2018 F-150 XIII SuperCab (facelift 2018)
2018 F-150 XIII Regular Cab (facelift 2018)
2018 F-150 XIII SuperCrew (facelift 2018)
2015 F-150 XIII Regular Cab
2015 F-150 XIII SuperCab
2015 F-150 XIII SuperCrew
2009 F-150 XII Regular Cab
2009 F-150 XII SuperCab
2009 F-150 XII SuperCrew
1999 F-150 X SuperCrew
1997 F-150 X Regular Cab
1997 F-150 X SuperCab
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Raptor 3.5 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 428x | +1017L |
2.7 V6 | 1764 L | - | 20.3x | 656x | +1286L |
3.3 V6 | 1764 L | - | 20.3x | 535x | +1286L |
3.5 V6 | 1764 L | - | 20.3x | 505x | +1286L |
5.0 V8 | 1764 L | - | 20.3x | 356x | +1286L |
Vehicle | Raptor 3.5 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 428x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 2.7 V6 |
Trunk space | 1764 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 20.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 656x |
Difference with world average | +1286L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 1764 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 20.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 535x |
Difference with world average | +1286L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 1764 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 20.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 505x |
Difference with world average | +1286L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 1764 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 20.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 356x |
Difference with world average | +1286L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.7 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 556x | +1017L |
3.3 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 453x | +1017L |
5.0 V8 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 302x | +1017L |
3.5 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 428x | +1017L |
Vehicle | 2.7 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 556x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 453x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 302x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 428x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Raptor 3.5 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 428x | +1017L |
2.7 V6 | 2192 L | - | 25.2x | 815x | +1714L |
3.3 V6 | 2192 L | - | 25.2x | 664x | +1714L |
3.5 V6 | 2192 L | - | 25.2x | 628x | +1714L |
5.0 V8 | 2192 L | - | 25.2x | 443x | +1714L |
Vehicle | Raptor 3.5 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 428x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 2.7 V6 |
Trunk space | 2192 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 25.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 815x |
Difference with world average | +1714L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 2192 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 25.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 664x |
Difference with world average | +1714L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 2192 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 25.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 628x |
Difference with world average | +1714L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 2192 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 25.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 443x |
Difference with world average | +1714L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.7 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 556x | +1017L |
3.5 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 425x | +1017L |
5.0 V8 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 302x | +1017L |
Vehicle | 2.7 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 556x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 425x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 302x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.7 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 556x | +1017L |
5.0 V8 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 302x | +1017L |
3.5 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 425x | +1017L |
Vehicle | 2.7 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 556x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 302x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 425x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.5 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 425x | +1017L |
2.7 V6 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 556x | +1017L |
5.0 V8 | 1495 L | - | 17.2x | 302x | +1017L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 425x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 2.7 V6 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 556x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | 5.0 V8 |
Trunk space | 1495 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 302x |
Difference with world average | +1017L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.6 V8 | 1685 L | - | 17.2x | 366x | +1207L |
5.4 V8 | 1685 L | - | 17.2x | 312x | +1207L |
Vehicle | 4.6 V8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1685 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 366x |
Difference with world average | +1207L |
Vehicle | 5.4 V8 |
Trunk space | 1685 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 312x |
Difference with world average | +1207L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.6 V8 | 1572 L | - | 16x | 341x | +1094L |
5.4 V8 | 1572 L | - | 16x | 291x | +1094L |
Vehicle | 4.6 V8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1572 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 16x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 341x |
Difference with world average | +1094L |
Vehicle | 5.4 V8 |
Trunk space | 1572 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 16x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 291x |
Difference with world average | +1094L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.6 V8 | 1572 L | - | 16x | 341x | +1094L |
5.4 V8 | 1572 L | - | 16x | 291x | +1094L |
Vehicle | 4.6 V8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1572 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 16x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 341x |
Difference with world average | +1094L |
Vehicle | 5.4 V8 |
Trunk space | 1572 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 16x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 291x |
Difference with world average | +1094L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.6 V8 Triton | 1252 L | - | 13.2x | 272x | +774L |
5.4 V8 Triton | 1252 L | - | 13.2x | 232x | +774L |
Vehicle | 4.6 V8 Triton |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1252 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 13.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 272x |
Difference with world average | +774L |
Vehicle | 5.4 V8 Triton |
Trunk space | 1252 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 13.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 232x |
Difference with world average | +774L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.2 V6 | 1422 L | - | 15x | 339x | +944L |
4.6 V8 Triton | 1659 L | - | 17.8x | 360x | +1181L |
5.4 V8 Triton | 1659 L | - | 17.5x | 307x | +1181L |
Vehicle | 4.2 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1422 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 15x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 339x |
Difference with world average | +944L |
Vehicle | 4.6 V8 Triton |
Trunk space | 1659 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 360x |
Difference with world average | +1181L |
Vehicle | 5.4 V8 Triton |
Trunk space | 1659 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 307x |
Difference with world average | +1181L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.2 V6 | 1422 L | - | 15x | 339x | +944L |
4.6 V8 Triton | 1659 L | - | 17.5x | 360x | +1181L |
5.4 V8 Triton | 1659 L | - | 17.5x | 307x | +1181L |
Vehicle | 4.2 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 1422 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 15x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 339x |
Difference with world average | +944L |
Vehicle | 4.6 V8 Triton |
Trunk space | 1659 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 360x |
Difference with world average | +1181L |
Vehicle | 5.4 V8 Triton |
Trunk space | 1659 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 17.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 307x |
Difference with world average | +1181L |