Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 522 L | - | 9x | 261x | +44L |
1.8 T | 522 L | 51 L to 1 s | 9x | 291x | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 261x |
Difference with world average | +44L |
Vehicle | 1.8 T |
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 51 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 291x |
Difference with world average | +44L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.3 | 480 L | - | 7.5x | 212x | +2L |
2.0 | 480 L | - | 7.5x | 240x | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 212x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 240x |
Difference with world average | +2L |