Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.3 D | 490 L | 23 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 217x | +12L |
2.0 S | 490 L | 41 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 248x | +12L |
2.0 E | 490 L | 43 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 248x | +12L |
1.8 S | 490 L | 37 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 273x | +12L |
2.2 D | 490 L | 26 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 217x | +12L |
1.8i CAT | 490 L | 40 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 273x | +12L |
1.8 | 490 L | 31 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 273x | +12L |
2.3 TD | 490 L | 34 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 217x | +12L |
Vehicle | 2.3 D |
---|---|
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 23 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 2.0 S |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 41 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 248x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 2.0 E |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 43 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 248x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 1.8 S |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 37 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 273x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 2.2 D |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 26 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 1.8i CAT |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 40 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 273x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 31 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 273x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | 2.3 TD |
Trunk space | 490 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 34 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | +12L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 S | 881 L | 69 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 445x | +403L |
Vehicle | 2.0 S |
---|---|
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 69 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 445x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 E | 540 L | 47 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 273x | +62L |
2.0 S | 540 L | 45 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 273x | +62L |
2.1 D | 540 L | 24 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 261x | +62L |
1.9 | 540 L | 36 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 285x | +62L |
2.0 | 540 L | 41 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 273x | +62L |
1.7 | 540 L | 28 L to 1 s | 7.7x | 318x | +62L |
2.3 D | 540 L | 26 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 239x | +62L |
Vehicle | 2.0 E |
---|---|
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 273x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | 2.0 S |
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 45 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 273x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | 2.1 D |
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 24 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 261x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | 1.9 |
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 36 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 285x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 41 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 273x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | 1.7 |
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 28 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 318x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | 2.3 D |
Trunk space | 540 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 26 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 239x |
Difference with world average | +62L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 S | 881 L | 69 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 445x | +403L |
2.1 D | 881 L | - | 12.6x | 426x | +403L |
1.9 | 881 L | 50 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 464x | +403L |
2.0 E | 881 L | 71 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 445x | +403L |
2.3 D | 881 L | 37 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 390x | +403L |
2.0 | 881 L | 62 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 445x | +403L |
1.7 | 881 L | 43 L to 1 s | 12.6x | 519x | +403L |
Vehicle | 2.0 S |
---|---|
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 69 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 445x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | 2.1 D |
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 426x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | 1.9 |
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 464x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | 2.0 E |
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 71 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 445x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | 2.3 D |
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 37 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 390x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 62 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 445x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | 1.7 |
Trunk space | 881 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 43 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 12.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 519x |
Difference with world average | +403L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.7 | 408 L | 21 L to 1 s | 5.8x | 240x | -70L |
1.9 | 408 L | 31 L to 1 s | 5.8x | 215x | -70L |
1.7 S | 408 L | 26 L to 1 s | 5.8x | 240x | -70L |
2.0 | 408 L | 33 L to 1 s | 5.8x | 206x | -70L |
1.9 S | 408 L | 31 L to 1 s | 5.8x | 215x | -70L |
2.0 D | 408 L | - | 5.8x | 204x | -70L |
2.1 D | 408 L | 18 L to 1 s | 5.8x | 197x | -70L |
Vehicle | 1.7 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 21 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 240x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | 1.9 |
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 31 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 215x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | 1.7 S |
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 26 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 240x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 33 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 206x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | 1.9 S |
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 31 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 215x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | 2.0 D |
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 204x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | 2.1 D |
Trunk space | 408 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 18 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 197x |
Difference with world average | -70L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.7 S | 435 L | 28 L to 1 s | 6.2x | 256x | -43L |
1.9 | 435 L | 33 L to 1 s | 6.2x | 229x | -43L |
2.0 | 420 L | 41 L to 1 s | 6.5x | 212x | -58L |
1.9 S | 435 L | 33 L to 1 s | 6.2x | 229x | -43L |
Vehicle | 1.7 S |
---|---|
Trunk space | 435 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 28 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 256x |
Difference with world average | -43L |
Vehicle | 1.9 |
Trunk space | 435 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 33 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 229x |
Difference with world average | -43L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 41 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 212x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 1.9 S |
Trunk space | 435 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 33 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 229x |
Difference with world average | -43L |