2018 Regal VI GS
2018 Regal VI Sportback
2014 Regal V Sedan (facelift 2014)
2009 Regal V Sedan
Regal China
1996 Regal IV Sedan
1988 Regal III Sedan
1988 Regal III Coupe
Regal II Coupe (facelift 1981)
1978 Regal II Coupe
1978 Regal II Sedan
1973 Regal I Sedan
1973 Regal I Coupe
1976 Regal I Coupe (facelift 1976)
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.6 V6 | 892 L | - | 14.4x | 250x | +414L |
Vehicle | 3.6 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 892 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 14.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 250x |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 892 L | - | - | 446x | +414L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 892 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | - |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 446x |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 402 L | 60 L to 1 s | 5.7x | 201x | -76L |
2.4 | 402 L | - | 5.9x | 169x | -76L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 402 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 60 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 201x |
Difference with world average | -76L |
Vehicle | 2.4 |
Trunk space | 402 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 169x |
Difference with world average | -76L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 | 314 L | 40 L to 1 s | 5.3x | 132x | -164L |
2.0 | 402 L | - | 5.7x | 201x | -76L |
Vehicle | 2.4 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 314 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 40 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 132x |
Difference with world average | -164L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 402 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 201x |
Difference with world average | -76L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5i V6 | 475 L | 38 L to 1 s | 7.4x | 191x | -3L |
3.0i V6 | 475 L | 46 L to 1 s | 7.4x | 159x | -3L |
2.2 | 473 L | 40 L to 1 s | 6.6x | 216x | -5L |
Vehicle | 2.5i V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 475 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 38 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 191x |
Difference with world average | -3L |
Vehicle | 3.0i V6 |
Trunk space | 475 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 46 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 159x |
Difference with world average | -3L |
Vehicle | 2.2 |
Trunk space | 473 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 40 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 216x |
Difference with world average | -5L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.8 V6 | 473 L | 73 L to 1 s | 7.4x | 125x | -5L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 473 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 73 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 125x |
Difference with world average | -5L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.8 V6 | 447 L | - | 7.2x | 118x | -31L |
3.1 V6 | 447 L | - | 7.2x | 143x | -31L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 447 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 118x |
Difference with world average | -31L |
Vehicle | 3.1 V6 |
Trunk space | 447 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 143x |
Difference with world average | -31L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.8 V6 | 439 L | - | 7.1x | 155x | -39L |
3.8 V6 | 442 L | - | 7.1x | 117x | -36L |
3.1 V6 | 442 L | - | 7.1x | 141x | -36L |
Vehicle | 2.8 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 439 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 155x |
Difference with world average | -39L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
Trunk space | 442 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 117x |
Difference with world average | -36L |
Vehicle | 3.1 V6 |
Trunk space | 442 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 141x |
Difference with world average | -36L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.8 V6 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 121x | -19L |
4.3 V8 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 106x | -19L |
4.3d V6 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 107x | -19L |
5.0 V8 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 91x | -19L |
5.7d V8 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 80x | -19L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 121x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 4.3 V8 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 106x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 4.3d V6 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 107x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 91x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 5.7d V8 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 80x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.3 V8 | 462 L | - | 6.8x | 106x | -16L |
3.8 V6 | 462 L | - | 6.8x | 122x | -16L |
4.9 V8 | 462 L | - | 6.8x | 93x | -16L |
5.0 V8 | 462 L | - | 6.8x | 92x | -16L |
3.2 V6 | 462 L | - | 6.8x | 144x | -16L |
Vehicle | 4.3 V8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 462 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 106x |
Difference with world average | -16L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
Trunk space | 462 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 122x |
Difference with world average | -16L |
Vehicle | 4.9 V8 |
Trunk space | 462 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 93x |
Difference with world average | -16L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 462 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 92x |
Difference with world average | -16L |
Vehicle | 3.2 V6 |
Trunk space | 462 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 144x |
Difference with world average | -16L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.1 V6 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 111x | -19L |
3.8 V6 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 121x | -19L |
5.7d V8 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 80x | -19L |
4.3d V6 | 459 L | - | 6.8x | 107x | -19L |
Vehicle | 4.1 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 111x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 121x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 5.7d V8 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 80x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 4.3d V6 |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 107x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.8 V6 | 413 L | - | 5x | 109x | -65L |
7.5 V8 | 428 L | - | 5.2x | 57x | -50L |
5.7 V8 | 428 L | - | 5.2x | 75x | -50L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 413 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 109x |
Difference with world average | -65L |
Vehicle | 7.5 V8 |
Trunk space | 428 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 57x |
Difference with world average | -50L |
Vehicle | 5.7 V8 |
Trunk space | 428 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 75x |
Difference with world average | -50L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
5.7 V8 | 416 L | - | 5x | 73x | -62L |
7.5 V8 | 416 L | - | 5x | 56x | -62L |
3.8 V6 | 416 L | - | 5x | 110x | -62L |
Vehicle | 5.7 V8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 73x |
Difference with world average | -62L |
Vehicle | 7.5 V8 |
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 56x |
Difference with world average | -62L |
Vehicle | 3.8 V6 |
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 110x |
Difference with world average | -62L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S/R 5.7 V8 | 416 L | - | 5x | 73x | -62L |
S/R 3.8 V6 | 416 L | - | 5x | 110x | -62L |
Vehicle | S/R 5.7 V8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 73x |
Difference with world average | -62L |
Vehicle | S/R 3.8 V6 |
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 110x |
Difference with world average | -62L |