Guides
RoRo vs. Container Shipping for Vehicle Exports Compared
Vehicle exporters select between roll-on roll-off sailings and container shipments for each consignment. The selection depends on vehicle dimensions, sailing availability on the route and the total cost of the shipment.
There is no universal result that applies to all exports. RoRo can suit vehicles that can roll onto a suitable sailing, while container shipment provides a defined enclosed space that requires vehicles to fit and be secured inside.
Comparison therefore rests on shipment fit, route-specific all-in costs and carefully qualified emissions figures, not headline prices alone.
Start With The Vehicle And The Route
The condition and mobility of the vehicle form the first filter. RoRo guidance for used vehicles requires units to be driveable with no mechanical issues. A non-running passenger car, a vehicle with mechanical faults or a unit with impact damage may fall outside standard RoRo acceptance for used vehicles. Container shipment also requires loading and securing, but the commercial question remains whether the vehicle can be placed inside a defined box and restrained against movement.
Dimensions and weight form the second filter. Large RoRo vessels are designed for a mix of cars, trucks and high and heavy cargo, while containers provide fixed internal length, width, height and door openings. Exporters therefore compare the length, width, height and running condition of each unit against the vessel or box that is actually offered on the route.
Compare RoRo Capacity With Container Fit
Wallenius Wilhelmsen states capacity for its Pure Car and Truck Carrier vessels in car-equivalent units (CEU). CEU is a capacity measure, not a guarantee that a vessel carries that many identical passenger cars on every voyage.
For oversized units, the same operator lists Mark IV and Mark V RoRo vessels with ramp capacity and the ability to accommodate products of stated maximum height and width. These are specifications for those vessel types, not every RoRo ship. Exporters of standard passenger cars use the CEU context, while exporters of trucks, buses, construction equipment and other large units use ramp and deck limits for the nominated vessel type.
| RoRo specification | Figure |
|---|---|
| Maximum capacity, Pure Car and Truck Carrier | up to 6,600 CEU |
| Ramp capacity, Mark IV and Mark V | up to 500 tonnes |
| Maximum product height, Mark IV and Mark V | up to 7.1 m |
| Maximum product width, Mark IV and Mark V | up to 12 m |
Container fit is defined by internal dimensions and door openings. Hapag-Lloyd lists door opening dimensions, width by height, for both the 20ft and the 40ft general-purpose container in its example specification. These are example specifications, not universal limits. Internal length differs substantially between the two lengths, while internal width and height are closely aligned in the examples.
| Container example, wooden floor | Length | Width | Height | Door opening |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20ft general-purpose | 5,900 mm | 2,352 mm | 2,393 mm | 2,340 × 2,292 mm |
| 40ft general-purpose | 12,032 mm | 2,352 mm | 2,395 mm | 2,340 × 2,292 mm |
The practical implication is direct. A vehicle that exceeds the door width, door height or internal length cannot be enclosed in that box, even if the container offers sufficient payload. Exporters therefore measure the vehicle with mirrors, accessories and packaging included and compare the result with the specification of the allocated equipment.
Data Table
| Container | Length | Width | Height |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20ft general-purpose, wooden floor | 5900 | 2352 | 2393 |
| 40ft general-purpose, wooden floor | 12032 | 2352 | 2395 |
Source: Hapag-Lloyd.
Price The Whole Shipment
Headline ocean rates provide limited guidance without the full scope of charges. Cargoplot gives an approximate illustrative RoRo price for a Mercedes G-Class shipment from Rotterdam to Dubai, calculated on an approximate volume. The page does not state a quote date or all included charges. For the same example route, it gives an approximate illustrative price for a 20-foot container, including loading and securing. The page does not state a quote date or all included charges.
| Rotterdam to Dubai example, period not stated | Illustrative price | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| RoRo, Mercedes G-Class | about EUR 1,200 | per vehicle, roughly 15 m3 |
| 20-foot container | about EUR 2,200 | per container, including loading and securing |
The units of sale differ. The RoRo illustration is expressed per vehicle and linked to volume, while the container illustration is expressed per box and includes loading and securing in that example.
Exporters therefore request route-specific all-in quotations for the same vehicle, the same origin and destination pair and the same commercial terms. Comparison of quotations of different dates, different scopes or different vehicle sizes produces misleading conclusions.
Check Loading And Vehicle Preparation Rules
Preparation requirements affect scheduling, cost and acceptance. Wallenius Wilhelmsen states that used vehicles must be generally in good condition, free of impact damage, and driveable with no mechanical issues. The guide limits fuel in a used vehicle to no more than one-quarter full.
Maersk vehicle best-practice guidance for container transport calls for used undamaged vehicles to have the fuel tank drained, the battery disconnected and its cable connection insulated, no leakages, and the key removed from the starter. It also calls for vehicles to be lashed and secured against movement.
| Requirement area | RoRo guidance for used units | Container best practice |
|---|---|---|
| Condition | Generally good condition, free of impact damage, driveable with no mechanical issues | Used undamaged vehicles |
| Fuel | No more than one-quarter full | Tank drained |
| Electrical and keys | Not specified in the cited notes | Battery disconnected and insulated, key removed from starter |
| Leakage and securing | Not specified in the cited notes | No leakages, lashed and secured against movement |
Exporters therefore confirm preparation, inspection and documentation steps with the carrier or forwarder before the vehicle arrives for loading. Fuel levels, battery condition, leakage checks and lashing materials require particular attention because the standards differ between the two modes.
Treat Emissions Comparisons As Case-Specific
The notes contain no directly comparable primary-source figure for shipping vehicles by RoRo versus shipping them in containers. The available study compares modeled vessel cases using tonne-kilometres, not vehicle-specific shipments or a current fleet-wide benchmark. Results therefore describe the modeled cases and cannot be applied as universal vessel-type factors.
The 2012 study reports modeled emissions of 52.7 g CO2 per tonne-km for a RoRo vessel and 37.3 g CO2 per tonne-km for a container feeder. The modeled RoRo vessel was 10,000 dwt with a 44 percent combined load factor. The modeled container feeder was 13,000 dwt with a 48 percent load factor. Vessel size and load factor influence the outcome, so a change in either assumption alters the comparison.
| Modeled case | Vessel size | Load factor | CO2 intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| RoRo vessel | 10,000 dwt | 44 percent | 52.7 g CO2 per tonne-km |
| Container feeder | 13,000 dwt | 48 percent | 37.3 g CO2 per tonne-km |
Tonne-kilometre intensity also differs from shipment-level emissions for a vehicle export. A per tonne-km figure for a modeled feeder and a modeled RoRo ship does not state the emissions of moving one named vehicle from one port to another in current service.
Exporters that report or compare emissions therefore request case-specific calculations for the route, vessel, load factor and allocation method in use. Study values from 2012 provide methodological context, not a substitute for current carrier data or verified shipment calculations.