F44 · GENERATION 2020 · MPV
BMWICE

216i Active Tourer

109 hp, 11,3 s 0-100 : among the 38 M 2018–2022, the 216i Active Tourer ranks 26th of 38 in Combined consumption, 26th of 37 in Tank range, 30th of 38 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.

Energy cost · estimate1,69715,000 km · UK mix · home 0,21 £/kWhConsumption →

Power

109hp

190 Nm

0 → 100 km/h

11.3s

VMax 190 km/h

Cons.

5.6L

/100 km

Tank

51L

Technical identity card

Full specifications BMW 216i Active Tourer

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

Powertrain

Architecture3 cyl.
Displacement1,499 cm³
Power109 hp
Couple190 Nm
GearboxManuelle 6 rapports Manuelle

Consumption

Cons. WLTP5.6 L/100km
Tank51 L

Performance

0 → 100 km/h11,3 s
VMax190 km/h

Dimensions and environment

Length4,354 mm
Wheelbase2,670 mm
Width1,800 mm
Height1,555 mm
Boot468 L
Kerb weight1,365 kg
Cd0.27
CO₂ WLTP129 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 216i Active Tourer ranks (mid-table) 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.

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: 5.6 L/100 L/100 (26th of 38 in Combined consumption)

The 216i Active Tourer consumes 5.6 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw 216d Active Tourer (4.0 L/100).

Tank range: 911 km (26th of 37 in Tank range)

On a full tank, the 216i Active Tourer covers 911 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1275 km.

Segment positioning

Where the 216i Active Tourer stands against M

Comparison across 38 M marketed between 2018–2022.

Combined consumption26e / 38
5.6 L/100
Min 6.7 L/100 · Bmw 216i Active TourerMax 4 L/100 · Bmw 216d Active Tourer
Tank range26e / 37
911 km
Min 672 km · Bmw 216i Active TourerMax 1 275 km · Bmw 216d Active Tourer
0–100 km/h30e / 38
11,3 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 216i Active Tourer

Frequently asked questions

BMW 216i Active 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 216i Active Tourer ranks 26th of 38 in Combined consumption (5.6 L/100, behind the Bmw 216d Active Tourer), 26th of 37 in Tank range (911 km, behind the Bmw 216d Active Tourer), 30th of 38 in 0–100 km/h (11.3 s, behind the Bmw 225i xDrive Active Tourer).

911 km on a full tank (5.6 L/100 on the combined cycle) — 26th 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 5.6 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the 216i Active 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.