F44 · GENERATION 2020 · MPV
BMWICE

218d Gran Tourer

150 hp, 9,4 s 0-100 : among the 38 M 2018–2022, the 218d Gran Tourer ranks 8th of 38 in Combined consumption, 8th of 37 in Tank range, 19th of 38 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.

Energy cost · estimate1,47815,000 km · UK mix · home 0,21 £/kWhConsumption →

Power

150hp

350 Nm

0 → 100 km/h

9.4s

VMax 207 km/h

Cons.

4.5L

/100 km

Tank

51L

Technical identity card

Full specifications BMW 218d Gran Tourer

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

Powertrain

Architecture4 cyl.
Displacement1,995 cm³
Power150 hp
Couple350 Nm
GearboxConvertisseur de couple 6 rapports Automatique

Consumption

Cons. WLTP4.5 L/100km
Tank51 L

Performance

0 → 100 km/h9,4 s
VMax207 km/h

Dimensions and environment

Length4,568 mm
Wheelbase2,780 mm
Width1,800 mm
Height1,608 mm
Boot645 L
Kerb weight1,525 kg
Cd0.29
CO₂ WLTP119 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 218d Gran Tourer ranks (top 8 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. 8th of 38 in Combined consumption (4.5 L/100), 8th of 37 in Tank range (1133 km).

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: 4.5 L/100 L/100 (8th of 38 in Combined consumption)

The 218d Gran Tourer consumes 4.5 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw 216d Active Tourer (4.0 L/100).

Tank range: 1133 km (8th of 37 in Tank range)

On a full tank, the 218d Gran Tourer covers 1133 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1275 km.

Segment positioning

Where the 218d Gran Tourer stands against M

Comparison across 38 M marketed between 2018–2022.

Combined consumption8e / 38
4.5 L/100
Min 6.7 L/100 · Bmw 216i Active TourerMax 4 L/100 · Bmw 216d Active Tourer
Tank range8e / 37
1 133 km
Min 672 km · Bmw 216i Active TourerMax 1 275 km · Bmw 216d Active Tourer
0–100 km/h19e / 38
9,4 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 218d Gran Tourer

Frequently asked questions

BMW 218d 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 218d Gran Tourer ranks 8th of 38 in Combined consumption (4.5 L/100, behind the Bmw 216d Active Tourer), 8th of 37 in Tank range (1133 km, behind the Bmw 216d Active Tourer), 19th of 38 in 0–100 km/h (9.4 s, behind the Bmw 225i xDrive Active Tourer).

1133 km on a full tank (4.5 L/100 on the combined cycle) — 8th 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 4.5 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the 218d 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.