DieselMPVGENERATION F44, 2020

BMW 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, 33th of 38 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.

Power

116hp

270 Nm

0 → 100 km/h

11.5s

VMax 192 km/h

Cons.

4.1L

/100 km

Tank

51L

Full specifications

Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.

Powertrain

Architecture
3 cyl.
Displacement
1,496 cm³
Power
116 hp
Couple
270 Nm
Gearbox
Double embrayage 6 rapports Automatique

Consumption

Cons. WLTP
4.1 L/100 km
Tank
51 L

Performance

0 → 100 km/h
11,5 s
VMax
192 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
1,485 kg
Cd
0.28
CO₂ WLTP
108 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 methodology

Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance

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.

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.

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/h33e / 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.

The full BMW 2 Series F44 range

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

Other versions of the F44

Popular duels involving the 216d Gran Tourer

Continue with the BMW 216d Gran Tourer

The same car, from other angles.

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), 33th 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.