my car). This argument is subjective with suitable arguments from each side.
However, I do agree with Smartcat as to the positioning of 40:60 seat split for MPVs from a safety point of view.
One advantage of any type of seat split is that it is more convenient (if combined with a seat recline function). Some examples I can think of are older models of EcoSport, Jazz, WagonR. The passenger can only recline his own seat without disturbing others.

Any arguments in favour of a 50:50 seat split? IIRC, the first-gen WagonR had it.
Also, let us also consider 40:20:40 split seats (I think it is present in the Kodiaq). Can people please comment on its versatility and practicality?

[King_pin09]

Well, I do not favour / recommend carrying extra long items in a car the accommodation of which mandates folding any portion of the rear seat. These items are usually unsecured and may turn projectiles in cases of hard braking/ rapid deceleration and cause injury to the front passenger/ driver or cause damage to the car components such as windshield, windows, etc. To me, the luggage has to be firmly secured and remain in the boot itself. I do not even favour the concept of handling boot luggage sitting on passenger seat while the car is in motion.

The only instance where the 60:40 split comes to use is when it is practically not feasible to access the boot from outside either due the inclement conditions, or when the car is in a wildlife area, or when traversing a notorious stretch during night etc. In any case the car has to be stopped completely before the split seat is operated. Now, the rear passenger can comfortably position himself / herself to a location and operate either the 60% or the 40% portion based on the size of the luggage to be accessed. However in case of an MPV, I tend to concide with the explanation given by Smartcat.

As such, in my opinion, it does not matter as which fraction stays where, what is more important is that the provision has to be there.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by artemis_fowl

Any arguments in favour of a 50:50 seat split? IIRC, the first-gen WagonR had it. Also, let us also consider 40:20:40 split seats (I think it is present in the Kodiaq). Can people please comment on its versatility and practicality?

Wagon R (all entry level hatchbacks actually) is too narrow to do a 40:60 split. That is, no passenger can sit on 40% side. Passenger sitting on 60% side would be a waste of cargo space. That's why 1st gen Wagon R offered 50:50 split



I think most VW/Skoda cars offer 40:20:40 split (or atleast a "hole" in the middle). This allows you to carry skis along with 4 passengers.

[GeeTee TSI]

Voted for 60% seat behind the driver.

One (hypothetical) reasoning is that by flipping two seats (front left and rear 40%) one can carry a really long piece of furniture or a surfboard This still retains at a pinch, two useable seats at the rear

[aabhimanyu04]

voted left side, much easier to look back at your cycle/pets, fragile items etc. during short traffic signal breaks.

[SamitMukherjee]

Voted for 60% split diagonal to the driver. In this case the front passenger seat can also be reclined to optimise carrying capacity. Also it is easier for the driver to keep an eye on the luggage.

[adi.mariner]

I have used the collapsible rear seat feature on my (previously owned) Swift only once to carry my Daughter's plastic slide. Other than that the Boot or Rear Seat has been sufficient. So voted for "Does not matter/not important." The rear seat should be collapsible, that's important.

[itwasntme]

Voted for the 60% to be behind the driver because it allows for safer ingress/egress for the occupant sitting in the 40%, i.e. the upright portion.

Let me illustrate by the second picture where my son occupied the 40% portion, and could easily & safely access the rear door on the correct footpath side. For me, this is the correct implementation of this idea.

Further, I use the 60/40 feature + full seats down very frequently as I routinely ferry big items (don't ask me why )