2018 6 III Sedan (GJ, facelift 2018)
2018 6 III Sport Combi (GJ, facelift 2018)
2015 6 III Sedan (GJ, facelift 2015)
2015 6 III Sport Combi (GJ, facelift 2015)
2012 6 III Sedan (GJ)
2012 6 III Sport Combi (GJ)
2010 6 TAKUMI
2008 6 II Sedan (GH)
2008 6 II Hatchback (GH)
2008 6 II Combi (GH)
2005 6 I Sedan (Typ GG/GY/GG1 facelift 2005)
2005 6 I Combi (Typ GG/GY/GG1 facelift 2005)
2005 6 I Hatchback (Typ GG/GY/GG1 facelift 2005)
2002 6 I Combi (Typ GG/GY/GG1)
2002 6 I Sedan (Typ GG/GY/GG1)
2002 6 I Hatchback (Typ GG/GY/GG1)
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5 SKYACTIV-G | 480 L | 62 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 193x | +2L |
2.2 SKYACTIV-D | 480 L | 56 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 219x | +2L |
2.0 SKYACTIV-G | 480 L | 48 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 240x | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.5 SKYACTIV-G |
---|---|
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 62 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 193x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.2 SKYACTIV-D |
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 56 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 219x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.0 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 48 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 240x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.2 SKYACTIV-D | 522 L | 64 L to 1 s | 8.4x | 238x | +44L |
2.5 SKYACTIV-G | 522 L | 68 L to 1 s | 8.4x | 210x | +44L |
2.0 SKYACTIV-G | 522 L | 52 L to 1 s | 8.4x | 261x | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.2 SKYACTIV-D |
---|---|
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 64 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 238x |
Difference with world average | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.5 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 68 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 210x |
Difference with world average | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.0 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 261x |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.2 SKYACTIV-D | 480 L | 60 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 219x | +2L |
2.0 SKYACTIV-G | 480 L | 50 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 240x | +2L |
2.5 SKYACTIV-G | 480 L | 65 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 193x | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.2 SKYACTIV-D |
---|---|
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 60 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 219x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.0 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 240x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | 2.5 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 480 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 65 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 193x |
Difference with world average | +2L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 SKYACTIV-G | 522 L | 61 L to 1 s | 8.4x | 261x | +44L |
2.5 SKYACTIV-G | 522 L | 70 L to 1 s | 8.4x | 210x | +44L |
2.2 SKYACTIV-D | 522 L | 61 L to 1 s | 10x | 238x | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.0 SKYACTIV-G |
---|---|
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 61 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 261x |
Difference with world average | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.5 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 70 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 210x |
Difference with world average | +44L |
Vehicle | 2.2 SKYACTIV-D |
Trunk space | 522 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 61 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 10x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 238x |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 SKYACTIV-G | 489 L | 51 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 245x | +11L |
2.5 SKYACTIV-G | 489 L | 66 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 197x | +11L |
2.2 SKYACTIV-D | 489 L | 61 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 224x | +11L |
Vehicle | 2.0 SKYACTIV-G |
---|---|
Trunk space | 489 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 51 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 245x |
Difference with world average | +11L |
Vehicle | 2.5 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 489 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 66 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 197x |
Difference with world average | +11L |
Vehicle | 2.2 SKYACTIV-D |
Trunk space | 489 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 61 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 224x |
Difference with world average | +11L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 SKYACTIV-G | 502 L | 52 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 251x | +24L |
2.5 SKYACTIV-G | 502 L | 67 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 202x | +24L |
2.2 SKYACTIV-D | 502 L | 67 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 230x | +24L |
Vehicle | 2.0 SKYACTIV-G |
---|---|
Trunk space | 502 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 251x |
Difference with world average | +24L |
Vehicle | 2.5 SKYACTIV-G |
Trunk space | 502 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 67 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 202x |
Difference with world average | +24L |
Vehicle | 2.2 SKYACTIV-D |
Trunk space | 502 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 67 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 230x |
Difference with world average | +24L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.2 CD | 510 L | 50 L to 1 s | 8x | 234x | +32L |
2.0i | 510 L | 54 L to 1 s | 8x | 255x | +32L |
Vehicle | 2.2 CD |
---|---|
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 234x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 255x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0i Activematic | 519 L | 50 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 260x | +41L |
1.8i | 519 L | 48 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 289x | +41L |
2.2 CD | 519 L | 64 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 238x | +41L |
2.5i | 519 L | 67 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 209x | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.0i Activematic |
---|---|
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 260x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 1.8i |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 48 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 289x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.2 CD |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 64 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 238x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 67 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 209x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.8i | 510 L | 46 L to 1 s | 8x | 284x | +32L |
2.0i | 510 L | 52 L to 1 s | 8x | 255x | +32L |
2.0i Activematic | 510 L | 48 L to 1 s | 8x | 255x | +32L |
2.5i | 510 L | 64 L to 1 s | 8x | 205x | +32L |
2.2 CD | 510 L | 59 L to 1 s | 8x | 234x | +32L |
Vehicle | 1.8i |
---|---|
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 46 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 284x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 255x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | 2.0i Activematic |
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 48 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 255x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 64 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 205x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | 2.2 CD |
Trunk space | 510 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 59 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 234x |
Difference with world average | +32L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.8i | 519 L | 46 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 289x | +41L |
2.0i | 519 L | 52 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 260x | +41L |
2.5i | 519 L | 65 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 209x | +41L |
2.0i Activematic | 519 L | 49 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 260x | +41L |
2.2 CD | 519 L | 63 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 238x | +41L |
Vehicle | 1.8i |
---|---|
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 46 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 289x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 260x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 65 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 209x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.0i Activematic |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 260x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | 2.2 CD |
Trunk space | 519 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 63 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 238x |
Difference with world average | +41L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 501 L | 54 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 251x | +23L |
MPS 2.3 | 455 L | 72 L to 1 s | 7.6x | 201x | -23L |
1.8 | 501 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 279x | +23L |
2.3 | 501 L | 59 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 222x | +23L |
2.0 CD | 501 L | 56 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 251x | +23L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 501 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 251x |
Difference with world average | +23L |
Vehicle | MPS 2.3 |
Trunk space | 455 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 72 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 201x |
Difference with world average | -23L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Trunk space | 501 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 279x |
Difference with world average | +23L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
Trunk space | 501 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 59 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 222x |
Difference with world average | +23L |
Vehicle | 2.0 CD |
Trunk space | 501 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 56 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 251x |
Difference with world average | +23L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 505 L | 54 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 253x | +27L |
2.0 CD | 505 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 253x | +27L |
1.8 | 505 L | 48 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 281x | +27L |
2.3 | 505 L | 58 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 223x | +27L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 253x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | 2.0 CD |
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 253x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 48 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 281x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 58 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 223x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.8 | 492 L | 47 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 274x | +14L |
2.0 | 492 L | 47 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 246x | +14L |
2.0 CD | 492 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 246x | +14L |
2.3 | 492 L | 57 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 218x | +14L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 274x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 246x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | 2.0 CD |
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 246x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 57 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 218x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.3 | 490 L | 42 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 217x | +12L |
2.0 CD | 505 L | 50 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 253x | +27L |
2.0 | 505 L | 54 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 253x | +27L |
1.8 | 505 L | 48 L to 1 s | 7.9x | 281x | +27L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 42 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 2.0 CD |
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 253x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 253x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Trunk space | 505 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 48 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 281x |
Difference with world average | +27L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.3 | 500 L | 59 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 221x | +22L |
2.0 | 500 L | 54 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 250x | +22L |
1.8 | 500 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 278x | +22L |
2.0 CD | 500 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 250x | +22L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 500 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 59 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 221x |
Difference with world average | +22L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 500 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 250x |
Difference with world average | +22L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Trunk space | 500 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 278x |
Difference with world average | +22L |
Vehicle | 2.0 CD |
Trunk space | 500 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 250x |
Difference with world average | +22L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 492 L | 44 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 246x | +14L |
2.3 | 492 L | 57 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 218x | +14L |
2.0 CD | 492 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 246x | +14L |
1.8 | 492 L | 47 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 274x | +14L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 44 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 246x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | 2.3 |
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 57 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 218x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | 2.0 CD |
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 246x |
Difference with world average | +14L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Trunk space | 492 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 274x |
Difference with world average | +14L |