Renault Latitude Trunk Space in Quick-to-Read Graphs

Average space for all generations

Choose Generation

Quick notes on Renault Latitude trunk space

    • Trunk capacity for generation: 477 L
    • Amount of carry-on suitcases: 10.6 pcs
    • Amount of average suitcases: 4.8 pcs
    • Trunk space per 1 passenger: 95.4 L
    • Max trunk load: 95 kg
    • Interior transformation: limited
    • Horsepower to trunk space: 2.6 L to 1 hp
    • Torque to trunk capacity: 1.6 to 1 Nm
    • Trunkley rating: 8 / 10

Trunk space to engine power ratio

  • 2.0 16V : 3.4 L/hp (4.6 L/kW)
  • 2.0 dCi : 3.2 L/hp (4.3 L/kW)
  • 2.0 dCi 16V : 2.7 L/hp (3.7 L/kW)
  • 3.0 V6 dCi : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)
  • 2.0 : 3.4 L/hp (4.6 L/kW)
  • 2.5 V6 : 2.7 L/hp (3.6 L/kW)
  • 3.5 V6 : 2 L/hp (2.7 L/kW)

    Trunk size and maximum speed comparison

  • 2.0 16V : 2.33 L/km-h (1.45 L/mph)
  • 2.0 dCi : 2.27 L/km-h (1.41 L/mph)
  • 2.0 dCi 16V : 2.22 L/km-h (1.38 L/mph)
  • 3.0 V6 dCi : 2.04 L/km-h (1.27 L/mph)
  • 2.0 : 2.56 L/km-h (1.59 L/mph)
  • 2.5 V6 : 2.27 L/km-h (1.41 L/mph)
  • 3.5 V6 : 2.03 L/km-h (1.26 L/mph)

    Trunk capacity to fuel consumption ratio

  • 2.0 16V : 60.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 dCi : 90x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 dCi 16V : 73.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 3.0 V6 dCi : 66.3x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.0 : 57.5x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 2.5 V6 : 49.2x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • 3.5 V6 : 45.4x (Trunk/Consumption)
  • Vehicle Trunk space Trunk to acceleration ratio Trunk space to tank size Trunk space to engine capacity Difference with world average
    2.0 16V 477 L 54 L to 1 s 6.8x 239x -1L
    2.0 dCi 477 L 49 L to 1 s 6.8x 239x -1L
    2.0 dCi 16V 477 L 51 L to 1 s 6.8x 239x -1L
    3.0 V6 dCi 477 L 66 L to 1 s 6.8x 159x -1L
    2.0 477 L 42 L to 1 s 6.8x 239x -1L
    2.5 V6 477 L 47 L to 1 s 6.8x 191x -1L
    3.5 V6 477 L 78 L to 1 s 6.8x 136x -1L
    Vehicle 2.0 16V
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 54 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 239x
    Difference with world average -1L
    Vehicle 2.0 dCi
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 49 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 239x
    Difference with world average -1L
    Vehicle 2.0 dCi 16V
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 51 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 239x
    Difference with world average -1L
    Vehicle 3.0 V6 dCi
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 66 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 159x
    Difference with world average -1L
    Vehicle 2.0
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 42 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 239x
    Difference with world average -1L
    Vehicle 2.5 V6
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 47 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 191x
    Difference with world average -1L
    Vehicle 3.5 V6
    Trunk space 477 L
    Trunk to acceleration ratio 78 L to 1 s
    Trunk space to tank size 6.8x
    Trunk space to engine capacity 136x
    Difference with world average -1L