F44 · GENERATION 2020 · MPV
BMWICE

216d Gran Tourer

116 hp, 11,5 s 0-100 : among the 38 M 2018–2022, the 216d Gran Tourer ranks 2nd of 38 in Combined consumption, 2nd of 37 in Tank range, 31th of 38 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.

Energy cost · estimate1,34715,000 km · UK mix · home 0,21 £/kWhConsumption →

Power

116hp

270 Nm

0 → 100 km/h

11.5s

VMax 192 km/h

Cons.

4.1L

/100 km

Tank

51L

Technical identity card

Full specifications BMW 216d Gran Tourer

Manufacturer data and values calibrated by the Caralogy simulation engine.

Powertrain

Architecture3 cyl.
Displacement1,496 cm³
Power116 hp
Couple270 Nm
GearboxDouble embrayage 6 rapports Automatique

Consumption

Cons. WLTP4.1 L/100km
Tank51 L

Performance

0 → 100 km/h11,5 s
VMax192 km/h

Dimensions and environment

Length4,568 mm
Wheelbase2,780 mm
Width1,800 mm
Height1,608 mm
Boot645 L
Kerb weight1,485 kg
Cd0.28
CO₂ WLTP108 g/km

Caralogy Methodology

Motorway and performance values calibrated by the Caralogy physics simulation engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves).

See full methodology →

Manufacturer data · motorway values calibrated by the Caralogy engine

Among the 38 M, the 216d Gran Tourer ranks (top 2 in segment) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.

Caralogy Analysis

Tailored to this vehicle?

Caralogy Verdict
Suitable for

Good compromise for regular use without available charging infrastructure. 2nd of 38 in Combined consumption (4.1 L/100), 2nd of 37 in Tank range (1244 km).

Less suitable for

Some metrics lag behind the segment. Check the rankings above to identify weak points.

Alternatives to consider

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: 4.1 L/100 L/100 (2nd of 38 in Combined consumption)

The 216d Gran Tourer consumes 4.1 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw 216d Active Tourer (4.0 L/100).

Tank range: 1244 km (2nd of 37 in Tank range)

On a full tank, the 216d Gran Tourer covers 1244 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1275 km.

Segment positioning

Where the 216d Gran Tourer stands against M

Comparison across 38 M marketed between 2018–2022.

Combined consumption2e / 38
4.1 L/100
Min 6.7 L/100 · Bmw 216i Active TourerMax 4 L/100 · Bmw 216d Active Tourer
Tank range2e / 37
1 244 km
Min 672 km · Bmw 216i Active TourerMax 1 275 km · Bmw 216d Active Tourer
0–100 km/h31e / 38
11,5 s
Min 12,5 s · Citroen Berlingo PureTech 110 FWDMax 6,5 s · Bmw 225i xDrive Active Tourer

Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)

Cross-energy alternatives

Same needs, different powertrain.

Model family

The full BMW 2 Series F44 range

Generation F44 launched in 2019. Available versions sorted by energy.

Other versions of the F44

Compare

Popular duels involving the 216d Gran Tourer

Frequently asked questions

BMW 216d Gran Tourer: what you need to know

Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.

Among the 38 M 2018–2022, the 216d Gran Tourer ranks 2nd of 38 in Combined consumption (4.1 L/100, behind the Bmw 216d Active Tourer), 2nd of 37 in Tank range (1244 km, behind the Bmw 216d Active Tourer), 31th of 38 in 0–100 km/h (11.5 s, behind the Bmw 225i xDrive Active Tourer).

1244 km on a full tank (4.1 L/100 on the combined cycle) — 2nd of 37 in autonomie du segment.

Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.

The Bmw 216d Active Tourer leads in Combined consumption (4.0 L/100 vs 4.1 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the 216d Gran Tourer vs Bmw 216d Active Tourer duel for a detailed comparison.

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.