The succeeds in so many ways. It translates the Rolls-Royce look into an SUV, it’s quiet, it’s trimmed in fine materials, and the driving position is “imperious,” as Chris Harris puts it in his newest review. But there’s something that’s odd for such a genuinely huge vehicle: Somehow the engineers ran out of room.

Chris Harris points this out about midway through his review, somewhat incongruously driving through the Rockies here in SUV country. The Cullinan is the most quiet SUV he’s ever been in, and it makes sense for Rolls-Royce to be making it, he points out. The classic Rollers of a hundred years ago drove off road all the time, as there weren’t a ton of roads around.

But what’s odd is that there’s not a ton of space in the trunk. Take a look here. Not super roomy.

“If you have two labradors,” Harris declares, “one will need to be dominant.”

The reason for it isn’t that the Cullinan is small. At 210 inches, it’s half a foot longer than a Chevy Tahoe. It has a couple inches more width, too.

It appears that Rolls-Royce sacrificed rear luggage space in favor of rear legroom. I guess it makes sense that no sane executive would put a Rolls-Royce on sale that didn’t have a roomy back seat, but it all seems a little odd. (If you’re curious, I myself had no problem riding around in the back of a Wraith some while ago.)

Isn’t having to make a choice between one thing or the other inherently un-luxurious? Shouldn’t a Rolls-Royce not have any compromise on room? Shouldn’t an SUV have to have a big trunk, a bit of practicality even on something costing $325,000?