F16 · GENERATION 2018 · LARGE SUV
BMWICE

X6 xDrive30d

258 hp, 6,7 s 0-100 : among the 21 E-SUV 2016–2020, the X6 xDrive30d ranks 2nd of 21 in Combined consumption, 1st of 21 in Tank range, 20th of 21 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.

Energy cost · estimate2,33215,000 km · UK mix · home 0,21 £/kWhConsumption →

Power

258hp

560 Nm

0 → 100 km/h

6.7s

VMax 230 km/h

Cons.

7.1L

/100 km

Tank

85L

Technical identity card

Full specifications BMW X6 xDrive30d

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

Powertrain

Architecture6 cyl.
Displacement2,993 cm³
Power258 hp
Couple560 Nm
GearboxConvertisseur de couple 8 rapports Automatique
TransmissionIntegrale (AWD)

Consumption

Cons. WLTP7.1 L/100km
Tank85 L

Performance

0 → 100 km/h6,7 s
VMax230 km/h

Dimensions and environment

Length4,909 mm
Wheelbase2,933 mm
Width1,989 mm
Height1,702 mm
Boot550 L
Kerb weight2,065 kg
Cd0.32
CO₂ WLTP187 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 21 E-SUV, the X6 xDrive30d 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

E-SUV among the best in segment: 2nd of 21 in Combined consumption (7.1 L/100), 1st of 21 in Tank range (1197 km).

Less suitable for

Frequent urban trips with stop-and-go. At 7,1 L/100 km on the combined cycle, consumption rises in the city without electric assistance. An HEV or PHEV would be more economical for this use profile.

Alternatives to consider

If the priority is Combined consumption, the Bmw X5 xDrive30d (1st with 6.7 L/100) takes the lead. If the priority is 0–100 km/h, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo Coupe (1st with 3.8 s) takes the lead.

Fuel consumption: 7.1 L/100 L/100 (2nd of 21 in Combined consumption)

The X6 xDrive30d consumes 7.1 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Bmw X5 xDrive30d (6.7 L/100).

Tank range: 1197 km (1st of 21 in Tank range)

On a full tank, the X6 xDrive30d covers 1197 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 1197 km.

Segment positioning

Where the X6 xDrive30d stands against E-SUV

Comparison across 21 E-SUV marketed between 2016–2020.

Combined consumption2e / 21
7.1 L/100
Min 13.7 L/100 · Porsche Cayenne Turbo CoupeMax 6.7 L/100 · Bmw X5 xDrive30d
Tank range1e / 21
1 197 km
Min 173 km · Porsche Cayenne Turbo CoupeMax 1 197 km · Bmw X6 xDrive30d
0–100 km/h20e / 21
6,7 s
Min 6,8 s · Ford Explorer EcoBoost 300Max 3,8 s · Porsche Cayenne Turbo Coupe

Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)

Cross-energy alternatives

Same needs, different powertrain.

Model family

The full BMW X6 F16 range

Generation F16 launched in 2015. Available versions sorted by energy.

Other versions of the F16

Compare

Popular duels involving the X6 xDrive30d

Frequently asked questions

BMW X6 xDrive30d: what you need to know

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

Among the 21 E-SUV 2016–2020, the X6 xDrive30d ranks 2nd of 21 in Combined consumption (7.1 L/100, behind the Bmw X5 xDrive30d), 1st of 21 in Tank range (1197 km, behind the Bmw X6 xDrive30d), 20th of 21 in 0–100 km/h (6.7 s, behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo Coupe).

1197 km on a full tank (7.1 L/100 on the combined cycle) — 1st of 21 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 X5 xDrive30d leads in Combined consumption (6.7 L/100 vs 7.1 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the X6 xDrive30d vs Bmw X5 xDrive30d 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.