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).
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.
Power
258hp
560 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
6.7s
VMax 230 km/h
Cons.
7.1L
/100 km
Tank
85L
Full specifications BMW X6 xDrive30d
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Architecture | 6 cyl. |
| Displacement | 2,993 cm³ |
| Power | 258 hp |
| Couple | 560 Nm |
| Gearbox | Convertisseur de couple 8 rapports Automatique |
| Transmission | Integrale (AWD) |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 7.1 L/100km |
| Tank | 85 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 6,7 s |
| VMax | 230 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Length | 4,909 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2,933 mm |
| Width | 1,989 mm |
| Height | 1,702 mm |
| Boot | 550 L |
| Kerb weight | 2,065 kg |
| Cd | 0.32 |
| CO₂ WLTP | 187 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.
Tailored to this vehicle?
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).
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.
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.
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 →Where the X6 xDrive30d stands against E-SUV
Comparison across 21 E-SUV marketed between 2016–2020.
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
The full BMW X6 F16 range
Generation F16 launched in 2015. Available versions sorted by energy.
Other versions of the F16
Popular duels involving the X6 xDrive30d
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.
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.