Audi 80 Trunk Space in Quick-to-Read Graphs

Average space for all generations

Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

    • Trunk capacity for generation: 428 L
    • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 9.5 pcs
    • Amount of average suitcases: 4.3 pcs
    • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 85.6 L
    • Max trunk load: 79 kg
    • Interior transformation: limited
    • Horsepower to trunk space: 3.3 L to 1 hp
    • Torque to trunk capacity: 2.2 to 1 Nm
    • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 2.6 E V6 : 2.8 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • 2.3 E : 3.2 L/hp (4.4 L/kW)
  • 2.8 V6 E : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)
  • 1.9 TDI : 4.7 L/hp (6.4 L/kW)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 3.1 L/hp (4.2 L/kW)
  • 2.0 E : 3.7 L/hp (5.1 L/kW)
  • 2.2 S2 : 1.9 L/hp (2.5 L/kW)
  • 1.6 E : 4.3 L/hp (5.8 L/kW)
  • 1.6 : 6.1 L/hp (8.3 L/kW)
  • 2.0 : 4.8 L/hp (6.5 L/kW)
  • 1.9 TD : 5.7 L/hp (7.8 L/kW)
  • 2.6 V6 : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • 2.8 E V6 : 2.5 L/hp (3.4 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 2.6 E V6 : 2 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • 2.3 E : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • 2.8 V6 E : 1.95 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • 1.9 TDI : 2.44 L/km-h (1.52 L/mph)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 2.13 L/km-h (1.32 L/mph)
  • 2.0 E : 2.26 L/km-h (1.4 L/mph)
  • 2.2 S2 : 1.75 L/km-h (1.09 L/mph)
  • 1.6 E : 2.36 L/km-h (1.47 L/mph)
  • 1.6 : 2.53 L/km-h (1.57 L/mph)
  • 2.0 : 2.47 L/km-h (1.53 L/mph)
  • 1.9 TD : 2.65 L/km-h (1.65 L/mph)
  • 2.6 V6 : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • 2.8 E V6 : 1.95 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 2.6 E V6 : 49.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.3 E : 46.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.8 V6 E : 47.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 TDI : 81.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 45.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 E : 48.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.2 S2 : 42.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 E : 50x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 : 61.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 : 48.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 TD : 64.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.6 V6 : 43.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.8 E V6 : 43.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    2.6 E V6 425 L 48 L to 1 s 6.6x 164x -53L
    2.3 E 430 L 46 L to 1 s 6.5x 186x -48L
    2.8 V6 E 425 L 49 L to 1 s 6.4x 153x -53L
    1.9 TDI 425 L 32 L to 1 s 6.4x 224x -53L
    2.0 E 16V 430 L 46 L to 1 s 6.7x 217x -48L
    2.0 E 430 L 38 L to 1 s 6.7x 217x -48L
    2.2 S2 430 L 75 L to 1 s 6.7x 193x -48L
    1.6 E 430 L 34 L to 1 s - 270x -48L
    1.6 425 L 32 L to 1 s 6.4x 266x -53L
    2.0 430 L 28 L to 1 s 6.5x 217x -48L
    1.9 TD 430 L 26 L to 1 s 6.5x 227x -48L
    2.6 V6 430 L 48 L to 1 s 6.7x 166x -48L
    2.8 E V6 430 L 57 L to 1 s 6.7x 155x -48L
    Vehicle 2.6 E V6
    Trunk space 425 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 164x
    Difference with world average -53L
    Vehicle 2.3 E
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 186x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 2.8 V6 E
    Trunk space 425 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 49 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 153x
    Difference with world average -53L
    Vehicle 1.9 TDI
    Trunk space 425 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 32 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 224x
    Difference with world average -53L
    Vehicle 2.0 E 16V
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 217x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 2.0 E
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 38 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 217x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 2.2 S2
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 75 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 193x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 1.6 E
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 34 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size -
    Trunk space to engine capacity 270x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 1.6
    Trunk space 425 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 32 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 266x
    Difference with world average -53L
    Vehicle 2.0
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 28 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 217x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 1.9 TD
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 26 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 227x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 2.6 V6
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 166x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle 2.8 E V6
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 155x
    Difference with world average -48L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 370 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 8.2 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 3.7 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 74 L
      • Max trunk load: 81 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.6 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.8 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 2.6 V6 : 2.5 L/hp (3.4 L/kW)
  • 1.9 TDI : 4.9 L/hp (6.7 L/kW)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 2.6 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • 2.3 E : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • 2.0 E : 3.2 L/hp (4.4 L/kW)
  • 2.8 V6 E : 2.1 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • 2.0 : 4.1 L/hp (5.6 L/kW)
  • 1.6 E : 3.7 L/hp (5 L/kW)
  • 1.9 TD : 4.9 L/hp (6.7 L/kW)
  • 2.2 RS2 : 1.2 L/hp (1.6 L/kW)
  • 2.8 E V6 : 2.1 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 2.6 V6 : 1.79 L/km-h (1.11 L/mph)
  • 1.9 TDI : 2.31 L/km-h (1.44 L/mph)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • 2.3 E : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • 2.0 E : 1.99 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • 2.8 V6 E : 1.7 L/km-h (1.06 L/mph)
  • 2.0 : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • 1.6 E : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • 1.9 TD : 2.28 L/km-h (1.42 L/mph)
  • 2.2 RS2 : 1.41 L/km-h (0.88 L/mph)
  • 2.8 E V6 : 1.72 L/km-h (1.07 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 2.6 V6 : 39.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 TDI : 56.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 40.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.3 E : 43x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 E : 48.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.8 V6 E : 41.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 : 44x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 TD : 55.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.2 RS2 : 34.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.8 E V6 : 37.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    2.6 V6 370 L 41 L to 1 s 5.7x 142x -108L
    1.9 TDI 370 L 21 L to 1 s - 195x -108L
    2.0 E 16V 370 L 40 L to 1 s 5.6x 186x -108L
    2.3 E 370 L 39 L to 1 s 5.7x 160x -108L
    2.0 E 370 L 32 L to 1 s 5.6x 186x -108L
    2.8 V6 E 370 L 43 L to 1 s 5.6x 134x -108L
    2.0 370 L 28 L to 1 s 5.6x 186x -108L
    1.6 E 370 L - 5.6x 232x -108L
    1.9 TD 370 L 22 L to 1 s 5.6x 195x -108L
    2.2 RS2 370 L 67 L to 1 s 5.8x 166x -108L
    2.8 E V6 370 L 47 L to 1 s 5.8x 134x -108L
    Vehicle 2.6 V6
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 41 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 142x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 1.9 TDI
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 21 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size -
    Trunk space to engine capacity 195x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.0 E 16V
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 40 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 186x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.3 E
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 39 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 160x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.0 E
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 32 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 186x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.8 V6 E
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 134x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.0
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 28 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 186x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 1.6 E
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio -
    Trunk space to tank size 5.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 232x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 1.9 TD
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 22 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 195x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.2 RS2
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 67 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 166x
    Difference with world average -108L
    Vehicle 2.8 E V6
    Trunk space 370 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 134x
    Difference with world average -108L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 412 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 9.2 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.1 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 82.4 L
      • Max trunk load: 69 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 4.2 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 2.7 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 1.6 CAT : 6.9 L/hp (9.5 L/kW)
  • 1.8 S : 5.4 L/hp (7.3 L/kW)
  • 2.3 E : 1.7 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • 1.9 D : 7.1 L/hp (9.7 L/kW)
  • 1.6 TD : 6.1 L/hp (8.2 L/kW)
  • 1.8 CAT : 4.2 L/hp (5.7 L/kW)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 2.7 L/hp (3.7 L/kW)
  • 2.0 CAT : 3.3 L/hp (4.6 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 1.6 CAT : 2.89 L/km-h (1.8 L/mph)
  • 1.8 S : 2.72 L/km-h (1.69 L/mph)
  • 2.3 E : 1.11 L/km-h (0.69 L/mph)
  • 1.9 D : 2.94 L/km-h (1.83 L/mph)
  • 1.6 TD : 2.79 L/km-h (1.73 L/mph)
  • 1.8 CAT : 2.06 L/km-h (1.28 L/mph)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 1.8 L/km-h (1.12 L/mph)
  • 2.0 CAT : 1.91 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 1.6 CAT : 65.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 S : 57.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 D : 86.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 TD : 91.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 CAT : 42.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 E 16V : 40.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 CAT : 44.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    1.6 CAT 485 L 36 L to 1 s 7.1x 304x +7L
    1.8 S 485 L 35 L to 1 s 7.1x 272x +7L
    2.3 E 229 L 27 L to 1 s 3.3x 99x -249L
    1.9 D 485 L 30 L to 1 s 7.1x 256x +7L
    1.6 TD 485 L 35 L to 1 s 7.1x 305x +7L
    1.8 CAT 375 L 29 L to 1 s 5.4x 211x -103L
    2.0 E 16V 375 L 44 L to 1 s 5.4x 189x -103L
    2.0 CAT 375 L 33 L to 1 s 5.4x 189x -103L
    Vehicle 1.6 CAT
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 36 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 304x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8 S
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 2.3 E
    Trunk space 229 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 27 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 3.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 99x
    Difference with world average -249L
    Vehicle 1.9 D
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 30 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 256x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.6 TD
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 305x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8 CAT
    Trunk space 375 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 29 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 211x
    Difference with world average -103L
    Vehicle 2.0 E 16V
    Trunk space 375 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 44 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 189x
    Difference with world average -103L
    Vehicle 2.0 CAT
    Trunk space 375 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 33 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 189x
    Difference with world average -103L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 448 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.5 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 89.6 L
      • Max trunk load: 65 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 4.8 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 3 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 1.8 S : 5.4 L/hp (7.3 L/kW)
  • 2.0 E : 4.3 L/hp (5.8 L/kW)
  • 1.8 E : 4.3 L/hp (5.9 L/kW)
  • 1.6 D : 9 L/hp (12.1 L/kW)
  • 1.8 CAT : 6.5 L/hp (8.8 L/kW)
  • 1.6 : 6.5 L/hp (8.8 L/kW)
  • 2.3 : 1.7 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • 1.6 CAT : 6.9 L/hp (9.5 L/kW)
  • 1.6 TD : 6.1 L/hp (8.2 L/kW)
  • 1.8 E CAT : 4.3 L/hp (5.8 L/kW)
  • 1.8 : 3.3 L/hp (4.5 L/kW)
  • 1.9 D : 7.1 L/hp (9.7 L/kW)
  • 2.0 : 3.3 L/hp (4.5 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 1.8 S : 2.66 L/km-h (1.65 L/mph)
  • 2.0 E : 2.47 L/km-h (1.53 L/mph)
  • 1.8 E : 2.5 L/km-h (1.55 L/mph)
  • 1.6 D : 3.17 L/km-h (1.97 L/mph)
  • 1.8 CAT : 2.79 L/km-h (1.73 L/mph)
  • 1.6 : 2.85 L/km-h (1.77 L/mph)
  • 2.3 : 1.11 L/km-h (0.69 L/mph)
  • 1.6 CAT : 2.89 L/km-h (1.8 L/mph)
  • 1.6 TD : 2.62 L/km-h (1.63 L/mph)
  • 1.8 E CAT : 2.47 L/km-h (1.53 L/mph)
  • 1.8 : 1.91 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)
  • 1.9 D : 2.94 L/km-h (1.83 L/mph)
  • 2.0 : 1.91 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 1.8 S : 63x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 E : 64.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 E : 63.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 D : 86.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 CAT : 65.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 : 65.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 CAT : 67.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 TD : 93.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 E CAT : 64.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 : 45.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 D : 86.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 : 44.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    1.8 S 485 L 42 L to 1 s 7.1x 272x +7L
    2.0 E 485 L 47 L to 1 s 7.1x 244x +7L
    1.8 E 485 L 53 L to 1 s 7.1x 272x +7L
    1.6 D 485 L 23 L to 1 s 7.1x 305x +7L
    1.8 CAT 485 L 37 L to 1 s 7.1x 272x +7L
    1.6 485 L 37 L to 1 s 7.1x 304x +7L
    2.3 229 L 27 L to 1 s 3.3x 99x -249L
    1.6 CAT 485 L 36 L to 1 s 7.1x 304x +7L
    1.6 TD 485 L 35 L to 1 s 7.1x 305x +7L
    1.8 E CAT 485 L 49 L to 1 s 7.1x 263x +7L
    1.8 375 L 35 L to 1 s 5.5x 203x -103L
    1.9 D 485 L 30 L to 1 s 7.1x 256x +7L
    2.0 375 L 34 L to 1 s 5.5x 189x -103L
    Vehicle 1.8 S
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 42 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 2.0 E
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 244x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8 E
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 53 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.6 D
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 23 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 305x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8 CAT
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 37 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.6
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 37 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 304x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 2.3
    Trunk space 229 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 27 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 3.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 99x
    Difference with world average -249L
    Vehicle 1.6 CAT
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 36 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 304x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.6 TD
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 305x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8 E CAT
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 49 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 263x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8
    Trunk space 375 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 203x
    Difference with world average -103L
    Vehicle 1.9 D
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 30 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 256x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 2.0
    Trunk space 375 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 34 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 189x
    Difference with world average -103L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 522 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 11.6 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 5.2 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 104.4 L
      • Max trunk load: 60 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 6.3 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 3.9 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 1.6 D : 10 L/hp (13.5 L/kW)
  • 1.6 C : 7.2 L/hp (9.8 L/kW)
  • 1.6 TD : 7.7 L/hp (10.6 L/kW)
  • 2.0 CAT : 4.3 L/hp (5.9 L/kW)
  • 1.8 CC : 6 L/hp (8.2 L/kW)
  • 1.3 C : 9 L/hp (12.3 L/kW)
  • 1.8 GTE : 4.8 L/hp (6.6 L/kW)
  • 1.8 GT : 5 L/hp (6.8 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 1.6 D : 3.75 L/km-h (2.33 L/mph)
  • 1.6 C : 3.31 L/km-h (2.06 L/mph)
  • 1.6 TD : 3.38 L/km-h (2.1 L/mph)
  • 2.0 CAT : 2.47 L/km-h (1.53 L/mph)
  • 1.8 CC : 3.25 L/km-h (2.02 L/mph)
  • 1.3 C : 3.58 L/km-h (2.22 L/mph)
  • 1.8 GTE : 2.89 L/km-h (1.8 L/mph)
  • 1.8 GT : 2.66 L/km-h (1.65 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 1.6 D : 85.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 C : 65.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 TD : 90x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 CAT : 64.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 CC : 65.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.3 C : 80.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 GTE : 65.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 GT : 50.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    1.6 D 540 L 29 L to 1 s 7.9x 340x +62L
    1.6 C 540 L 44 L to 1 s 7.9x 339x +62L
    1.6 TD 540 L 39 L to 1 s 7.9x 340x +62L
    2.0 CAT 485 L 47 L to 1 s 7.1x 244x +7L
    1.8 CC 540 L 43 L to 1 s 7.9x 303x +62L
    1.3 C 540 L 37 L to 1 s 7.9x 416x +62L
    1.8 GTE 540 L 62 L to 1 s 7.9x 303x +62L
    1.8 GT 452 L 40 L to 1 s 6.5x 254x -26L
    Vehicle 1.6 D
    Trunk space 540 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 29 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 340x
    Difference with world average +62L
    Vehicle 1.6 C
    Trunk space 540 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 44 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 339x
    Difference with world average +62L
    Vehicle 1.6 TD
    Trunk space 540 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 39 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 340x
    Difference with world average +62L
    Vehicle 2.0 CAT
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 244x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.8 CC
    Trunk space 540 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 303x
    Difference with world average +62L
    Vehicle 1.3 C
    Trunk space 540 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 37 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 416x
    Difference with world average +62L
    Vehicle 1.8 GTE
    Trunk space 540 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 62 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 303x
    Difference with world average +62L
    Vehicle 1.8 GT
    Trunk space 452 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 40 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 254x
    Difference with world average -26L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 484 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.8 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.8 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 96.8 L
      • Max trunk load: 60 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 5 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 3.4 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 2.1 : 4.4 L/hp (5.9 L/kW)
  • 1.8 CL : 5.6 L/hp (7.7 L/kW)
  • 1.6 TD : 7.2 L/hp (9.9 L/kW)
  • 1.6 D : 9.4 L/hp (12.6 L/kW)
  • 1.9 CD 5S : 4.4 L/hp (5.9 L/kW)
  • 2.0 CD : 4.4 L/hp (5.9 L/kW)
  • 1.8 : 6.5 L/hp (8.9 L/kW)
  • 1.6 : 5.9 L/hp (8 L/kW)
  • 1.8 GTE : 4.5 L/hp (6.2 L/kW)
  • 1.3 : 8.3 L/hp (11.4 L/kW)
  • 1.6 GLE : 4.5 L/hp (6.2 L/kW)
  • 2.0 : 3.2 L/hp (4.4 L/kW)
  • 2.2 : 2.7 L/hp (3.7 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 2.1 : 2.89 L/km-h (1.8 L/mph)
  • 1.8 CL : 2.97 L/km-h (1.85 L/mph)
  • 1.6 TD : 3.2 L/km-h (1.99 L/mph)
  • 1.6 D : 3.51 L/km-h (2.18 L/mph)
  • 1.9 CD 5S : 2.79 L/km-h (1.73 L/mph)
  • 2.0 CD : 2.74 L/km-h (1.7 L/mph)
  • 1.8 : 3.26 L/km-h (2.03 L/mph)
  • 1.6 : 3.06 L/km-h (1.9 L/mph)
  • 1.8 GTE : 2.74 L/km-h (1.7 L/mph)
  • 1.3 : 3.38 L/km-h (2.1 L/mph)
  • 1.6 GLE : 2.78 L/km-h (1.73 L/mph)
  • 2.0 : 2.02 L/km-h (1.26 L/mph)
  • 2.2 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 2.1 : 44.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 CL : 63.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 TD : 80.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 D : 75.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.9 CD 5S : 58x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 CD : 59.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 : 65.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 : 56.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.8 GTE : 58.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.3 : 61x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 GLE : 54.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 : 37.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.2 : 37.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    2.1 505 L - 7.4x 236x +27L
    1.8 CL 505 L 48 L to 1 s 7.4x 284x +27L
    1.6 TD 505 L 38 L to 1 s 7.4x 318x +27L
    1.6 D 505 L 27 L to 1 s 7.4x 318x +27L
    1.9 CD 5S 505 L 52 L to 1 s 7.4x 263x +27L
    2.0 CD 505 L 54 L to 1 s 7.4x 253x +27L
    1.8 505 L - 7.4x 294x +27L
    1.6 505 L 44 L to 1 s 7.4x 318x +27L
    1.8 GTE 505 L 58 L to 1 s 7.4x 284x +27L
    1.3 500 L 31 L to 1 s 7.4x 393x +22L
    1.6 GLE 500 L 52 L to 1 s 7.4x 315x +22L
    2.0 371 L 38 L to 1 s 5.3x 186x -107L
    2.2 371 L 43 L to 1 s 5.3x 173x -107L
    Vehicle 2.1
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio -
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 236x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.8 CL
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 284x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.6 TD
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 38 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 318x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.6 D
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 27 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 318x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.9 CD 5S
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 52 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 263x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 2.0 CD
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 54 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 253x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.8
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio -
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 294x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.6
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 44 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 318x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.8 GTE
    Trunk space 505 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 284x
    Difference with world average +27L
    Vehicle 1.3
    Trunk space 500 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 31 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 393x
    Difference with world average +22L
    Vehicle 1.6 GLE
    Trunk space 500 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 52 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 315x
    Difference with world average +22L
    Vehicle 2.0
    Trunk space 371 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 38 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 186x
    Difference with world average -107L
    Vehicle 2.2
    Trunk space 371 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 173x
    Difference with world average -107L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 432 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 9.6 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.3 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 86.4 L
      • Max trunk load: 51 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 5.3 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 3.7 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 1.6 GLS : 5.8 L/hp (7.9 L/kW)
  • 1.3 : 7.2 L/hp (9.8 L/kW)
  • 1.6 GTE : 3.9 L/hp (5.3 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 1.6 GLS : 2.7 L/km-h (1.68 L/mph)
  • 1.3 : 2.94 L/km-h (1.83 L/mph)
  • 1.6 GTE : 2.39 L/km-h (1.49 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 1.6 GLS : 43.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.3 : 47x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 GTE : 49.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    1.6 GLS 432 L 35 L to 1 s 9.6x 272x -46L
    1.3 432 L 29 L to 1 s 9.6x 333x -46L
    1.6 GTE 432 L 50 L to 1 s 9.6x 272x -46L
    Vehicle 1.6 GLS
    Trunk space 432 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average -46L
    Vehicle 1.3
    Trunk space 432 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 29 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 333x
    Difference with world average -46L
    Vehicle 1.6 GTE
    Trunk space 432 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 50 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average -46L

    Quick notes on Audi 80 trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 447 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 9.9 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.5 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 89.4 L
      • Max trunk load: 53 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 5 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 3.5 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 1.5 : 5.3 L/hp (7.1 L/kW)
  • 1.6 : 5.8 L/hp (7.9 L/kW)
  • 2.0 CAT : 4.3 L/hp (5.9 L/kW)
  • 1.3 : 7.5 L/hp (10.2 L/kW)
  • 1.6 GL : 5.1 L/hp (6.9 L/kW)
  • 1.6 GT : 4.5 L/hp (6.1 L/kW)
  • 1.6 GTE : 3.9 L/hp (5.3 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 1.5 : 2.65 L/km-h (1.65 L/mph)
  • 1.6 : 2.7 L/km-h (1.68 L/mph)
  • 2.0 CAT : 2.53 L/km-h (1.57 L/mph)
  • 1.3 : 3.06 L/km-h (1.9 L/mph)
  • 1.6 GL : 2.54 L/km-h (1.58 L/mph)
  • 1.6 GT : 2.57 L/km-h (1.6 L/mph)
  • 1.6 GTE : 2.39 L/km-h (1.49 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 1.5 : 44.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 : 42.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 CAT : 58.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.3 : 47.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 GL : 42.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 GT : 41.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 1.6 GTE : 48.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    1.5 450 L 38 L to 1 s 10x 306x -28L
    1.6 432 L 35 L to 1 s 9.6x 272x -46L
    2.0 CAT 485 L 39 L to 1 s 7.1x 244x +7L
    1.3 450 L 28 L to 1 s 10x 347x -28L
    1.6 GL 432 L 39 L to 1 s 9.6x 272x -46L
    1.6 GT 450 L 46 L to 1 s 10x 283x -28L
    1.6 GTE 432 L 50 L to 1 s 9.6x 272x -46L
    Vehicle 1.5
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 38 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 10x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 306x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle 1.6
    Trunk space 432 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average -46L
    Vehicle 2.0 CAT
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 39 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 244x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle 1.3
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 28 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 10x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 347x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle 1.6 GL
    Trunk space 432 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 39 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average -46L
    Vehicle 1.6 GT
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 10x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 283x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle 1.6 GTE
    Trunk space 432 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 50 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 272x
    Difference with world average -46L