Mercedes-Benz C-class Trunk Space in Quick-to-Read Graphs

Average space for all generations

Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

    • Trunk capacity for generation: 409 L
    • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 9.1 pcs
    • Amount of average suitcases: 4.1 pcs
    • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 81.8 L
    • Max trunk load: 98 kg
    • Interior transformation: limited
    • Horsepower to trunk space: 1.3 L to 1 hp
    • Torque to trunk capacity: 0.9 to 1 Nm
    • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.2 L/hp (1.7 L/kW)
  • C 300 e : 1.4 L/hp (1.9 L/kW)
  • C 300 de : 1.5 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)
  • C 300 : 1.8 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 2.9 L/hp (4 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)
  • C 300 e : 1.2 L/km-h (0.75 L/mph)
  • C 300 de : 1.2 L/km-h (0.75 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1.74 L/km-h (1.08 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 1.5 L/km-h (0.93 L/mph)
  • C 300 : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 2.02 L/km-h (1.26 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 52.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 e : 214.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 de : 250x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 43.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 43.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 : 71.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 77.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    AMG C 43 V6 480 L 107 L to 1 s 7.3x 160x +2L
    C 300 e 300 L 59 L to 1 s 6x 151x -178L
    C 300 de 300 L 57 L to 1 s 6x 154x -178L
    AMG C 63 V8 435 L 112 L to 1 s 6.6x 109x -43L
    AMG C 63 S V8 435 L 114 L to 1 s 6.6x 109x -43L
    C 300 455 L 84 L to 1 s 6.9x 229x -23L
    C 180 455 L 58 L to 1 s 11.1x 285x -23L
    Vehicle AMG C 43 V6
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 107 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 160x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 300 e
    Trunk space 300 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 151x
    Difference with world average -178L
    Vehicle C 300 de
    Trunk space 300 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 154x
    Difference with world average -178L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 V8
    Trunk space 435 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 112 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 109x
    Difference with world average -43L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 S V8
    Trunk space 435 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 114 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 109x
    Difference with world average -43L
    Vehicle C 300
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 84 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 229x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 285x
    Difference with world average -23L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 285 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 6.3 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 2.9 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 71.3 L
      • Max trunk load: 111 kg
      • Interior transformation: none
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 0.6 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 0.5 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 4 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 0.7 L/hp (1 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 0.6 L/hp (0.8 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 0.6 L/hp (0.8 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.14 L/km-h (0.71 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 1.02 L/km-h (0.63 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1.14 L/km-h (0.71 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 30x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 27.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 27.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    AMG C 43 V6 285 L 62 L to 1 s 4.3x 95x -193L
    AMG C 63 S V8 285 L 73 L to 1 s 4.3x 72x -193L
    AMG C 63 V8 285 L 71 L to 1 s 4.3x 72x -193L
    Vehicle AMG C 43 V6
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 62 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 4.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 95x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 S V8
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 73 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 4.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 72x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 V8
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 71 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 4.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 72x
    Difference with world average -193L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 470 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.4 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.7 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 94 L
      • Max trunk load: 103 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 1 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 0.8 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.3 L/hp (1.7 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1 L/hp (1.3 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1.84 L/km-h (1.14 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 1.64 L/km-h (1.02 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 52.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 46x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 46x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    AMG C 43 V6 490 L 107 L to 1 s 7.4x 164x +12L
    AMG C 63 V8 460 L 115 L to 1 s 7x 116x -18L
    AMG C 63 S V8 460 L 118 L to 1 s 7x 116x -18L
    Vehicle AMG C 43 V6
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 107 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 164x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 V8
    Trunk space 460 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 115 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 116x
    Difference with world average -18L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 S V8
    Trunk space 460 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 118 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 116x
    Difference with world average -18L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 370 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 8.2 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 3.7 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 92.5 L
      • Max trunk load: 103 kg
      • Interior transformation: none
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 0.8 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 0.6 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1 L/hp (1.4 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 0.7 L/hp (1 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 0.7 L/hp (0.9 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.6 L/km-h (0.99 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1.42 L/km-h (0.88 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 1.22 L/km-h (0.76 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • AMG C 43 V6 : 43.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 35.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 35.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    AMG C 43 V6 400 L 89 L to 1 s 6.1x 134x -78L
    AMG C 63 V8 355 L 93 L to 1 s 5.4x 89x -123L
    AMG C 63 S V8 355 L 96 L to 1 s 5.4x 89x -123L
    Vehicle AMG C 43 V6
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 89 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 134x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 V8
    Trunk space 355 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 93 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 89x
    Difference with world average -123L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 S V8
    Trunk space 355 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 96 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 89x
    Difference with world average -123L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 485 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.8 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.9 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 97 L
      • Max trunk load: 97 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.2 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180d : 4.2 L/hp (5.8 L/kW)
  • C 200d : 3.6 L/hp (4.9 L/kW)
  • C 220d : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 3.1 L/hp (4.3 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.6 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1 L/hp (1.4 L/kW)
  • C 300h : 2.1 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 250d : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 2.3 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 S V6 : 1 L/hp (1.3 L/kW)
  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.3 L/hp (1.8 L/kW)
  • C 300 : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • C 160 : 3.8 L/hp (5.2 L/kW)
  • C 400 V6 : 1.4 L/hp (2 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180d : 2.45 L/km-h (1.52 L/mph)
  • C 200d : 2.31 L/km-h (1.44 L/mph)
  • C 220d : 2.12 L/km-h (1.32 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 2.21 L/km-h (1.37 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 2.1 L/km-h (1.3 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • C 300h : 1.83 L/km-h (1.14 L/mph)
  • C 250d : 2 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • C 250 : 2.01 L/km-h (1.25 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 S V6 : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • AMG C 43 V6 : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • C 300 : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • C 160 : 2.36 L/km-h (1.47 L/mph)
  • C 400 V6 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180d : 106.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200d : 106.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220d : 111.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 81.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 69.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 58.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300h : 103.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250d : 108.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 81.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 S V6 : 57x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 43 V6 : 60.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 : 75.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 160 : 81.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 400 V6 : 59.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180d 490 L 43 L to 1 s 12x 307x +12L
    C 200d 490 L 49 L to 1 s 12x 307x +12L
    C 220d 490 L 69 L to 1 s 12x 229x +12L
    C 180 490 L 60 L to 1 s 12x 307x +12L
    C 200 480 L 67 L to 1 s 11.7x 241x +2L
    AMG C 63 V8 490 L 123 L to 1 s 7.4x 123x +12L
    C 300h 435 L 68 L to 1 s 8.7x 203x -43L
    C 250d 490 L 74 L to 1 s 7.4x 229x +12L
    C 250 490 L 78 L to 1 s 7.4x 246x +12L
    AMG C 63 S V6 490 L 126 L to 1 s 7.4x 123x +12L
    AMG C 43 V6 490 L 107 L to 1 s 7.4x 164x +12L
    C 300 490 L 84 L to 1 s 7.4x 246x +12L
    C 160 490 L 51 L to 1 s 12x 307x +12L
    C 400 V6 480 L 100 L to 1 s 7.3x 160x +2L
    Vehicle C 180d
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 12x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 307x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 200d
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 49 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 12x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 307x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 220d
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 69 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 12x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 229x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 60 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 12x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 307x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 67 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 241x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 V8
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 123 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 123x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 300h
    Trunk space 435 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 68 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 203x
    Difference with world average -43L
    Vehicle C 250d
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 74 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 229x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 78 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 246x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 S V6
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 126 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 123x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle AMG C 43 V6
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 107 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 164x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 300
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 84 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.4x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 246x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 160
    Trunk space 490 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 51 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 12x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 307x
    Difference with world average +12L
    Vehicle C 400 V6
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 100 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 160x
    Difference with world average +2L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 400 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 8.9 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 100 L
      • Max trunk load: 91 kg
      • Interior transformation: none
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 1.9 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.1 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 220d : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 2.6 L/hp (3.5 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 300 : 1.6 L/hp (2.2 L/kW)
  • C 250d : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 1.9 L/hp (2.6 L/kW)
  • C 400 : 1.2 L/hp (1.6 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 220d : 1.71 L/km-h (1.06 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 1.79 L/km-h (1.11 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 1.7 L/km-h (1.06 L/mph)
  • C 300 : 1.6 L/km-h (0.99 L/mph)
  • C 250d : 1.67 L/km-h (1.04 L/mph)
  • C 250 : 1.6 L/km-h (0.99 L/mph)
  • C 400 : 1.6 L/km-h (0.99 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 220d : 97.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 67.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 69x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 : 63.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250d : 80x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 69x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 400 : 50x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 220d 400 L 56 L to 1 s 9.8x 187x -78L
    C 180 400 L 48 L to 1 s 9.8x 251x -78L
    C 200 400 L 58 L to 1 s 8x 201x -78L
    C 300 400 L 70 L to 1 s 6.1x 201x -78L
    C 250d 400 L 61 L to 1 s 8x 187x -78L
    C 250 400 L 62 L to 1 s 8x 201x -78L
    C 400 400 L 85 L to 1 s 6.1x 134x -78L
    Vehicle C 220d
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 56 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 187x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 9.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 251x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 201x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle C 300
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 70 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 201x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle C 250d
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 61 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 187x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 62 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 201x
    Difference with world average -78L
    Vehicle C 400
    Trunk space 400 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 85 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 134x
    Difference with world average -78L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 285 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 6.3 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 2.9 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 71.3 L
      • Max trunk load: 103 kg
      • Interior transformation: none
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 1.3 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 0.8 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 4 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 220d : 1.7 L/hp (2.3 L/kW)
  • C 250d : 1.4 L/hp (1.9 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 1.8 L/hp (2.5 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 1.5 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 1.4 L/hp (1.8 L/kW)
  • C 300 : 1.2 L/hp (1.6 L/kW)
  • C 400 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 220d : 58.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250d : 58.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 41.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 38.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 43.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 : 40.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 400 : 34.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 220d 285 L 37 L to 1 s 7x 133x -193L
    C 250d 285 L 42 L to 1 s 5.7x 133x -193L
    C 180 285 L 34 L to 1 s 7x 179x -193L
    C 200 285 L 38 L to 1 s 5.7x 143x -193L
    C 250 285 L 43 L to 1 s 5.7x 143x -193L
    C 300 285 L 47 L to 1 s 4.3x 143x -193L
    C 400 285 L 58 L to 1 s 4.3x 95x -193L
    Vehicle C 220d
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 37 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 133x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle C 250d
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 42 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 133x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 34 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 179x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 38 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 143x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 143x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle C 300
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 4.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 143x
    Difference with world average -193L
    Vehicle C 400
    Trunk space 285 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 4.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 95x
    Difference with world average -193L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 461 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.2 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.6 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 92.2 L
      • Max trunk load: 94 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 1.9 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.1 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 200d : 3.5 L/hp (4.8 L/kW)
  • C 180d : 4.1 L/hp (5.6 L/kW)
  • C 250d : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)
  • C 220d : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 300h : 2.1 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 2.3 L/hp (3.1 L/kW)
  • C 400 V6 : 1.4 L/hp (2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)
  • C 300 : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.6 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 160 : 3.7 L/hp (5.1 L/kW)
  • C 350e : 1.6 L/hp (2.2 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 3.1 L/hp (4.2 L/kW)
  • C 400 : 1.4 L/hp (2 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 200d : 2.22 L/km-h (1.38 L/mph)
  • C 180d : 2.35 L/km-h (1.46 L/mph)
  • C 250d : 1.94 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 1.74 L/km-h (1.08 L/mph)
  • C 220d : 2.06 L/km-h (1.28 L/mph)
  • C 300h : 1.78 L/km-h (1.11 L/mph)
  • C 250 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)
  • C 400 V6 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 1.74 L/km-h (1.08 L/mph)
  • C 300 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 2.04 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • C 160 : 2.22 L/km-h (1.38 L/mph)
  • C 350e : 1.34 L/km-h (0.83 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • C 400 : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 200d : 106.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180d : 106.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250d : 109.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 V8 : 53x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220d : 106.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300h : 108.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 84.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 400 V6 : 61.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 S V8 : 51.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 : 76.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 85.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 160 : 84.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350e : 159.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 82.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 400 : 61.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 200d 480 L 49 L to 1 s 11.7x 300x +2L
    C 180d 480 L 44 L to 1 s 11.7x 300x +2L
    C 250d 480 L 76 L to 1 s 7.3x 224x +2L
    AMG C 63 V8 435 L 112 L to 1 s 6.6x 109x -43L
    C 220d 480 L 65 L to 1 s 11.7x 224x +2L
    C 300h 435 L 71 L to 1 s 8.7x 203x -43L
    C 250 480 L 77 L to 1 s 7.3x 241x +2L
    C 400 V6 480 L 98 L to 1 s 7.3x 160x +2L
    AMG C 63 S V8 435 L 114 L to 1 s 6.6x 109x -43L
    C 300 480 L 86 L to 1 s 7.3x 241x +2L
    C 200 480 L 70 L to 1 s 11.7x 241x +2L
    C 160 480 L 53 L to 1 s 11.7x 301x +2L
    C 350e 335 L 60 L to 1 s 6.7x 168x -143L
    C 180 480 L 59 L to 1 s 11.7x 301x +2L
    C 400 480 L 98 L to 1 s 7.3x 160x +2L
    Vehicle C 200d
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 49 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 300x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 180d
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 44 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 300x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 250d
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 76 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 224x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 V8
    Trunk space 435 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 112 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 109x
    Difference with world average -43L
    Vehicle C 220d
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 65 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 224x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 300h
    Trunk space 435 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 71 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 203x
    Difference with world average -43L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 77 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 241x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 400 V6
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 98 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 160x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle AMG C 63 S V8
    Trunk space 435 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 114 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 109x
    Difference with world average -43L
    Vehicle C 300
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 86 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 241x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 70 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 241x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 160
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 53 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 301x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 350e
    Trunk space 335 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 60 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 168x
    Difference with world average -143L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 11.7x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 301x
    Difference with world average +2L
    Vehicle C 400
    Trunk space 480 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 98 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 160x
    Difference with world average +2L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 485 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.8 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.9 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 97 L
      • Max trunk load: 99 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.5 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.2 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180 CDI : 4 L/hp (5.5 L/kW)
  • C 250 CDI : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.6 L/hp (4.9 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 3.1 L/hp (4.2 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.6 L/hp (2.2 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.6 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 300 CDI : 2.1 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 350 CDI : 1.8 L/hp (2.5 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180 CDI : 2.43 L/km-h (1.51 L/mph)
  • C 250 CDI : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.34 L/km-h (1.45 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.21 L/km-h (1.37 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 2.25 L/km-h (1.4 L/mph)
  • C 250 : 2.08 L/km-h (1.29 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.94 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • C 300 CDI : 2 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • C 350 CDI : 1.94 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180 CDI : 88.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 CDI : 91.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI : 88.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 91.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 75.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 70.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 : 66.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 70.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 300 CDI : 65.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 CDI : 78.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180 CDI 485 L 47 L to 1 s 8.2x 226x +7L
    C 250 CDI 485 L 69 L to 1 s 8.2x 226x +7L
    C 200 CDI 485 L 54 L to 1 s 8.2x 226x +7L
    C 220 CDI 485 L 61 L to 1 s 8.2x 226x +7L
    C 180 485 L 58 L to 1 s 8.2x 304x +7L
    C 250 485 L 69 L to 1 s 8.2x 270x +7L
    C 350 485 L 84 L to 1 s 7.3x 139x +7L
    C 200 485 L 63 L to 1 s 8.2x 270x +7L
    C 300 CDI 485 L 78 L to 1 s 7.3x 162x +7L
    C 350 CDI 485 L 81 L to 1 s 7.3x 162x +7L
    Vehicle C 180 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 226x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 250 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 69 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 226x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 54 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 226x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 61 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 226x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 304x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 69 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 270x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 84 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 139x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 63 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 270x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 300 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 78 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 162x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 350 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 81 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 162x
    Difference with world average +7L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 450 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.5 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 112.5 L
      • Max trunk load: 96 kg
      • Interior transformation: none
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 1.9 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.2 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 250 CDI : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.6 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.5 L/hp (2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 : 1 L/hp (1.3 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 250 CDI : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 1.95 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • C 250 : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 2.02 L/km-h (1.26 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.8 L/km-h (1.12 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 : 1.8 L/km-h (1.12 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 1.91 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 250 CDI : 84.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 84.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 64.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 71.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 : 64.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 63 : 37.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 64.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 250 CDI 450 L 67 L to 1 s 7.6x 210x -28L
    C 220 CDI 450 L 58 L to 1 s 7.6x 210x -28L
    C 250 450 L 66 L to 1 s 7.6x 251x -28L
    C 180 450 L 56 L to 1 s 7.6x 282x -28L
    C 350 450 L 79 L to 1 s 6.8x 129x -28L
    AMG C 63 450 L 107 L to 1 s 6.8x 72x -28L
    C 200 450 L 61 L to 1 s 7.6x 251x -28L
    Vehicle C 250 CDI
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 67 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 210x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 210x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 66 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 251x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 56 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 282x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 79 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 129x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle AMG C 63
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 107 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 72x
    Difference with world average -28L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 61 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 251x
    Difference with world average -28L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 475 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.6 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.8 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 95 L
      • Max trunk load: 95 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.4 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.3 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180 : 3 L/hp (4.1 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.6 L/hp (3.5 L/kW)
  • C 250 CDI : 2.3 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.5 L/hp (4.8 L/kW)
  • C 180 CDI : 4 L/hp (5.4 L/kW)
  • C 250 CDI 4MATIC : 2.3 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 250 : 2.3 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.6 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)
  • C 350 4MATIC : 1.6 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180 : 2.11 L/km-h (1.31 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 2 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • C 250 CDI : 1.98 L/km-h (1.23 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.18 L/km-h (1.35 L/mph)
  • C 180 CDI : 2.28 L/km-h (1.42 L/mph)
  • C 250 CDI 4MATIC : 1.98 L/km-h (1.23 L/mph)
  • C 250 : 1.98 L/km-h (1.23 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • C 350 4MATIC : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180 : 74.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 66x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 CDI : 89.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 93.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI : 89.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 CDI : 89.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 CDI 4MATIC : 83.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 : 68.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 : 67.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 4MATIC : 62.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180 475 L 59 L to 1 s 8.1x 298x -3L
    C 200 475 L 61 L to 1 s 8.1x 264x -3L
    C 250 CDI 475 L 71 L to 1 s 8.1x 222x -3L
    C 220 CDI 475 L 59 L to 1 s 8.1x 222x -3L
    C 200 CDI 475 L 55 L to 1 s 8.1x 222x -3L
    C 180 CDI 475 L 48 L to 1 s 8.1x 222x -3L
    C 250 CDI 4MATIC 475 L 71 L to 1 s 8.1x 222x -3L
    C 250 475 L 70 L to 1 s 8.1x 264x -3L
    C 350 475 L 83 L to 1 s 7.2x 136x -3L
    C 350 4MATIC 475 L 83 L to 1 s 7.2x 136x -3L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 298x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 61 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 264x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 250 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 71 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 222x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 222x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 55 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 222x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 180 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 222x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 250 CDI 4MATIC
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 71 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 222x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 250
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 70 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 8.1x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 264x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 83 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 136x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 350 4MATIC
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 83 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 136x
    Difference with world average -3L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 482 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.7 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.8 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 96.4 L
      • Max trunk load: 96 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.2 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.3 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180 K : 3.1 L/hp (4.2 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.6 L/hp (4.9 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.6 L/hp (4.9 L/kW)
  • C 200 K : 2.6 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 230 T-Model : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 230 : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 320 CDI : 2.2 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.8 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 : 1 L/hp (1.3 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180 K : 2.22 L/km-h (1.38 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.38 L/km-h (1.48 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.33 L/km-h (1.45 L/mph)
  • C 200 K : 2.13 L/km-h (1.32 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.17 L/km-h (1.35 L/mph)
  • C 230 T-Model : 2.09 L/km-h (1.3 L/mph)
  • C 230 : 2.14 L/km-h (1.33 L/mph)
  • C 320 CDI : 1.99 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.94 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 : 1.8 L/km-h (1.12 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 200 CDI : 72.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 : 52.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 CDI : 63x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 : 46.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180 K 485 L 52 L to 1 s 7.8x - +7L
    C 200 CDI 485 L 48 L to 1 s 7.8x 226x +7L
    C 200 CDI 485 L 47 L to 1 s 7.8x 226x +7L
    C 200 K 485 L 58 L to 1 s 7.8x 270x +7L
    C 220 CDI 485 L 57 L to 1 s 7.8x - +7L
    C 230 T-Model 485 L 59 L to 1 s 7.8x - +7L
    C 230 485 L 57 L to 1 s 7.8x 194x +7L
    C 320 CDI 485 L 72 L to 1 s 7.8x 162x +7L
    C 350 485 L 78 L to 1 s 7.8x 139x +7L
    AMG C 63 450 L 102 L to 1 s - 72x -28L
    Vehicle C 180 K
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 52 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity -
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 226x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 226x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 200 K
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 270x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity -
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 230 T-Model
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity -
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 230
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 194x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 320 CDI
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 72 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 162x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 485 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 78 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 139x
    Difference with world average +7L
    Vehicle AMG C 63
    Trunk space 450 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 102 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size -
    Trunk space to engine capacity 72x
    Difference with world average -28L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 475 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.6 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.8 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 95 L
      • Max trunk load: 94 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.1 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.4 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180 Kompressor : 3 L/hp (4.1 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 2.6 L/hp (3.5 L/kW)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 2.6 L/hp (3.5 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.5 L/hp (4.8 L/kW)
  • C 230 : 2.3 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 280 : 2.1 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C 280 4Matic : 2.1 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C 320 CDI : 2.1 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.7 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • C 350 4Matic : 1.7 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • AMG C 63 : 1 L/hp (1.4 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180 Kompressor : 2.13 L/km-h (1.32 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 2.07 L/km-h (1.29 L/mph)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 2.02 L/km-h (1.26 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.21 L/km-h (1.37 L/mph)
  • C 230 : 1.98 L/km-h (1.23 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.07 L/km-h (1.29 L/mph)
  • C 280 : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • C 280 4Matic : 1.95 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • C 320 CDI : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • C 350 4Matic : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • AMG C 63 : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180 Kompressor : 60.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 60.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 60.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI : 77.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 : 49.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 77.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 280 : 50.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 280 4Matic : 50.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 CDI : 66x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 : 49x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 350 4Matic : 47.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180 Kompressor 475 L 51 L to 1 s 7.2x 264x -3L
    C 200 475 L 57 L to 1 s 7.2x 264x -3L
    C 200 Kompressor 475 L 58 L to 1 s 7.2x 264x -3L
    C 200 CDI 475 L 48 L to 1 s 7.2x 221x -3L
    C 230 475 L 59 L to 1 s 7.2x 190x -3L
    C 220 CDI 475 L 66 L to 1 s 7.2x 221x -3L
    C 280 475 L 69 L to 1 s 7.2x 159x -3L
    C 280 4Matic 475 L 69 L to 1 s 7.2x 159x -3L
    C 320 CDI 475 L 65 L to 1 s 7.2x 159x -3L
    C 350 475 L 78 L to 1 s 7.2x 136x -3L
    C 350 4Matic 475 L 78 L to 1 s 7.2x 136x -3L
    AMG C 63 475 L 110 L to 1 s 7.2x 77x -3L
    Vehicle C 180 Kompressor
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 51 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 264x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 264x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 200 Kompressor
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 264x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 221x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 230
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 190x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 66 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 221x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 280
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 69 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 159x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 280 4Matic
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 69 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 159x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 320 CDI
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 65 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 159x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 78 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 136x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle C 350 4Matic
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 78 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 136x
    Difference with world average -3L
    Vehicle AMG C 63
    Trunk space 475 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 110 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 77x
    Difference with world average -3L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 310 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 6.9 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 3.1 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 62 L
      • Max trunk load: 88 kg
      • Interior transformation: none
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 1.7 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.1 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 4 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180K : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 180 : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 1.9 L/hp (2.6 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.5 L/hp (3.4 L/kW)
  • C 200 CGI : 1.8 L/hp (2.5 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 1.9 L/hp (2.6 L/kW)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 1.3 L/hp (1.8 L/kW)
  • C 230 : 1.5 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 1.6 L/hp (2.2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 32 : 0.9 L/hp (1.2 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.1 L/hp (1.6 L/kW)
  • C 320 : 1.4 L/hp (1.9 L/kW)
  • C 160 : 2.5 L/hp (3.4 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180K : 1.41 L/km-h (0.88 L/mph)
  • C 180 : 1.48 L/km-h (0.92 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 1.35 L/km-h (0.84 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 1.53 L/km-h (0.95 L/mph)
  • C 200 CGI : 1.32 L/km-h (0.82 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 1.44 L/km-h (0.89 L/mph)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 1.34 L/km-h (0.83 L/mph)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 1.24 L/km-h (0.77 L/mph)
  • C 230 : 1.32 L/km-h (0.82 L/mph)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 1.31 L/km-h (0.81 L/mph)
  • AMG C 32 : 1.24 L/km-h (0.77 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.24 L/km-h (0.77 L/mph)
  • C 320 : 1.27 L/km-h (0.79 L/mph)
  • C 160 : 1.51 L/km-h (0.94 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180K : 36.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 : 33x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 29.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI : 47x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CGI : 39.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 47x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 35.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 40.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 34.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 32 : 27x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 : 29.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 160 : 38.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180K 310 L 33 L to 1 s 5x 173x -168L
    C 180 310 L 30 L to 1 s 5x 155x -168L
    C 200 310 L 35 L to 1 s 5x 155x -168L
    C 200 CDI 310 L 27 L to 1 s 5x 144x -168L
    C 200 CGI 310 L 36 L to 1 s 5x 173x -168L
    C 220 CDI 310 L 31 L to 1 s 5x 144x -168L
    C 200 Kompressor 310 L 33 L to 1 s 5x 155x -168L
    AMG C 30 CDI 310 L 48 L to 1 s 5x 105x -168L
    C 230 310 L 36 L to 1 s 5x 124x -168L
    C 230 Kompressor 310 L 40 L to 1 s 5x 173x -168L
    AMG C 32 310 L 63 L to 1 s 5x - -168L
    C 350 310 L 51 L to 1 s 5x 89x -168L
    C 320 310 L 42 L to 1 s 5x 97x -168L
    C 160 310 L 29 L to 1 s 5x 173x -168L
    Vehicle C 180K
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 33 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 173x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 30 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 155x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 155x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 27 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 144x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 200 CGI
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 36 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 173x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 31 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 144x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 200 Kompressor
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 33 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 155x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle AMG C 30 CDI
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 105x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 230
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 36 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 124x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 230 Kompressor
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 40 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 173x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle AMG C 32
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 63 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity -
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 51 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 89x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 320
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 42 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 97x
    Difference with world average -168L
    Vehicle C 160
    Trunk space 310 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 29 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 173x
    Difference with world average -168L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 455 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.1 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.6 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 91 L
      • Max trunk load: 91 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.2 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.4 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180 : 3.5 L/hp (4.8 L/kW)
  • C 180K : 3.2 L/hp (4.3 L/kW)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.7 L/hp (5.1 L/kW)
  • C 200 CGI : 2.7 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 3.2 L/hp (4.3 L/kW)
  • C 230 : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)
  • C 240 : 2.7 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 280 : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • C 240 4Matic : 2.7 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • C 280 4Matic : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • C 270 CDI : 2.7 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • AMG C 32 : 1.3 L/hp (1.8 L/kW)
  • C 320 CDI : 2 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C 320 : 2.1 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C 350 : 1.7 L/hp (2.3 L/kW)
  • C 55 : 1.2 L/hp (1.7 L/kW)
  • C 320 4Matic : 2.1 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C200 CDI : 4 L/hp (5.4 L/kW)
  • C 350 4Matic : 1.7 L/hp (2.3 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180 : 2.17 L/km-h (1.35 L/mph)
  • C 180K : 2.07 L/km-h (1.29 L/mph)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 1.97 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.24 L/km-h (1.39 L/mph)
  • C 200 CGI : 1.94 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.12 L/km-h (1.32 L/mph)
  • C 230 : 1.87 L/km-h (1.16 L/mph)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 1.9 L/km-h (1.18 L/mph)
  • C 240 : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • C 280 : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)
  • C 240 4Matic : 1.96 L/km-h (1.22 L/mph)
  • C 280 4Matic : 1.84 L/km-h (1.14 L/mph)
  • C 270 CDI : 1.98 L/km-h (1.23 L/mph)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)
  • AMG C 32 : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)
  • C 320 CDI : 1.75 L/km-h (1.09 L/mph)
  • C 320 : 1.86 L/km-h (1.16 L/mph)
  • C 350 : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)
  • C 55 : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)
  • C 320 4Matic : 1.86 L/km-h (1.16 L/mph)
  • C200 CDI : 2.24 L/km-h (1.39 L/mph)
  • C 350 4Matic : 1.82 L/km-h (1.13 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180 : 48.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180K : 57.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 Kompressor : 54.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI : 72.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CGI : 58.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 72.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 51.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 240 : 45x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 240 4Matic : 42.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 270 CDI : 66.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 59.9x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 32 : 39.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 CDI : 62.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 : 41.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 4Matic : 42.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180 455 L 43 L to 1 s 7.3x 228x -23L
    C 180K 455 L 48 L to 1 s 7.3x 253x -23L
    C 200 Kompressor 455 L 51 L to 1 s 7.3x 253x -23L
    C 200 CDI 455 L 40 L to 1 s 7.3x 212x -23L
    C 200 CGI 455 L 53 L to 1 s 7.3x 253x -23L
    C 220 CDI 455 L 46 L to 1 s 7.3x 212x -23L
    C 230 455 L 58 L to 1 s 7.3x 182x -23L
    C 230 Kompressor 455 L 59 L to 1 s 7.3x 253x -23L
    C 240 455 L 51 L to 1 s 7.3x 175x -23L
    C 280 455 L 66 L to 1 s 7.3x 152x -23L
    C 240 4Matic 455 L 48 L to 1 s 7.3x 175x -23L
    C 280 4Matic 455 L 63 L to 1 s 7.3x 152x -23L
    C 270 CDI 455 L 54 L to 1 s 7.3x 169x -23L
    AMG C 30 CDI 455 L 70 L to 1 s 7.3x 154x -23L
    AMG C 32 455 L 93 L to 1 s 7.3x 142x -23L
    C 320 CDI 455 L 67 L to 1 s 7.3x 152x -23L
    C 320 455 L 68 L to 1 s 7.3x 142x -23L
    C 350 455 L 75 L to 1 s 7.3x 130x -23L
    C 55 455 L 93 L to 1 s 7.3x 84x -23L
    C 320 4Matic 455 L 60 L to 1 s 7.3x 142x -23L
    C200 CDI 455 L 40 L to 1 s 7.3x 212x -23L
    C 350 4Matic 455 L 69 L to 1 s 7.3x 130x -23L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 228x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 180K
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 253x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 200 Kompressor
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 51 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 253x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 40 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 212x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 200 CGI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 53 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 253x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 212x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 230
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 58 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 182x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 230 Kompressor
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 253x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 240
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 51 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 175x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 280
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 66 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 152x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 240 4Matic
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 48 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 175x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 280 4Matic
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 63 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 152x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 270 CDI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 54 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 169x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle AMG C 30 CDI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 70 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 154x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle AMG C 32
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 93 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 142x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 320 CDI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 67 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 152x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 320
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 68 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 142x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 350
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 75 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 130x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 55
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 93 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 84x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 320 4Matic
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 60 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 142x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C200 CDI
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 40 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 212x
    Difference with world average -23L
    Vehicle C 350 4Matic
    Trunk space 455 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 69 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.3x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 130x
    Difference with world average -23L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 470 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.4 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.7 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 94 L
      • Max trunk load: 95 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.4 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.5 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180K : 3.3 L/hp (4.5 L/kW)
  • C 200 T : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 180 T : 3.6 L/hp (4.9 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI T : 4.1 L/hp (5.5 L/kW)
  • C 200 CGI : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 200 CDI : 3.9 L/hp (5.2 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 3.1 L/hp (4.3 L/kW)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI T : 3.3 L/hp (4.5 L/kW)
  • C 230 T : 2.3 L/hp (3.1 L/kW)
  • C 240 : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 280 T : 2 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C 270 CDI T : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 240 4Matic : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • C 240 T : 2.8 L/hp (3.8 L/kW)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 2 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • AMG C 32 : 1.3 L/hp (1.8 L/kW)
  • C 320 4Matic : 2.2 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 320 T CDI : 2.1 L/hp (2.8 L/kW)
  • C 350 T 4Matic : 1.7 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)
  • C 320 T : 2.2 L/hp (2.9 L/kW)
  • C 55 T : 1.3 L/hp (1.7 L/kW)
  • C 350 T : 1.7 L/hp (2.4 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180K : 2.18 L/km-h (1.35 L/mph)
  • C 200 T : 2.08 L/km-h (1.29 L/mph)
  • C 180 T : 2.28 L/km-h (1.42 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI T : 2.39 L/km-h (1.49 L/mph)
  • C 200 CGI : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • C 200 CDI : 2.33 L/km-h (1.45 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.16 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 2 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI T : 2.2 L/km-h (1.37 L/mph)
  • C 230 T : 2.02 L/km-h (1.26 L/mph)
  • C 240 : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • C 280 T : 1.98 L/km-h (1.23 L/mph)
  • C 270 CDI T : 2.1 L/km-h (1.3 L/mph)
  • C 240 4Matic : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • C 240 T : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • AMG C 30 CDI : 1.92 L/km-h (1.19 L/mph)
  • AMG C 32 : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • C 320 4Matic : 2 L/km-h (1.24 L/mph)
  • C 320 T CDI : 1.93 L/km-h (1.2 L/mph)
  • C 350 T 4Matic : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • C 320 T : 1.94 L/km-h (1.21 L/mph)
  • C 55 T : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • C 350 T : 1.88 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180K : 54.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 T : 47.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 180 T : 49x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI T : 70.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CGI : 57.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 CDI : 72.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI : 71.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 50.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 CDI T : 70.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 240 : 43.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 270 CDI T : 66.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 240 4Matic : 43.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 240 T : 40.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 32 : 39.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 4Matic : 43.1x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 320 T : 41.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180K 470 L 49 L to 1 s 7.6x 262x -8L
    C 200 T 470 L 52 L to 1 s 7.6x 235x -8L
    C 180 T 470 L 44 L to 1 s 7.6x 235x -8L
    C 200 CDI T 470 L 39 L to 1 s 7.6x 219x -8L
    C 200 CGI 470 L 53 L to 1 s 7.6x 262x -8L
    C 200 CDI 470 L 41 L to 1 s 7.6x 219x -8L
    C 220 CDI 470 L 47 L to 1 s 7.6x 219x -8L
    C 230 Kompressor 470 L 57 L to 1 s 7.6x 262x -8L
    C 220 CDI T 470 L 46 L to 1 s 7.6x 219x -8L
    C 230 T 470 L 59 L to 1 s 7.6x 188x -8L
    C 240 470 L 52 L to 1 s 7.6x 181x -8L
    C 280 T 470 L 63 L to 1 s 7.6x 157x -8L
    C 270 CDI T 470 L 53 L to 1 s 7.6x 175x -8L
    C 240 4Matic 470 L 47 L to 1 s 7.6x 181x -8L
    C 240 T 470 L 52 L to 1 s 7.6x 181x -8L
    AMG C 30 CDI 470 L 70 L to 1 s 7.6x 159x -8L
    AMG C 32 470 L 92 L to 1 s 7.6x 147x -8L
    C 320 4Matic 470 L 59 L to 1 s 7.6x 147x -8L
    C 320 T CDI 470 L 59 L to 1 s 7.6x 157x -8L
    C 350 T 4Matic 470 L 70 L to 1 s 7.6x 134x -8L
    C 320 T 470 L 61 L to 1 s 7.6x 147x -8L
    C 55 T 470 L 92 L to 1 s 7.6x 86x -8L
    C 350 T 470 L 76 L to 1 s 7.6x 134x -8L
    Vehicle C 180K
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 49 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 262x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 200 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 52 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 235x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 180 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 44 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 235x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 39 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 219x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 200 CGI
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 53 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 262x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 200 CDI
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 41 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 219x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 219x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 230 Kompressor
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 262x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 219x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 230 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 188x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 240
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 52 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 181x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 280 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 63 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 157x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 270 CDI T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 53 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 175x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 240 4Matic
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 181x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 240 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 52 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 181x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle AMG C 30 CDI
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 70 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 159x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle AMG C 32
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 92 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 147x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 320 4Matic
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 147x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 320 T CDI
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 59 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 157x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 350 T 4Matic
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 70 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 134x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 320 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 61 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 147x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 55 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 92 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 86x
    Difference with world average -8L
    Vehicle C 350 T
    Trunk space 470 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 76 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.6x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 134x
    Difference with world average -8L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 465 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.3 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.7 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 93 L
      • Max trunk load: 88 kg
      • Interior transformation: flexible
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.9 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.9 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 200 T : 3.4 L/hp (4.7 L/kW)
  • C 180 T : 3.8 L/hp (5.2 L/kW)
  • C 200 T 2.0 : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)
  • C 200 T CDI : 4.6 L/hp (6.2 L/kW)
  • C 220 T CDI : 3.7 L/hp (5.1 L/kW)
  • C 220 T D : 4.9 L/hp (6.6 L/kW)
  • C 230 T : 3.1 L/hp (4.2 L/kW)
  • C 240 T : 2.7 L/hp (3.7 L/kW)
  • C 250 T Turbo-D : 3.1 L/hp (4.2 L/kW)
  • C 230 T Kompressor : 2.4 L/hp (3.3 L/kW)
  • AMG C 43 : 1.5 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)
  • C 280 T : 2.4 L/hp (3.2 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 200 T : 2.36 L/km-h (1.47 L/mph)
  • C 180 T : 2.49 L/km-h (1.55 L/mph)
  • C 200 T 2.0 : 2.09 L/km-h (1.3 L/mph)
  • C 200 T CDI : 2.55 L/km-h (1.58 L/mph)
  • C 220 T CDI : 2.37 L/km-h (1.47 L/mph)
  • C 220 T D : 2.33 L/km-h (1.45 L/mph)
  • C 230 T : 2.22 L/km-h (1.38 L/mph)
  • C 240 T : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • C 250 T Turbo-D : 2.33 L/km-h (1.45 L/mph)
  • C 230 T Kompressor : 2.06 L/km-h (1.28 L/mph)
  • AMG C 43 : 1.86 L/km-h (1.16 L/mph)
  • C 280 T : 2.06 L/km-h (1.28 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 220 T D : 66.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 T : 53.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 T Kompressor : 54.7x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 280 T : 46x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 200 T 465 L 40 L to 1 s 7.5x 233x -13L
    C 180 T 465 L 37 L to 1 s 7.5x 258x -13L
    C 200 T 2.0 465 L 61 L to 1 s 7.5x 233x -13L
    C 200 T CDI 465 L 38 L to 1 s 7.5x 216x -13L
    C 220 T CDI 465 L 45 L to 1 s 7.2x 216x -13L
    C 220 T D 465 L 29 L to 1 s 7.5x 216x -13L
    C 230 T 465 L 47 L to 1 s 7.5x 211x -13L
    C 240 T 465 L 54 L to 1 s 7.5x 194x -13L
    C 250 T Turbo-D 465 L 47 L to 1 s 7.5x 186x -13L
    C 230 T Kompressor 465 L 57 L to 1 s 7.5x 203x -13L
    AMG C 43 465 L 75 L to 1 s 7.5x 109x -13L
    C 280 T 465 L 56 L to 1 s 7.5x 166x -13L
    Vehicle C 200 T
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 40 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 233x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 180 T
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 37 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 258x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 200 T 2.0
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 61 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 233x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 200 T CDI
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 38 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 216x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 220 T CDI
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 45 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.2x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 216x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 220 T D
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 29 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 216x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 230 T
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 211x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 240 T
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 54 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 194x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 250 T Turbo-D
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 186x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 230 T Kompressor
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 57 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 203x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle AMG C 43
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 75 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 109x
    Difference with world average -13L
    Vehicle C 280 T
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 56 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 166x
    Difference with world average -13L

    Quick notes on Mercedes-Benz C-class trunk space

      • Trunk capacity for generation: 433 L
      • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 9.6 pcs
      • Amount of average suitcases: 4.3 pcs
      • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 86.6 L
      • Max trunk load: 85 kg
      • Interior transformation: limited
      • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.7 L to 1 hp
      • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.8 to 1 Nm
      • Trunkley rating: 6 / 10

    Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • C 180 : 3.5 L/hp (4.8 L/kW)
  • C 200 : 3.2 L/hp (4.3 L/kW)
  • C 200 D : 5.7 L/hp (7.8 L/kW)
  • C 220 : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 220 D : 4.5 L/hp (6.1 L/kW)
  • C 220 CDI : 3.4 L/hp (4.7 L/kW)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 250 Turbo-D : 2.9 L/hp (3.9 L/kW)
  • C 280 : 2.2 L/hp (3 L/kW)
  • C 240 : 2.5 L/hp (3.4 L/kW)
  • C 250 D : 3.8 L/hp (5.2 L/kW)
  • AMG C 36 : 1.5 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)
  • AMG C 43 : 1.5 L/hp (2.1 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • C 180 : 2.26 L/km-h (1.4 L/mph)
  • C 200 : 2.17 L/km-h (1.35 L/mph)
  • C 200 D : 2.69 L/km-h (1.67 L/mph)
  • C 220 : 2.05 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • C 220 D : 2.46 L/km-h (1.53 L/mph)
  • C 220 CDI : 2.22 L/km-h (1.38 L/mph)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 1.87 L/km-h (1.16 L/mph)
  • C 250 Turbo-D : 2.15 L/km-h (1.34 L/mph)
  • C 280 : 1.89 L/km-h (1.17 L/mph)
  • C 240 : 2.01 L/km-h (1.25 L/mph)
  • C 250 D : 2.26 L/km-h (1.4 L/mph)
  • AMG C 36 : 1.72 L/km-h (1.07 L/mph)
  • AMG C 43 : 1.86 L/km-h (1.16 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • C 180 : 50.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 : 50x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 200 D : 64.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 : 49.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 220 D : 62.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 230 Kompressor : 51.8x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 280 : 40.6x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • C 250 D : 61.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • AMG C 36 : 40.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    C 180 430 L 35 L to 1 s 6.9x 239x -48L
    C 200 430 L 41 L to 1 s 6.9x 215x -48L
    C 200 D 430 L 25 L to 1 s 6.9x 215x -48L
    C 220 430 L 43 L to 1 s 6.9x 196x -48L
    C 220 D 430 L 28 L to 1 s 6.9x 200x -48L
    C 220 CDI 430 L 42 L to 1 s 6.9x 200x -48L
    C 230 Kompressor 430 L 54 L to 1 s 6.9x 187x -48L
    C 250 Turbo-D 430 L 46 L to 1 s 6.9x 172x -48L
    C 280 430 L 50 L to 1 s 6.9x 154x -48L
    C 240 430 L 46 L to 1 s 6.9x 179x -48L
    C 250 D 430 L 30 L to 1 s 6.9x 172x -48L
    AMG C 36 430 L 67 L to 1 s 6.9x 119x -48L
    AMG C 43 465 L 75 L to 1 s 7.5x 109x -13L
    Vehicle C 180
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 35 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 239x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 200
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 41 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 215x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 200 D
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 25 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 215x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 220
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 43 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 196x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 220 D
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 28 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 200x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 220 CDI
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 42 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 200x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 230 Kompressor
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 54 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 187x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 250 Turbo-D
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 172x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 280
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 50 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 154x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 240
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 46 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 179x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle C 250 D
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 30 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 172x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle AMG C 36
    Trunk space 430 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 67 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.9x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 119x
    Difference with world average -48L
    Vehicle AMG C 43
    Trunk space 465 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 75 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 7.5x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 109x
    Difference with world average -13L