Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 | 396 L | - | 5.7x | - | -82L |
3.5 V6 | 396 L | - | 5.7x | - | -82L |
Vehicle | 2.4 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 396 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | - |
Difference with world average | -82L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 396 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | - |
Difference with world average | -82L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 | 892 L | - | 12.7x | - | +414L |
Vehicle | 2.4 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 892 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | - |
Difference with world average | +414L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 i 16V | 354 L | 50 L to 1 s | 5.4x | 150x | -124L |
Vehicle | 2.4 i 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 354 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 150x |
Difference with world average | -124L |