Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.2d | 243 L | - | 6.9x | 203x | -235L |
1.2 | 243 L | - | 6.9x | 203x | -235L |
Vehicle | 1.2d |
---|---|
Trunk space | 243 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -235L |
Vehicle | 1.2 |
Trunk space | 243 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -235L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.2d | 243 L | - | 6.9x | 203x | -235L |
1.2 | 243 L | - | 6.9x | 203x | -235L |
Vehicle | 1.2d |
---|---|
Trunk space | 243 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -235L |
Vehicle | 1.2 |
Trunk space | 243 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -235L |