BMW 218i Gran Tourer
140 hp, 9,5 s 0-100 : among the 25 M 2016–2020, the 218i Gran Tourer ranks 23th of 25 in Combined consumption, 23th of 25 in Tank range, 19th of 25 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
- Power
- 140 hp
- 220 Nm
- 0 → 100 km/h
- 9.5 s
- VMax 205 km/h
- Cons.
- 5.9 L
- /100 km
- Tank
- 51 L
Full specifications
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
- Architecture
- 3 cyl.
- Displacement
- 1,499 cm³
- Power
- 140 hp
- Couple
- 220 Nm
- Gearbox
- Double embrayage 6 rapports Automatique
- Transmission
- Traction
Consumption
- Cons. WLTP
- 5.9 L/100 km
- Tank
- 51 L
Performance
- 0 → 100 km/h
- 9,5 s
- VMax
- 205 km/h
Dimensions and environment
- Length
- 4,568 mm
- Wheelbase
- 2,780 mm
- Width
- 1,800 mm
- Height
- 1,608 mm
- Boot
- 645 L
- Kerb weight
- 1,415 kg
- Cd
- 0.28
- CO₂ WLTP
- 134 g/km
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodologyManufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 25 M, the 218i Gran Tourer ranks (in the bottom third) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Tailored to this vehicle?
Good compromise for regular use without available charging infrastructure.
Some metrics lag behind the segment. Check the rankings above to identify weak points.
If the priority is Combined consumption, the BMW 216d Active Tourer (1st with 4.0 L/100) takes the lead. If the priority is Tank range, the BMW 216d Active Tourer (1st with 1275 km) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 5.9 L/100 L/100 (23th of 25 in Combined consumption)
The 218i Gran Tourer consumes 5.9 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the BMW 216d Active Tourer (4.0 L/100).
Tank range: 864 km (23th of 25 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the 218i Gran Tourer covers 864 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1275 km.
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulatorLong-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a tripTimes & acceleration
0-100, 0-200, speed curve, segment position.
See the performanceWhere the 218i Gran Tourer stands against M
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Popular duels involving the 218i Gran Tourer
Continue with the BMW 218i Gran Tourer
The same car, from other angles.
BMW 218i Gran Tourer: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
Where does the 218i Gran Tourer rank in its segment?
Among the 25 M 2016–2020, the 218i Gran Tourer ranks 23th of 25 in Combined consumption (5.9 L/100, behind the BMW 216d Active Tourer), 23th of 25 in Tank range (864 km, behind the BMW 216d Active Tourer), 19th of 25 in 0–100 km/h (9.5 s, behind the BMW 225i xDrive Active Tourer).
What is the range of the 218i Gran Tourer?
864 km on a full tank (5.9 L/100 on the combined cycle) - 23th of 25 in Tank range.
How much does the 218i Gran Tourer cost to run?
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
Why not a BMW 216d Active Tourer instead?
The BMW 216d Active Tourer leads in Combined consumption (4.0 L/100 vs 5.9 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the 218i Gran Tourer vs BMW 216d Active Tourer duel for a detailed comparison.
How does Caralogy calculate its figures?
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.