Among the 93 grand tourers 2016–2020, the 520i ranks 48th of 93 in Combined consumption (6.0 L/100, behind the Bmw 520d), 43th of 91 in Tank range (1133 km, behind the Bmw 520d), 87th of 93 in 0–100 km/h (7.8 s, behind the Bmw M5 Competition).
G30 · GENERATION 2018 → · GRAND TOURER
BMWICE
520i
184 hp, 7,8 s 0-100 : among the 93 grand tourers 2016–2020, the 520i ranks 48th of 93 in Combined consumption, 43th of 91 in Tank range, 87th of 93 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
184hp
290 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
7.8s
VMax 235 km/h
Cons.
6.0L
/100 km
Tank
68L
Technical identity card
Full specifications BMW 520i
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Architecture | 4 cyl. |
| Displacement | 1,998 cm³ |
| Power | 184 hp |
| Couple | 290 Nm |
| Gearbox | Convertisseur de couple 8 rapports Automatique |
| Transmission | Propulsion |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 6.0 L/100km |
| Tank | 68 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 7,8 s |
| VMax | 235 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Length | 4,936 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2,975 mm |
| Width | 1,868 mm |
| Height | 1,479 mm |
| Boot | 530 L |
| Kerb weight | 1,540 kg |
| Cd | 0.24 |
| CO₂ WLTP | 137 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 93 grand tourers, the 520i 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?
Fuel consumption: 6.0 L/100 L/100 (48th of 93 in Combined consumption)
The 520i consumes 6.0 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw 520d (4.3 L/100).
Tank range: 1133 km (43th of 91 in Tank range)
On a full tank, the 520i covers 1133 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1535 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 simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Segment positioning
Where the 520i stands against grand tourers
Comparison across 93 grand tourers marketed between 2016–2020.
Combined consumption48e / 93
6 L/100
Min 10.8 L/100 · Bmw M5Max 4.3 L/100 · Bmw 520d
Tank range43e / 91
1 133 km
Min 630 km · Bmw M5Max 1 535 km · Bmw 520d
0–100 km/h87e / 93
7,8 s
Min 8,2 s · Bmw 520iMax 3,3 s · Bmw M5 Competition
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
A6 Avant TFSI S tronic 150 kW204 hp · 0-100 8.3 s
A6 Sedan204 hp · 0-100 8.2 s
A6 45 TFSI245 hp · 0-100 6.4 s
S90 B5 AWD250 hp · 0-100 6.6 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Model family
The full BMW 5 Series G30 range
Generation G30 launched in 2017. Available versions sorted by energy.
Other versions of the G30
Compare
Popular duels involving the 520i
Frequently asked questions
BMW 520i: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
1133 km on a full tank (6.0 L/100 on the combined cycle) — 43th of 91 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 520d leads in Combined consumption (4.3 L/100 vs 6.0 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the 520i vs Bmw 520d 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.