2018 Camry VIII (XV70)
2015 Camry VII (XV50, facelift 2014)
2012 Camry VII (XV50)
2010 Camry VI (XV40, facelift 2009)
2005 Camry V (XV30, facelift 2005)
2007 Camry Solara II Convertible (facelift 2006)
2007 Camry VI (XV40)
2007 Camry Solara II (facelift 2006)
2002 Camry V (XV30)
2004 Camry Solara II Convertible
2004 Camry Solara II
2001 Camry Solara I Convertible (Mark V, facelift 2001)
2001 Camry Solara I (Mark V, facelift 2001)
2000 Camry IV (XV20, facelift 2000)
1999 Camry Solara I Convertible (Mark V)
1999 Camry Solara I (Mark V)
1996 Camry IV (XV20)
1992 Camry III Wagon (XV10)
1986 Camry II Wagon (V20)
1983 Camry I Hatchback (V10)
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5 | 493 L | 52 L to 1 s | 8.2x | 198x | +15L |
2.0 | 493 L | 47 L to 1 s | 8.2x | 247x | +15L |
3.5 V6 | 469 L | 64 L to 1 s | 7.8x | 136x | -9L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 493 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 198x |
Difference with world average | +15L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 493 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 47 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 8.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 247x |
Difference with world average | +15L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 469 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 64 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 136x |
Difference with world average | -9L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 | 506 L | 51 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 253x | +28L |
2.5 | 370 L | - | 5.8x | 148x | -108L |
3.5 V6 | 436 L | - | 6.8x | 126x | -42L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 506 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 51 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 253x |
Difference with world average | +28L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
Trunk space | 370 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 148x |
Difference with world average | -108L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 436 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.8x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 126x |
Difference with world average | -42L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.5 V6 | 506 L | 76 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 146x | +28L |
2.5 | 506 L | 59 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 203x | +28L |
2.0 | 506 L | 43 L to 1 s | 7.2x | 253x | +28L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 506 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 76 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 146x |
Difference with world average | +28L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
Trunk space | 506 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 59 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 203x |
Difference with world average | +28L |
Vehicle | 2.0 |
Trunk space | 506 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 43 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 253x |
Difference with world average | +28L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5 | 410 L | - | 5.9x | 164x | -68L |
2.4 | 300 L | - | 4.6x | 127x | -178L |
3.5 V6 | 506 L | - | 7.2x | 146x | +28L |
Vehicle | 2.5 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 410 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 164x |
Difference with world average | -68L |
Vehicle | 2.4 |
Trunk space | 300 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 4.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 127x |
Difference with world average | -178L |
Vehicle | 3.5 V6 |
Trunk space | 506 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.2x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 146x |
Difference with world average | +28L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 16V | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 200x | -6L |
3.0 V6 | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 158x | -6L |
3.3 V6 | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 143x | -6L |
Vehicle | 2.4 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 200x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 |
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 158x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 143x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.3 V6 | 331 L | - | 4.7x | 100x | -147L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 331 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 4.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 100x |
Difference with world average | -147L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4i 16V | 425 L | - | 6.1x | 180x | -53L |
3.5i V6 | 425 L | - | 6.1x | 123x | -53L |
2.4 | 300 L | - | 4.6x | 127x | -178L |
Vehicle | 2.4i 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 425 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 180x |
Difference with world average | -53L |
Vehicle | 3.5i V6 |
Trunk space | 425 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.1x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 123x |
Difference with world average | -53L |
Vehicle | 2.4 |
Trunk space | 300 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 4.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 127x |
Difference with world average | -178L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 16V | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 166x | -87L |
3.3 V6 | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 118x | -87L |
Vehicle | 2.4 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 166x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 118x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 16V | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 200x | -6L |
3.0 V6 | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 158x | -6L |
3.0 V6 24V | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 158x | -6L |
3.3 V6 | 472 L | - | 6.7x | 143x | -6L |
Vehicle | 2.4 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 200x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 |
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 158x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 24V |
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 158x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 472 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 143x |
Difference with world average | -6L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.3 V6 | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 118x | -87L |
2.4 16V | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 166x | -87L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 118x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | 2.4 16V |
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 166x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 16V | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 166x | -87L |
3.3 V6 | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 118x | -87L |
Vehicle | 2.4 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 166x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | 3.3 V6 |
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 118x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0i V6 24V | 249 L | - | 3.6x | 83x | -229L |
Vehicle | 3.0i V6 24V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 249 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 3.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 83x |
Difference with world average | -229L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.4 16V | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 166x | -87L |
3.0i V6 24V | 391 L | - | 5.6x | 131x | -87L |
Vehicle | 2.4 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 166x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | 3.0i V6 24V |
Trunk space | 391 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 131x |
Difference with world average | -87L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0 V6 24V | 399 L | - | 5.7x | 133x | -79L |
2.2 | 399 L | - | 5.7x | 184x | -79L |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 24V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 399 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 133x |
Difference with world average | -79L |
Vehicle | 2.2 |
Trunk space | 399 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 184x |
Difference with world average | -79L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0i V6 24V | 249 L | - | 3.6x | 83x | -229L |
2.2i 16V | 249 L | - | 3.6x | 115x | -229L |
Vehicle | 3.0i V6 24V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 249 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 3.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 83x |
Difference with world average | -229L |
Vehicle | 2.2i 16V |
Trunk space | 249 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 3.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 115x |
Difference with world average | -229L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0i V6 24V | 399 L | - | 5.7x | 133x | -79L |
2.2i 16V | 399 L | - | 5.7x | 184x | -79L |
Vehicle | 3.0i V6 24V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 399 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 133x |
Difference with world average | -79L |
Vehicle | 2.2i 16V |
Trunk space | 399 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 5.7x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 184x |
Difference with world average | -79L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sport 2.2 | 518 L | 52 L to 1 s | 7.4x | 239x | +40L |
3.0 V6 24V | 518 L | 60 L to 1 s | 7.4x | 173x | +40L |
Vehicle | Sport 2.2 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 518 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 52 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 239x |
Difference with world average | +40L |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 24V |
Trunk space | 518 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 60 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.4x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 173x |
Difference with world average | +40L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.2 | 533 L | 54 L to 1 s | 7.6x | 246x | +55L |
3.0 V6 24V | 533 L | 61 L to 1 s | 7.6x | 180x | +55L |
Vehicle | 2.2 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 533 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 54 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 246x |
Difference with world average | +55L |
Vehicle | 3.0 V6 24V |
Trunk space | 533 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 61 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 7.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 180x |
Difference with world average | +55L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0 GLi 16V | 633 L | 69 L to 1 s | 10.6x | 317x | +155L |
2.0 Turbo-D | 633 L | 45 L to 1 s | 10.6x | 321x | +155L |
2.0 GLi | 633 L | 69 L to 1 s | 10.6x | 317x | +155L |
2.5 V6 24V | 633 L | 72 L to 1 s | 10.6x | 252x | +155L |
Vehicle | 2.0 GLi 16V |
---|---|
Trunk space | 633 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 69 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 10.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 317x |
Difference with world average | +155L |
Vehicle | 2.0 Turbo-D |
Trunk space | 633 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 45 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 10.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 321x |
Difference with world average | +155L |
Vehicle | 2.0 GLi |
Trunk space | 633 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 69 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 10.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 317x |
Difference with world average | +155L |
Vehicle | 2.5 V6 24V |
Trunk space | 633 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 72 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 10.6x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 252x |
Difference with world average | +155L |
Vehicle | Trunk space | Trunk to acceleration ratio | Trunk space to tank size | Trunk space to engine capacity | Difference with world average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.8 | 380 L | 33 L to 1 s | 6.9x | 190x | -98L |
2.0 GLi | 380 L | 35 L to 1 s | 6.9x | 190x | -98L |
1.8 Turbo-D | 380 L | - | 6.9x | 207x | -98L |
Vehicle | 1.8 |
---|---|
Trunk space | 380 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 33 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 190x |
Difference with world average | -98L |
Vehicle | 2.0 GLi |
Trunk space | 380 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | 35 L to 1 s |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 190x |
Difference with world average | -98L |
Vehicle | 1.8 Turbo-D |
Trunk space | 380 L |
Trunk to acceleration ratio | - |
Trunk space to tank size | 6.9x |
Trunk space to engine capacity | 207x |
Difference with world average | -98L |