2017 Legacy VI (facelift 2017)
2012 Legacy V Station Wagon (facelift 2012)
2012 Legacy V (facelift 2012)
2009 Legacy V
2009 Legacy V Station Wagon
2006 Legacy IV (facelift 2006)
2006 Legacy IV Station Wagon (facelift 2006)
2004 Legacy IV
2004 Legacy IV Station Wagon
2001 Legacy III (BE,BH, facelift 2001)
2001 Legacy III Station Wagon (BE,BH, facelift 2001)
1999 Legacy III Station Wagon (BE,BH)
1999 Legacy III (BE,BH)
1994 Legacy II Station Wagon (BD,BG)
1994 Legacy II (BD,BG)
1991 Legacy I (BC, facelift 1991)
1991 Legacy I Station Wagon (BJF, facelift 1991)
1989 Legacy I (BC)
1989 Legacy I Station Wagon (BJF)
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5i | 425 L | - | 6.1x | 170x | -53L |
3.6R | 425 L | - | 6.1x | 117x | -53L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
---|---|
Trunk space | 425 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 170x |
Difference with world average | -53L |
Vehicle | 3.6R |
Trunk space | 425 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 117x |
Difference with world average | -53L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0d Sport | 526 L | 58 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 263x | +48L |
2.0d | 526 L | 58 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 263x | +48L |
2.0i | 526 L | 50 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 264x | +48L |
2.5i | 526 L | 57 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 211x | +48L |
2.5i Sport | 526 L | 57 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 211x | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.0d Sport |
---|---|
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 58 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 263x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.0d |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 58 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 263x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 264x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 57 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 211x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.5i Sport |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 57 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 211x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0d Sport | 486 L | 55 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 243x | +8L |
2.0 | 416 L | 40 L to 1 s | 5.9x | 209x | -62L |
3.6R | 416 L | - | 5.9x | 115x | -62L |
2.5i | 416 L | - | 5.9x | 169x | -62L |
Vehicle | 2.0d Sport |
---|---|
Trunk space | 486 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 55 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 243x |
Difference with world average | +8L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 40 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 209x |
Difference with world average | -62L |
Vehicle | 3.6R |
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 115x |
Difference with world average | -62L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 416 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 169x |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.6R | 486 L | - | 6.9x | 134x | +8L |
2.0i | 486 L | 46 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 244x | +8L |
2.0d | 486 L | 55 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 243x | +8L |
2.5i | 486 L | - | 6.9x | 198x | +8L |
2.5 GT | 486 L | 82 L to 1 s | 6.9x | 198x | +8L |
Vehicle | 3.6R |
---|---|
Trunk space | 486 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 134x |
Difference with world average | +8L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 486 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 46 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 244x |
Difference with world average | +8L |
Vehicle | 2.0d |
Trunk space | 486 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 55 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 243x |
Difference with world average | +8L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 486 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 198x |
Difference with world average | +8L |
Vehicle | 2.5 GT |
Trunk space | 486 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 82 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 198x |
Difference with world average | +8L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0i | 526 L | 57 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 264x | +48L |
2.5i sport | 526 L | 54 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 214x | +48L |
2.5i | 526 L | 54 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 214x | +48L |
2.0d | 526 L | 58 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 263x | +48L |
2.5 GT | 526 L | 88 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 214x | +48L |
2.0d sport | 526 L | 60 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 263x | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
---|---|
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 57 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 264x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.5i sport |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 214x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 214x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.0d |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 58 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 263x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.5 GT |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 88 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 214x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | 2.0d sport |
Trunk space | 526 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 60 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 263x |
Difference with world average | +48L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0R | 433 L | 48 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 217x | -45L |
3.0R spec.B | 433 L | 56 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 144x | -45L |
2.5i GT | 433 L | - | 6.8x | 176x | -45L |
2.0d | 433 L | 52 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 217x | -45L |
2.5i | 433 L | 40 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 176x | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.0R |
---|---|
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 48 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 3.0R spec.B |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 56 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 144x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.5i GT |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 176x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.0d |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 40 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 176x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0R | 459 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 230x | -19L |
2.0d | 459 L | 54 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 230x | -19L |
2.5i | 459 L | 50 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 187x | -19L |
3.0R spec.B | 459 L | 69 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 153x | -19L |
3.0R | 459 L | 57 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 153x | -19L |
Vehicle | 2.0R |
---|---|
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 230x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 2.0d |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 230x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 187x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 3.0R spec.B |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 69 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 153x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 3.0R |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 57 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 153x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5i | 433 L | 49 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 176x | -45L |
2.0i | 433 L | 41 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 217x | -45L |
3.0i spec.B | 433 L | 66 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 144x | -45L |
2.0R | 433 L | 40 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 217x | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
---|---|
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 176x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 41 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 3.0i spec.B |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 66 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 144x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | 2.0R |
Trunk space | 433 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 40 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 217x |
Difference with world average | -45L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0R spec.B | 429 L | 64 L to 1 s | 6.7x | 143x | -49L |
2.0i | 429 L | 39 L to 1 s | 6.7x | 215x | -49L |
2.5i | 429 L | 47 L to 1 s | 6.7x | 175x | -49L |
2.0R | 459 L | 49 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 230x | -19L |
3.0R | 429 L | 54 L to 1 s | 6.7x | 143x | -49L |
Vehicle | 3.0R spec.B |
---|---|
Trunk space | 429 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 64 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 143x |
Difference with world average | -49L |
Vehicle | 2.0i |
Trunk space | 429 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 39 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 215x |
Difference with world average | -49L |
Vehicle | 2.5i |
Trunk space | 429 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 175x |
Difference with world average | -49L |
Vehicle | 2.0R |
Trunk space | 459 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 230x |
Difference with world average | -19L |
Vehicle | 3.0R |
Trunk space | 429 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 143x |
Difference with world average | -49L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 465 L | - | 7.3x | 233x | -13L |
2.5 | 465 L | - | 7.3x | 189x | -13L |
3.0 | 465 L | - | 7.3x | 155x | -13L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 465 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 233x |
Difference with world average | -13L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
Trunk space | 465 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 189x |
Difference with world average | -13L |
Vehicle | 3.0 |
Trunk space | 465 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 155x |
Difference with world average | -13L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 528 L | 46 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 265x | +50L |
2.5 | 528 L | - | 8.3x | 215x | +50L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 528 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 46 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 265x |
Difference with world average | +50L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
Trunk space | 528 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 215x |
Difference with world average | +50L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5 | 528 L | 60 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 215x | +50L |
2.0 | 528 L | 50 L to 1 s | 8.3x | 265x | +50L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 528 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 60 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 215x |
Difference with world average | +50L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 528 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.3x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 265x |
Difference with world average | +50L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5 | 455 L | 53 L to 1 s | 7.1x | 185x | -23L |
2.0 | 455 L | 45 L to 1 s | 7.1x | 228x | -23L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 455 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 53 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 185x |
Difference with world average | -23L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 455 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 45 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 228x |
Difference with world average | -23L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 488 L | 49 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 245x | +10L |
2.2 | 488 L | 51 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 221x | +10L |
2.5 | 488 L | 49 L to 1 s | 8.1x | 199x | +10L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 488 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 245x |
Difference with world average | +10L |
Vehicle | 2.2 |
Trunk space | 488 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 51 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 221x |
Difference with world average | +10L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
Trunk space | 488 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 49 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 199x |
Difference with world average | +10L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5 | 451 L | - | 7.5x | 184x | -27L |
2.2 | 451 L | 50 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 204x | -27L |
2.0 turbo | 451 L | - | 7.5x | 226x | -27L |
2.0 | 451 L | 47 L to 1 s | 7.5x | 226x | -27L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 451 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 184x |
Difference with world average | -27L |
Vehicle | 2.2 |
Trunk space | 451 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 50 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 204x |
Difference with world average | -27L |
Vehicle | 2.0 turbo |
Trunk space | 451 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 226x |
Difference with world average | -27L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 451 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.5x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 226x |
Difference with world average | -27L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | 405 L | 43 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 203x | -73L |
2200 | 405 L | 47 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 183x | -73L |
1800 | 405 L | 39 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 223x | -73L |
1600 | 405 L | - | 6.8x | 254x | -73L |
2000 turbo | 405 L | 63 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 203x | -73L |
Vehicle | 2000 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 43 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | 2200 |
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 183x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | 1800 |
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 39 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 223x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | 1600 |
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 254x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | 2000 turbo |
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 63 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | 420 L | 42 L to 1 s | 7x | 211x | -58L |
1800 | 420 L | 36 L to 1 s | 7x | 231x | -58L |
2200 | 420 L | - | 7x | 190x | -58L |
1600 | 420 L | - | 7x | 263x | -58L |
2000 turbo | 420 L | 63 L to 1 s | 7x | 211x | -58L |
Vehicle | 2000 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 42 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 211x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 1800 |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 36 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 231x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 2200 |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 190x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 1600 |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 263x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 2000 turbo |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 63 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 211x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2200 | 405 L | 47 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 183x | -73L |
1800 | 405 L | 39 L to 1 s | 6.8x | 223x | -73L |
2000 | 405 L | - | 6.8x | 203x | -73L |
Vehicle | 2200 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 183x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | 1800 |
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 39 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 223x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | 2000 |
Trunk space | 405 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | -73L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1800 | 420 L | 36 L to 1 s | 7x | 231x | -58L |
2000 turbo | 420 L | - | 7x | 211x | -58L |
2200 | 420 L | 47 L to 1 s | 7x | 190x | -58L |
Vehicle | 1800 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 36 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 231x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 2000 turbo |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 211x |
Difference with world average | -58L |
Vehicle | 2200 |
Trunk space | 420 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 190x |
Difference with world average | -58L |